Chennai Court February 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Vdsr Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand of Rs.14,24,028/- on clandestine removal of 888.439 MTs of CTD/ribbed bars manufactured by the assessee and cleared without payment of duty and also imposed penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- upon them. The order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides . We find that the case of the department is that the assessee received raw materials i.e. ingots from M/s.Vinayaka Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Gummudipoondi (hereinafter referred to as VAPL) and did not return them as rejects to the suppliers but utilized the same for illicit manufacture of CTD bars. The evidence relied upon by the department consists of kutcha production slips, private production records and statements of the transporter and cashier. 95% of the ingots was supplied by VAPL. The cashier cum clerk of the assessee's company had disposed that generally the ingots are of uniform weight of 72 kg...
C. Munisamy Versus Government of Inida, Ministry of Defence â Rep ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
ACA Adityan The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, an octogenarian, has filed W.P.No.16327 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, for restoration of his Army Service Pension, which was stopped by the respondents on 6.9.2000 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 6.9.2001) and also for the refund of the recovery of his life pension with 12% interest from the date due till the date of payment and for costs. The said writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of the same under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, and renumbered as T.A.No.49 of 2009. 2. The averments in the affidavit to the petition in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition would run as follows:- The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 05.06.1945 and after 10 years and 2 months of active army service, he was transferred to reserve list on 13.08.1955 and was retained in reserve list till 01.10.1961 and was finally discharged from Army with Life Pension of ...
Ranjit Narayanan and B.S. Teeka Represented by Mr. Yunus J. Shichandle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners/A1 and A2 who are Officer In-charge and Managing Director of a company by name M/s. Executive Ship Management P. Ltd., seek to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 6066 of 2006 pending before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. In such case, the respondent has sought relief under Section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The material features of the complaint are as follows:3. The Complainant submits that he has entered into a contract with M/s. Executive Ship Management Private Ltd., at Chennai to work as a MOTORMAN for M.T. JOGRAN, (Norwegian Flag Ship) for a period of eight months. As per contract the Complainant joined on 15.01.2006 at 'Sikka' Port, Gujarat State. Monthly salary as per contract is 1266 US Dollars per month equal to Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only).4. The Complainant submits that on 29.03.2006 at 6.00 p.m., the Complainant was called and terminated without any valid reason. At that time, t...
M/S. Colix Beverages Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of any proof of predeposit as directed by the Bench in Stay Order No. 992/09 dated 26.11.09....
India Metal and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.20,468/- on Amber Charkhas manufactured by the appellants herein, by denying exemption in terms of Notification No.198/87 dt. 28.8.87 as amended on the ground that the certificate dt. 2.1.98 issued by the Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), Bombay produced by the appellants, does not specifically mention that Amber Charkha is a genuine product of village industry. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Amber Charkha was manufactured only as per the specification of the KVIC and the entire production was supplied to the KVIC, that certificate issued by the KVIC clearly states that the appellant has been asked to manufacture Spindle Charkhas for the year 1997-98, that each Charkha is as per blue print and specification stipulated by the Commission and that the implements are required by the implementing agencies for development of Khadi and Village Industries, for conducting fi...
M/S. Ashraq Sayed HussaIn Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 4,35,000/- imposed on the applicant herein, we note that it is possible to dispose the appeal itself at this stage, as the prayer of the importer/appellant is only on reduction in the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and the penalty; therefore, after waiving predeposit and granting the prayer for early hearing, we take up the appeal for final disposal today itself with the consent of both sides. 2. A new Toyota Ventury Van valued at Rs.21,58,934/- has been confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, on violation of condition at Sl. No. (2)(II)(iv) and Sl.No. (2)(II) (c) of the Import Licensing Notes. There is no dispute regarding violation of the above mentioned import as the importer has not produced certification of compliance from any Test Agency, rendered the vehicle liable for confiscation. However, having regard to the fact that in cas...
Shri A.T. Maideen Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of any proof of predeposit as directed by the Bench in Stay Order No. 989/09 dated 24.11.09....
Thangam Nagarajan Versus the Controller of Defence Accounts, (Pensions ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
ACA Adityan The petitioners husband approached the Honbe High Court of Judicature, Madras by way of writ petition in W.P.No.33421 of 2004 challenging the orders of the respondents, suitably to revise the petitioners husbands pension with effect from 01.01.1996 on the basis that the petitioners husband retired as LT COL with all consequential arrears. Subsequent to the formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, as per the Armed Forces Act 2007, the said writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.5 of 2009. 2. The brief averments in the affidavit to the petition necessary for disposing of this petition are as follows: The petitioners husband joined Army Service on 10.4.1953 and was granted regular commission on 16.6.1969. After serving in the cadre of Major, the petitioners husband was promoted as LT COL on 10.06.1988 and held the said post for 21 days upto 30.06.1988, and retired from service on 01.07.1988, on attaining the age of superannuation, his date of b...
R. Murugan Versus Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary, Department of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Lt Gen (Retd) S.Pattabhiraman The petitioners wife had filed W.P.No.1949 of 2001 before the Honourable High Court of Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal under Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.12 of 2009. 2. The petitioner in the affidavit to the petition would state as follows:- 2(a) The petitioner was enrolled in the Corps of EME on 22.2.1988 and discharged from service on 25.06.1991 on medical grounds in category EEE without any kind of pension. While in service, the petitioner sustained a head injury in July 1990 during games parade. He was admitted to Command Hospital (CH), Lucknow. Thereafter, he was placed in low medical category CEE for six months. Thereafter, he was released out of service with disability Cannabis Psychosis. His case for invalidment seems to be unjustifiable. There are sufficient grounds to believe that only the head injury which occurred in July 1990 had aggravate...
M/S. Jayashree Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2010
In this case the assessee initially took credit of Rs.1,18,384/- and also availed benefit of depreciation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, simultaneously which is not permissible in law. However, even before it being pointed out by the Central Excise authorities, the claim for depreciation benefit was withdrawn before the Income Tax authorities and the assessees also paid interest under the Income Tax Act. The excise authorities have held that in view of the above, the assessees are entitled to take credit; however penalty of amount equal to the credit availed and held to be admissible has been imposed and the appellants are aggrieved by such penal action. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessee cites various decisions of the Tribunal some holding that when the credit disallowed is nil [as in the present case], penalty should also be nil. However, there are other decisions retaining some amount of penalty after drastic reduction of quantum. 3. In view of the above, I hold ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »