Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran. He fairly states that in view of the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Naga Ltd. 2007 (200) ELT 452 (SC), the Departments appeal has no merit. As such, we reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present. The learned JCDR fairly states that in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Ceat Ltd. - 2005 (183) ELT A195 (SC) and also the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner Vs. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 542 (Tri. - LB), the Department’s appeal has no merit. As such, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2010(253)ELT722(Mad)
M. Venugopal, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of order of the single Judge made in W.P. No. 695 of 2009 dated 14-7-2009 [2009 (243) E.L.T. 679 (Mad.)] confirming the order of Additional Bench of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission holding that the Settlement Application filed by the Appellant in respect of three show cause notices is not maintainable under Section 127B of the Customs Act and that the applications do not satisfy the pre-requisites of Section 127B.2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready made garments. The entire garments manufactured were exported to overseas customers viz., M/s. Knock out, M/s. Esprit and M/s. S. Oliver Company. Under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, the Appellant firm availed certain duty free cotton yarn/fabrics without paying duty for such imports. On gathering intelligence that the Appellant procured duty free cotton yarn/fabrics by availing benefits under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The petitioners, a Private Limited Company, its two Directors and a Guarantor to a loan transaction have filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No. 96 of 2006 dated 8.9.2006, confirming the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in M.A. No. 134 of 203 in O.A. No. 1639 of 1998 dated 24.3.1006.2.(a) The case of the petitioners are that the first petitioner, a Private Limited Company, was carrying on business in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power System in their factory premises at Thuraipakkam, Chennai 96, and the Company had its Office at No. 69/9, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 33. The first petitioner availed credit facilities from the first respondent Bank and the second, third and fourth petitioners stood as guarantors. In order to secure the loan, an equitable mortgage was created in favour of the Bank in respect of four items of property ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The authorities below have ordered confiscation of watches valued at approx.Rs.17.39 lakhs seized on 23.9.06 from the baggage brought by one Shri Narayan Lal from Hong Kong by Indian Airlines flight IC 556 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine and have imposed penalties on the passenger, on one Shri Shivlal and a penalty of Rs.75,000/- on the appellant herein who is the nephew of Shivlal, under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the department against the present appellant is that subsequent to 31.7.06, he purchased air tickets for Narayan Lal and therefore facilitated Narayan Lal in smuggling watches into India. 2. I have heard both sides. Shri Narayan Lal has stated in detail as to the modus operandi adopted by him in which he has implicated only Shri Shivlal and has stated that even for the present trip to Hong Kong and return therefrom, it is Shivlal who paid for his ticket. He does not implicate the appellant. The case against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard the Ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. In both these cases the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. In the light of the settled law in this regard, these two departmental appeals have no merit. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard the Ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In this case the grievance of the department is that the authorities below have allowed assessment on the basis of cum duty price. In the light of the settled law in this regard, departmental appeal has no merit. Hence, the departmental appeal is dismissed. 2. The cross-objection filed by the respondents also stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERR. Subbiah, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Vinayaka Mission University for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and grant necessary permission for the 21 Indian Students, who have obtained M.B.B.S. Degree through the Off-shore Campus-Bangkok, Thailand of the petitioner to undertake Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (Screening Test), during September, 2009, to enable them to undergo Internship/C.R.R.I. in India as part of the M.B.B.S. program to be held on 27.09.2009 and to get themselves enrolled as Medical Practitioner in India after the completion of the Internship of one year as requested in the letter of the petitioner dated 14.09.2009.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Deemed University declared under Section 3 of U.G.C. Act by Notification dated 01.03.2001 of the Central Government. The petitioner deemed university has Constituent Colleges in the field of Medicine, Dental, Engineering, Management Program, etc. The petitioner applied to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 05.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 839 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,31,260/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/third respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 10.05.1999, at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner, Simmaraj, aged about 20 years, was travelling on his TVS motorcycle at Kangeyam road, Tiruppur, from east to west, keeping to the left side of the road, and when he was nearing State Bank of Trivancore, a lorry bearing registration No. TN37 B7335, coming from behind and ...
Tag this Judgment!