Chennai Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. P.C. Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether “Compounded Asafoetida” is an excisable commodity, liable to excise duty. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled against the Revenue by the Apex Court decision in CCE, Mumbai Vs. Laljee Godhoo and Co. - 2007 (216) ELT 514 (S.C.), upholding the Tribunal’s order relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). Following the ratio of the Apex Court decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Ganesh Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction in penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority of Rs. 10,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 5000/-. 2. Notice issued to the respondents has been returned undelivered; however, as the issue in dispute stands settled by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to keep the appeal pending. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. Rama Wood Craft Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (225) ELT 348 (Tri.-LB), the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that even where a minimum penalty is prescribed (minimum penalty under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002), the authority has discretion to impose a lesser penalty depending on facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the revenue that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any reduction but only that and once minimum penalty has been prescribed under the rule, it cannot be r...
M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants re-imported the impugned goods which were earlier exported for participation in an international exhibition held at Milan, Italy from 3rd October, 2002 to 8th October, 2002. The goods were exported without payment of duty under bond. At the time of re-importation the appellants have paid Customs duty equal to the Central Excise duty leviable on the impugned goods. In addition, the have also paid the Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under protest, since the Department insisted on such payment. The appellants claimed a refund of the SAD which according to them was not payable in view of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996. Refund claim of the appellants had been rejected by both the authorities below denying them the claimed exemption leading to this appeal. 3. Shri A.R. Srinivasan, Deputy General Manager, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have sold the impugned goods subsequent ...
M/S. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of the “Fully Automatic Labelling Machine” imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.125/86 dated 17.02.86. 2. We have heard both sides. At the time of import of the machine the appellants were in the business of manufacture of beer and Indian made foreign liquor. They had imported the machinery for their proposed industry for processing fruit syrups, juices, jams and pickles. However, at the time of import of the articles in question, the appellants had not commenced any manufacture of food articles and the machine imported was to be used for affixing labels on beer bottles. Since the benefit of Notification is available to the machinery used in the food processing industry, and since beer is not an article of food, as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kalyani Breweries Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (134) ELT 12 (S.C), the authorities b...
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan ... Vs. the Secretary to Government, Backward Class ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D)No.36, dated 22.12.2006, ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.100/- to be cut from the pension and a sum of Rs.3,13,940/- out of which Rs.2,39,069/- to be recovered from the DCRG and balance amount of Rs.74,871/- from pension at the rate of Rs.921/- as first instalment and Rs.1,450/- for 51 months and also forbearing the respondents from making the recovery. 2. Pending writ petition, this Court has passed an order of interim stay on 05.08.2008 which was subsequently made absolute by an order dated 13.07.2009. The petitioner, who has retired as Special Officer of the Directorate of Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Office, Chepauk, Chennai, was originally appointed as Typist through TNPSC joined duty on 24.11.1966 and after several promotions, he was promoted as the District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Officer and posted at Madurai. It was in 2001, he was promoted as Special Office...
M/S.Sharadha Terry Products Ltd., Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the fourth respondent relating to his letter No.SE/CEDC/N/AEEGL/AEII/F M/s.Sharadha Terry EHT/D 1787/09, dated 05.12.2009 and of the second respondent relating to his letter No.CE/Commt/EET/AEE1/F.Sharadha/D.239/2010, dated 30.04.2010, quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner towards Service Connection Charges for a sum of Rs.1,15,23,000/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment.2. The facts, which led to the filing of this Writ Petition, are as follows :2.1. Petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under Indian Companies Act,1956, having its registered office at Badrakaliamman Koil Road, Nellithurai Post, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore. It is having its factor...
Dilip S.Dhanukar Chairman and Managing Director Indo Biotech Foods Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. As the question that arises for consideration in both the Criminal Original Petitions is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the above Criminal Original Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. A complaint has been filed by the first respondent / complainant against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.433 of 2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and the the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.6360 of 1997. The said complaint has been filed in respect of the dishonour of the following cheques, after satisfying the statutory requirements:- Cheque Nos. Dated Amount200390 04.03.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-200391 04.04.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-200392 04.05.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-3. A complaint has been filed by the first respondent / complainant against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.no.434 of 2005 under Section 138 of the Act before ...
S.Muruganandam ... Vs. He Secretary Government, Health and Family Welf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The writ petitioner was working as the Administrative Officer in the office of the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Nagappattinam, and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allowed to retire on 28.02.2006 and there was no charge or any complaint pending against him at the time when he was relieved. However, the pensionary benefits and other terminal benefits were not settled by the respondents in time. It is submitted that though the Accountant-General of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) on 06.06.2006, the amount was not paid immediately for want of 'No Objection Certificate' from the Directorate and there has been administrative delay and ultimately DCRG and other benefits were paid to him only on 20.02.2008 and the delay of two years is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is stated that inspite of repeated representations of the ...
The Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Vs. Joint Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order of first respondent / the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act dated 23.04.2007, by which the first respondent has directed the Petitioner Management to pay a sum of Rs.84,808/- towards Gratuity to the second respondent and also to pay 10% interest to the above said Gratuity for a period from 01.10.1999 to 22.12.2006. 2. The short facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that the second respondent has joined in the factory of the petitioner management at Sembiam on 10.09.1964. On the basis of certain charges framed against him, which includes that on 13.03.1981 when he was on duty at 04.45 he was idling in the shop and when he was asked to report to work, he refused to carry out engineer's instructions and he abused the engineer in filthy and valgur language and the said act amounted to willful disobedience of the lawful order of the superior, he was dismissed from service on 16.03.1981. He raised an Industr...
D.Nandagopal .. Vs. G.Nesamani ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The petitioner has filed the above petition for a direction to the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to keep the final hearing of Crl.A.No.60 of 2009 in abeyance on the basis of the Memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, till the Supreme Court takes the Special Leaves Petition filed by the petitioner "for admission".2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner's father earlier filed a private complaint against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the said private complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.9968 of 2005 and by judgment dated 23.3.2009, the respondent-accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and the respondent-accused was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.12 lakhs under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the father of the petitioner. As against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »