Chennai Court March 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.
V. Ramanathan Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The petitioner is said to have committed various irregularities. Therefore, 11 charges have been framed against the petitioner by the respondent department. The petitioner was also called upon to submit his explanation and after giving his explanation, the respondent department having not satisfied with the written explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered an enquiry. The department appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides, submitted his report holding that except charge No. 1 the rest of the 10 charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, did not accept the findings of the enquiry officer and took a stand differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that out of 11 charges levelled against the petitioner, 7 charges were proved.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is settled position of law that if the disciplinary authority takes ...
G. Alayamani S/O Gopal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge by her order dated 2nd February, 2010 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. The said writ petition sought to challenge the Minutes of the Meeting of the Thiruppanandal Panchayat Union Council held on 04th December, 2009, as recorded by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The minutes recorded that a No Confidence Motion had been passed against the appellant by show of hands.2. The appeal raises a question as to whether, in the facts of this case, the second respondent was correct in allowing the decision on the No Confidence Motion to be taken by show of hands or whether, the second respondent ought to have taken it by a secret ballot. The question for consideration is as to which of the two methods is contemplated to arrive at the 'result of voting' under Sub-section (12) of Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for s...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Vibro Equipments
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao appearing for the Department. The impugned order has been challenged by the Department on the ground that the adjudicating Commissioner has extended the cum-duty price assessment and has reduced the penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of the fact that the Hon ble Supreme Court has upheld the principle of cum-duty price assessment vide Commissioner Vs. Maruti Udyog - 2005 (179) ELT A102 (SC), the Department has no case on the first count. As regards the reduction in penalty, we find that the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed penalties of Rs.6,65,123/- under Section 11AC, a separate penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q and has also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs which in our view are sufficient considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the impugned order requires no interference....
M/S. Tamilnadu Chemical Products Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. In view of the fact that in the appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 790/2009 dated 1.7.2009 in Appeal No. E/245/2003 it has been held that rental and testing charges of cylinders are not includible in the assessable value. As such, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Eid Parry (India) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of the very same appellants. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Soft Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR fairly states that the Department’s appeal was filed on the basis of a previous appeal by the Department to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the earlier order of the Tribunal. He also states that the Department’s appeal has since been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Commissioner Vs. Soft Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (196) ELT A99 (SC). As such, the Department’s appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Kishen Constructions
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao. He states that in view of the grounds of appeal filed by the Department, the case merits reconsideration as the lower appellate authority has passed an erroneous order. We find that in the absence of the representation from the respondents, the grounds advanced by the Department remain uncontroverted. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for fresh consideration. He shall keep in view all the grounds of appeal advanced by the Department and shall also give adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondents before passing a fresh order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Peekay Steel Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sal ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
In this case, the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.04 has been denied to the appellants herein who had incurred freight charges for GTA service, on the ground that they had not produced originals of the declarations from transporters to the effect that they (transporters) had not availed CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods used for providing GTA service and had not availed the benefit of Notification No.12/03-ST dt. 20.6.03. 2. I heard both sides. I find that the assessees had produced photocopies of declarations to the above effect. Such photocopies have also been notarized. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have called upon the assessees to produce original declarations if he was of the view that production of photocopies was not sufficient for the purpose of the assessees claim for exemption under the notification. The assessees have produced original declarations before the Bench. In this view of the mater, the Commissioner (Appeals) is r...
M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. This is a case relating to refunds in respect of finalization of provisional assessments during the year 1992. At the material time, the principles of unjust enrichment were not made applicable to cases of refund arising out of finalization of provisional assessments. The necessary amendments were only made in the year 2006. Hence, the impugned order passed by the authorities below denying the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Indian TerraIn Clothing (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Considering the fact that the period in dispute in this case is the initial period of one month during which the appellants exceeded the small scale exemption limit for the readymade garments, the decision taken by the lower appellate authority to allow refund equal to deemed credit of 20% against the full payment made by the appellants appears to be reasonable. Hence we are of the view that the same does not require any interference. Consequently, we reject the appeal filed by the Department. The cross-objection also stands disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »