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.
Chatrumal Takkur Das, Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of Police Centra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners who are facing prosecution in C.C. No. 1540 of 2007 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seek quash of proceedings as against them.2. The petitioners are the second and fifth accused in the case. On complaint preferred by the second respondent, Crime No. 283 of 2006 was registered by the first respondent, and upon completion of investigation, final report has been filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The case as reflected in the charge sheet is as follows:(b) The gist of the F.I.R. Is that the husband of the complainant Mohan M. Pai of M/S. Primech Enterprises was allotted a Industrial Unit by SIDCO in Ambattur Industrial Estate during, 1972 in Plot No. L.22, measuring 2255 sq.ft., with 1053 sq.ft. built up area and he was passed away on 05.05.2005. That being so, prior to his death the sale deed was registered in the name of M. Pai during January, 1993 by forging the signature by the accused S. Sethu...
N. Arumugam Vs. the Secretary to the Government Agriculture Department
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal, challenging the order of punishment dated 21.01.1993 passed by the respondent stopping increment of the petitioner for a period of three years with cumulative effect and also ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 2,220/- in ten instalments at the rate of Rs. 220/- per month from his salary. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 34575 of 2006.2. The petitioner entered the service as Extension Officer in the agricultural department on 10.07.1967. When the petitioner was working as Deputy Agricultural Officer (Oil Seeds) at Gobichettipalayam during the year 1977, a vigilance enquiry was initiated against him on the ground that he had procured ground nut seeds from a farmer at exorbitant rate of Rs. 13,200/- thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,200/-. A charge memo dated 15.09.1984 was served to the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry ...
S. Sathish and S. Raji Vs. Dr. Sumathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
ORDER1. Heard both sides2. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 11 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, are the revision petitioners herein.3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the above suit O.S. No. 11 of 2005 for partition of their . share in the suit Items 1 to 4 and for declaration of title in respect of Item No. 5 stating that it also belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs are entitled to half share together in Item No. 5 of the suit property.4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the widow of Dr. Selvaraj and the 2nd plaintiff is her son and the defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Dr. Selvaraj through his first wife. The properties in Item Nos. 1 and 2 were purchased in the names of the defendants 1 and 2 by Late Dr. Selvaraj and the 1st plaintiff and it was in the control and possession of the 1st plaintiff and her husband and the 3rd item was purchased by Dr. Selvaraj in his name and the 5th item wa...
M/S. Celtone Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
The assessees paid service tax together with interest on being pointed out by the excise authorities, prior to the issue of show-cause notice. Their contention before the Bench, therefore, is that no notice for imposition of penalty could have been issued under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence seek setting aside of the penalties imposed under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 ibid. 2 I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in Shanti Casting Works Vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2009 (15) STR 219 holding that penalty cannot be imposed when service tax and interest is paid prior to issue of show-cause notice. Following the ratio of the above decision I set aside the penalties imposed under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and allow the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Sri Kaliswari Firework ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
In this case, a total of 11 Orders-in-Original were passed involving the issue as to whether outward transportation, transit insurance of goods, motor vehicle insurance and tyre retreading charges were input services. All issues were decided by two Orders-in-Appeal. Revenue was aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that outward transportation and transit insurance of goods were to be treated as input services and hence Revenue filed Appeal Nos.ST/18,19,20, 21,22 and 23/2010. 2. In view of the fact that there were 11 Orders-in-Original, the Registry of the Tribunal directed the Revenue to file 5 more appeals. The response from the office of the Commissioner is reproduced herein below :- “Sir, Sub: Appeal No.ST/18-23, 48-52/2010 (11 appeals) before CESTAT, Chennai. Ref : F.No.ST/18-23, 48-52/10 dated 12.04.2010 received from CESTAT, Chennai. Please refer to the above. 2. Orders-in-Appeal Nos.311-315/2010 dated 22.09.2009 passed by the appellate Commissioner, Mad...
Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.11,212/- together with interest on the ground that the assessees had availed CENVAT credit during Feb-06 without duty paying documents, and imposed a penalty of Rs.11,096/-. The order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal. 2. The demand amount represented CENVAT credit alleged to have been wrongly availed. 3. I have heard both sides. The impugned credit relates to invoices seen by the original authority and cover the period 24.9.02 to 20.5.04. The assessees have satisfactorily explained that they had initially taken only a portion of the credit covered by the documents, pertaining to dutiable finished goods and, as a lesser quantity of input was actually used in the production of exempted goods, they transferred the credit relatable to the additional quantity of inputs eventually utilized in the production of dutiable products. The assessees have been able to correlate the duty paying documents namely invoices w...
Roots Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
The issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether cenvated inputs could be removed for export under bond or whether they could be removed as such only on reversal of an amount equal to credit availed on receipt thereof, i.e. on payment in terms of Rule 3 (5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in Videocon International Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara [2009 (235) ELT 135] holding that capital goods could be cleared as such for export under bond, in the light of CBEC letter No.345/2/2000-TRU dt. 29.8.2000. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned order by which Rs.28,196/- was confirmed as duty, and penalty of Rs.10000 imposed, and allow the appeal....
M/S.Sohams Foundation Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cusoms ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein imported Nylon Flodrain FD5 in running length from Malaysia under the bill of entry dated 09.11.2006. On first check, it was observed that the goods would not fall under CTH 59119090 as claimed by the importers. Pending test report from the Textile Committee, the goods were assessed under the above mentioned heading. The Textile Committee opined that the outer material was of non-woven textiles-polyester 100% and inner material was of Polyolefin 100% and the material as a whole could be considered as non-woven textiles (Geotextiles). Based on this report, the goods were assessed under CTH 39173290 and duty was levied thereon which was paid by the assessees under protest on 27.11.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under Chapter 39; however, he held that the goods could not be considered either as tubes or pipes or hoses in order to be classifiable under CTH 39173290, but were articles of Polyolefin classified under CTH...
Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai Vs. Ador Welding Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
In this case, the administrative officer had issued a communication to the assessees stating that their request for conversion of shipping bills from DEPB scheme to DEEC scheme is rejected. Aggrieved by this, the assessees preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the impugned order, has held that decision taken by the Commissioner should be communicated as a speaking order. The Revenue has challenged the above order before the Tribunal. 2. I have heard both sides and find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing issue of speaking order to the assessees by the Commissioner. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Since time has elapsed since passing of the impugned order and no speaking order has been issued by the Commissioner till date, I direct issue of the same as expeditiously as possible to the assessees. 3. The appeal is hence dismissed....
Viswanaath Agro Products International and Others Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2010
The challenge in these appeals is only to the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of prohibited goods namely non-basumati rice and different types of pulses such as urid dhall etc. and to the quantum of penalty imposed on the partnership firm as well as its Managing Partner and its Partner. 2. I have heard both sides. Having regard to the value of prohibited goods and to the plea that heavy demurrage has been incurred by the appellants, I reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation of the prohibited goods from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only). A fine of Rs.1 lakh in lieu of confiscation of goods used to conceal the prohibited goods is quite reasonable and therefore does not call for any reduction. Penalty on the partnership firm is reduced to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) and the penalty on the two individuals namely Managing Partner and the Partner is reduced from Rs.1 lakh each to Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand only), in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »