Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition, as not pressed. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Heard both.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the above petition, since the petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode mainly on the ground that the documents containing the admitted signature of the petitioner have not been produced and the petitioner wants to produce the documents containing his admitted signature, which are contemporaneous in nature, by filing a comprehensive petition before the court below.3. In view of the above submission and in the light of the endorsement made by the petitioner to that effect and as the learned Counsel for the respondent also agrees for the same subject to the condition that such comprehensive petition should be filed within a time limit as fixed by this Court and also fixing time limit for the disposal of the C.C. No. 187 of 2007, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
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....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
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....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
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....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
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....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!