Chennai Court April 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. M/S.Dynaspede Integrated S ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The issue in dispute in this appeal stands settled against the Revenue by the apex court decision in Union of India Vs Indian Shipowners Association [2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)], uphold the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court holding that service recipient in India is liable to service tax for services received from abroad only with effect from 18.04.2006 the period in dispute in this case is prior to that date. Following the ration of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S.Expos Leather Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs confiscating the goods declared as finished leather but found to be other than finished leather, in the absence of protective coating, with an option of redeeming the goods for being taken back to town on payment of a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs and imposition of penalty of Rs.3 lakhs. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that there is no dispute that it is only the process of protective coating which was not carried out on the goods. I find that in similar circumstances in the case of M/s.Avanthi Leathers Ltd. Final Order No.902/09 dated 20.07.2009, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside confiscation and imposing penalty was upheld after noting that no effort was made to export the goods in question and that the goods had been allowed to be taken back for the purpose of applying protective coating so as to make the goods conform to the definition of finished leather. Similar view was taken in the case of M/...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.National Enterprises.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2010
The Calcium Carbide imported by the respondents herein was absolutely confiscated on the ground that the importers did not possess a licence as required under Rule 26 of the Calcium Carbide Rules, 1987. Penalty of Rs.60,000/- was also imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, permitted the importers to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.50,000/- and reduced the penalty to Rs.5,000/-. Hence this appeal by the Revenue seeking restoration of the order of absolute confiscation and enhancing of the penalty to the quantum imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice; I have heard the learned SDR and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) permitted redemption of the goods to the respondents after noting that M/s.Chennai Gas (P) Ltd., who are licensed by the Explosives Department for storage of Calcium Carbide, had come forward to purchase 22.5 MTs after clearance of the goods from the Customs. There is no reason, therefor...
Golden Leathers, Tannery Rep. by Its Partner Mr. D. Muralidharan Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. In this writ petition, the question is whether process by which the wet blue leather is turned into finished leather amounts to 'manufacture'. This question assumes importance in the context of Section 3(3) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of finished leather. They purchased chemicals, dyes and pigments against Form XVII to convert wet blue leather into finished leather. The dealer is allowed concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) of the Act, if a declaration in Form XVII is obtained from the purchasing dealer and produced before the Assessing Authority; after having bought the goods at the concessional rate of tax, he must use them for the manufacture of goods for sale. If he misuses them or disposes them off in any other manner, the concession will not be available to him. Thirdly, the buying dealer must maintain a separate stock for the goods purchased by availing the conce...
M. Loganathan and Vs. V.R. Eswaramoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners, who are facing prosecution in case pending in H.R.C.C. No. 2 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court cum Human Rights Court, Erode seek to quash proceedings as against them.2. The respondent herein has preferred a complaint before such Court informing that the petitioners had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the respondent/ complainant and issued a cheque dated 02.04.2004. The cheque, when presented for collection, was dishonoured for want of funds. The respondent/complainant has filed a complaint in C.C. No. 401 of 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Erode on 06.08.2004. When the respondent was waiting before the court hall on 06.08.2004, two police constables attached to District Crime Branch, Erode, who are arrayed as accused No. 5 and 6 in the case before the lower Court, assaulted the respondent in the presence of the public. Though, the petitioners had not been present at the place of occurrence, the res...
S. Nandakumar Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The substantial issue involved in all these writ petitions and connected writ appeal pertains to the decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to allot an extent of 70 acres of land and the consequential entry permission given to the municipalities of Ambattur, Maduravoyal, Thiruverkadu, Valasaravakkam and Poonamallee and Porur Town Panchayat to establish their Solid Waste Management Plant in Kuthambakkam Village in the District of Thiruvallur.2. The writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 15525 and 15526 of 2009 and Writ Appeal No. 1100 of 2009 are at the instance of Kuthambakkam Panchayat and Writ Petition Nos. 10641 to 10643 of 2009 were preferred by a local resident of Kuthambakkam Panchayat.3. Since the issue involved in all these matters are basically the same and the main grievance was on account of allotment of land in the possession of the panchayat for the purpose of establishment of Solid Waste Management station for other local bodies, the factual matrix as f...
Gowri and Vs. Irulandi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruppur, in taking on file M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, dated 12.7.2006, and to reject the said petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petition, in M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, had been taken on file by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, without following the procedures established by law. The petition had been taken on file, without noticing that the first respondent cannot have any remedy and as such, he cannot file the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition, as per Section 8(A), 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as he does not come under the category of Class I heirs.3. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that the petition is not maintainable, as the first respondent cannot claim a right over the property of the pre-deceased son. While filing the petition, a wrong information h...
T. Sankar Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Represented by Its B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. As the facts relating to both writ petitions are almost identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner, T. Sankar, while working as Joint Manager, in the office of Joint Chief Environment Engineer, Chennai, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 27.01.1998 under Regulation 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1988, alleging that the petitioner was engaged in operating M/s. Chennai Automobile Pollution Control Centre in the name of his wife. On receipt of the charge memo dated 27.01.1998, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 26.02.1998 denying the charges by answering that the business carried out by his wife, has got nothing to do with the petitioner. On receipt of the explanation to the charge memo, the 2nd respondent not being satisfied with the said explanation, nominated Dr. N. Mani, Deputy Director (Labs) as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry into the c...
Tamil Nadu State Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram against the award passed by the Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 196 of 1997 dated 28.04.2004 wherein, the Labour Court while setting aside the order of punishment, ordered reinstatement of the 2nd respondent in service without back wages and with continuity of service.2. The charge against the 2nd respondent was that when he was serving as a conductor in Bus bearing No. TCB 6022 plying from Kalpakkam to Madras on 01.05.1992, he is alleged to have collected Rs. 30/- from three passengers and by making a scribe in the original tickets as if he collected Rs. 3.50/- for each ticket and he has entered only Rs. 10.50/-, which resulted in issuance of charge memo for having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 19.50/-. The 2nd respondent was subjected to enquiry and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the 2nd respondent guilty of the char...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court on 22.09.2004 in I.D. No. 22 of 1999 ordering reinstatement of the workman/2nd respondent with continuity of service with 50% of the back wages and 50% of all other attendant benefits.2. The charges levelled against the 2nd respondent was that he remained absent from duty from 11.01.1995, but a charge memo dated 15.02.1995 was issued to the 2nd respondent for his unauthorized absence, which amounted to misconduct under Clause 16(b) and 16(g) of the Model Standing. Finally the domestic enquiry was conducted by the respondent and submitted in its report holding the charges remained only for absent from duty from 11.01.1995 was found proved. Subsequently, on the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service. When the Industrial Dispute was raised before the Labour Court, the Labour Court by taking into account the nature of the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »