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.
R. Venkatalakshmanaswamy Vs. the Secretary to Government, Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
R. Banumathi, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 17069 of 2001 in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant seeking to quash the demand for deposit of the current consumption charges.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is the consumer of Electricity Service Connection LTCT No. 121, Nallur, Pollachi with a sanctioned load of 117 KW. As per Clause 4.02 of the terms and Conditions of supply of electricity, the Consumer shall avail Lt supply if the sanctioned load is 75 HP (56KW) or below. If the sanctioned load is 150 HP (112 KW) or above, it is only HT supply. When the connected load is in between 75 HP and 150 HP, the consumer is given the option either to avail LT supply which type of supply comes under alternative Part II tariff.3. The current consumption for LT Service Connection will be reviewed and refixed once in two years in the month of April/May by the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 31...
Mrs. K. Saraswathy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Collector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
S. Palanivelu, J.Because of the interconnectivity of the matter, the common judgment is rendered.1. The plaint in O.S. No. 2844 of 2004, filed by the appellant herein, contains the following averments:1. (a) Land measuring 2419 Sq.ft. with superstructure therein in T.S. No. 15(part) Block No. 3, in Sembium Village, Purasavalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai with other properties were purchased by M. Sethumadhavan from one M. Sadullah Bhasha and others by a registered sale deed. Thereafter the said Sethumadhavan sold the suit land with small superstructure, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demolished the superstructure and applied to the Corporation/2nd defendant, for planning permission and building license for construction of house. The 2nd defendant also granted planning permission and building license to build ground floor of the proposed building. The plaintiff obtained house building loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India, constructed the house with the ground floor and residing i...
M/S. Tyco Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
In this case, a demand of Rs. 82,606/- has been confirmed on the ground that the assessees cleared the goods to various customers without submitting re-warehousing certificate in respect of excisable goods cleared without payment of duty. In addition, a penalty equal to duty demand has also been imposed by the authorities below. Hence, this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants draws my attention to the letter dated 10.08.2007, intimating the department that over and above goods covered by re-warehousing certificate, they had reversed an amount of Rs.42,716/- together with interest of Rs.3,438/- and therefore this amount could not be demanded once again and he also drew attention of the Bench to the letter dated 09.09.2007, under which the assessees have produced the re-warehousing certificate to the extent of Rs. 39,890/-. He further submits that if these two documents were taken into account, no duty demand would survive against the assessees. However, in...
M/S. Sonal Vyapar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
The appellants herein challenge the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,01,873/- imposed under the provisions of Section 78 and penalty of Rs. 200/- per day imposed under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that the demand of service tax, although paid together with interest, is barred by limitation. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessee’s stand as reflected in the statement of Shri V. Agrawal, Director of the Company, is that whenever they were incurring any freight, they were paying service tax on Goods Transport Service and whenever the CHA was incurring any freight, the assessees were not paying the service tax on Goods Transport Service because they were under the bonafide impression that the liability to pay tax was on the CHA, and not upon them. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the revenue. In these circumstances, I accept the contention of the assessees that the department has not established that there was any suppression on th...
M/S. Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
In this case credit has been denied on the ground that it was taken on the strength of debit notes which was not one of the documents specified for the purpose of availment of credit. 2. I have heard both sides. The submission of the assessees that a document, even if not specified, should be accepted for the purpose of taking credit provided it contains all the necessary particulars is well founded in the light of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Pharmalab Process equipments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2009 (16) STR 94 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Ralson India Ltd. 2008 (10) STR 505 (P andH). I, therefore, hold that the debit note can be considered as a valid document taken for the purpose of extending credit to the assessees. However, since the authorities below have not recorded a categoric finding accepting the assessee’s submission that the debit notes contain all the necessary...
Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. L.G. Balakrishnan and Bros. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
On hearing both sides, I find that the impugned order setting aside the demand of service tax for the period prior to 10.09.04, on the ground that the service rendered by M/s. B.E. GELB Consultancy Services to the assessees falls under the category of Intellectual Property Rights Service which came into service tax net only with effect from 10.09.04, and not a Consulting Engineer Service leviable to service tax prior to 10.09.04, is correct, for the reason that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.E. GELB Consultancy Services Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2009 (14) STR 241 (Tri.-Chen.). I therefore uphold the impugned order setting aside the demand and penalties and reject the appeal of the Revenue....
M/S. Andal Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
The appellants have paid duty on used capital goods cleared as such on depreciated value whereas the Revenue seeks reversal of the credit initially taken by the assessees on such goods. 2. I have heard both sides. Payment of duty after taking into account the depreciation to the extent allowed, has been permitted by the Tribunal in several decisions including CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd. - 2009 (242) ELT 124 (Tri.-Del.), Rogini Mills Vs. CCE, Salem - Final Order No. 160/2010 dated 05.02.2010 and Final Order No. 284, 285/2010 dated 05.03.2010 in the case of the same assessees, which has been subsequently followed in the case of M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan and Bros. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore vide Final Order No.379/2010 dated 26.03.2010. Therefore, the payment of duty by the appellants is accepted as sufficient. The appeal is thus allowed after setting aside the impugned order....
P. Arunachalam Vs. Arulthiru Devi Karumari Amman Rep. by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by P. Arunachalam, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent/the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department in R.P. No. 115/2003 D2 dated 15.10.2003 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Plumber with retrospective benefits.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Plumber in the 1st respondent, Arulthiru Devi Karumari Amman Thirukoil, Thiruverkadu, Chennai by proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.04.1980. In view of his appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 25.04.1980. After successful completion of his one year of service, his service was also regularised by order dated 05.06.1981. Thereafter, in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, the petitioner was also given annual increments. The petitioner was even made a permanent employee of the 1st respondent temple. All of a sudden, his service...
M.K.M. Aboobacker Vs. the Chief Engineer, Pondicherry Electricity Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Pondicherry Electricity Board, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent board to restore the power supply to the industrial premises bearing door A-1 Shed, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry in Service Connection No. 1 21-41-01.2. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is the absolute owner of the industrial premises bearing door No. A-1 Shed, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry. The petitioner had obtained three phase service connection in his capacity as proprietor in the name of M/s. Trust well for the supply of electricity from the respondent Electricity Board. Subsequently, the petitioner's industrial premises was leased out to one M/s. welcord Electronics Limited represented by its Director Mr. Prasanna kumar Bhutoria, under a lease deed dated 15.01.2000.3. By virtue of the above said lease deed execut...
K.F. Jacob Vs. the Estate of M.A. Browne (Diseased) by Administrator J ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed before this Court, praying that this Court may be pleased to with draw R.C.O.P. Nos. 22 of 2005 and 38 of 2005 and O.S. Nos. 211 of 2005 and 89 of 2008, pending, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ootacumand, to be tried before the District Munsif court, Coimbatore.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the above cases are pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Ootacumand, for a long time and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, they should be transferred, as prayed for by the petitioner, to be tried and dispose of by the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the delay in disposal of the matters is primarily due to the petitioner in the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. He had also submitted that in such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to direct the learned District Munsif, Oot...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »