Chennai Court February 2010 Judgments

P. Rajamani Gurukal Vs. T.V.V.P.P. Thirumaligai Sizyal Trust, Rep. by. ...

Court: Chennai

M. Duraiswamy, J.1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Myladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi.2. The defendant, in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 192 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi, for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.4. The brief case of the plaintiffs in the suit are as follows:(i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is a house property. The said property originally belonged to one Srinivasaachariar, the father of the first plaintiff. On the death of the said Srinivasaachariar on 27.12.1994, the first plaintiff became solely entitled to the suit property. Srinivasaachariar had inducted the defendant as a tenant of ...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Branch Manager ...

Court: Chennai

D. Hariparanthaman, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside the award and decree dated 19.11.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 40 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(I Additional Sub Judge) Tirunelveli.2. The appellant is the Insurance Company. On 30.10.2000, the first respondent travelled in a van that was insured with the Insurance Company and the van capsized and the first respondent got grievous injury and suffered 44% permanent partial disablement. The first respondent preferred M.C.O.P. No. 40 of 2001, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, claiming a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs as compensation.3. The claim was resisted by the appellant before the Tribunal. The first respondent, the claimant examined herself as the first witness. She also examined the Doctor who gave the disability certificate as second witness. The documents Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of the first respondent. Nobody was examined ...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The delay of 17 days in preferring the above appeal is condoned as the Revenue has satisfied me as to reasons for such delay. 2. I take up the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has directed the group who has finalized the assessment of four Bills of Entry filed by the respondents, to issue a formal speaking order. Prima facie, there is nothing erroneous in the impugned order directing issue of speaking order which is required for the purpose of the importer taking up the matter further in the appeal if he chooses to do so. No prima facie case for exercise of inherent power has been made out. I therefor dismiss the stay application. 3. I find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal at this stage itself and hence I proceed to decide the appeal with the consent of both sides. Since the issue of speaking order is required in this case, I see no legal infirmity in the direction given in the impugned order for issue of the same. The impugne...

Kensoft Infotech Limited Rep. by Its Director V.P. Singh Vs. Sundaram ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2010(1)301

M. Chockalingam, J.1. These three intracourt appeals have arisen from a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. Nos. 275 and 276 of 2009 and A. No. 1554 of 2009.2. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Senior Counsels for both the respondents and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances:(a) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants jointly and severally and also for a decree for payment of Rs. 10,05,000/- as damages for the alleged illegal activities and other reliefs. At the time of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed O.A. Nos. 275 and 276/09 seeking for two interlocutory orders of injunction. The second defendant filed A. No. 1643 of 2009 to strike out the second defendant as party to the suit. (b) While the matter stood thus, the first defendant filed A. No. 1554...

M/S. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have sanctioned refund of Rs.2,60,498/- claimed on the ground that the goods cleared under certain Bills of Entry cover parts and accessories of medical equipment attracting nil rate of duty inspite of which they paid CVD @ 16%, but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the importer had not discharged the burden cast upon them to show that the incidence of duty on the goods has not been passed on to their customers. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the material on record clearly shows that the goods were supplied free of cost as warranty replacement. The goods were supplied to customers under delivery notes clearly indicating free warranty replacement. In such a situation the question of passing on the incidence of duty to the customers does not arise and therefore the refund claimed cannot be said to be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order crediting the amount to the Consumer...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Hamma Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case duty demand of Rs.12,61,416/- was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner denying abatement during the period of closure of the assessee-factory which had adopted procedure prescribed under Rule 96ZP(3) for paying duty on notified goods on the basis of the annual capacity of production. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. None appears for the respondent inspite of notice having been served by pasting on the premises of the assessee. We, therefore, heard the learned SDR and perused the records. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon certain decisions of the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the abatement is available under Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period of closure of the mill. However, the Revenue seek to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court [Aurangabad Bench] in Rajuri Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad - 2008 (225) ELT 18...

M/S. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tri ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The excisability of cinder (coal ash) is the issue for decision in the present appeal. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands against the Revenue by the apex Court s decision in Union of India Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. - 2003 (158) ELT 3 (SC) holding that cinder is not a marketable commodity even though it was sold for a small price. It is not an excisable commodity attracting excise duty. 2. Following the above decision we set aside the impugned order upholding the duty demand and penalty, and allow the appeal....

Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Muthuvelappa Gounder and Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The respondents have sought classification of the impugned tobacco product as unmanufactured product under Heading 24.01 of the Central Excise Tariff which has been approved by the lower appellate authority. The Department is in appeal seeking classification of the impugned goods as chewing tobacco under chapter sub-heading 2404.41 which is the classification for chewing tobacco bearing a brand name. 2. After hearing both sides we find that the respondents are merely curing the tobacco outside their premises but treating the same with jaggery water for preventing moulding and drying. Such treatment merely results in production of cured tobacco which as per the HS Explanatory Notes under Heading 2401 remains covered as unmanufactured tobacco under the said heading. Accordingly, we find no merit in the case of the Department. Consequently, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue....

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Titanium Equipment and Anode Manufacturing Co. L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In this case, the authorities below both at the original level and at the appellate level have held the impugned goods namely Illuminated Sign Board not to be excisable goods leading to this appeal by the department. As regards M.S. Shells, the original authority has held the same to be dutiable whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the same comes into existence only at site and has therefore held the same to be non-excisable, leading to the departments appeal in this regard. 2. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that it is a fact that M.S. Shells is partly fabricated by the job worker and the same comes into existence as a whole only at the site. He states that the illuminated sign board in question is not a movable sign board of the type described in Board s Circular dated 15.01.2002, to be excisable. In fact, the impugned sign board comes into existence after erection at site and the...

Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Rane Brake Linings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue as to whether finance charges incurred by the assessees herein are required to be included in the assessable value of goods, namely motor vehicle parts and railway brake linings, manufactured by them, stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nirma Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara - 2006 (200) ELT 213 and Philips Electronics India Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune - 2007 (219) ELT 725. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....