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.
The Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (int ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest by the Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), a nation wide non-profit membership organisation set up in the year 1984 to protect and conserve India's vast natural and cultural heritage. The present public interest litigation is for protection of the Bharath Insurance Building from being demolished without applying the provisions of Rule 22 of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2004.2. The Bharath Building, which is presently owned and rented out by the Life Insurance Corporation, is a landmark building recognised as a symbol of heritage conservation's losing battle in the city and State. The history of the building may have to be set out at this juncture. The Bharat Building's story goes back to 1868 when W.E. Smith, a pharmacist, arrived in Madras and, finding enough pharmacies and more in business in the city, proceeded to Ooty where he set up shop. T...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.Reliable Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
The application for condonation of delay of 31 days in preferring the above appeal is dismissed, as no ground for condoning the delay has been made out by the Revenue the only reason given in the COD application is that proper care was taken to prepare the grounds of appeal, hence involving time and unavoidable delay. This ground is certainly not sufficient to condone the delay. The application is, therefore, dismissed. As a result the stay application is also dismissed and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation....
Puissance De Dpk Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has upheld the liability of the assessees to interest of Rs.67,464/- on 8% reversal prior to issue of show-cause notice, under the provisions of Rule 57AH read with Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended by Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 and Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 read with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 as amended by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 2005 and as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. I have heard both sides. The period in dispute is from April 2000 to September 2001. The appellants do not dispute that they are liable to pay interest for the period subsequent to 12.5.2001. The question that remains to be decided is whether they are liable to pay interest under Section 11AA or under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act prior to 12.5.01 for the reason that prior to the above mentioned date, provisions of Section 11AB were applicable...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.Sunbeam Mercantile Ventures P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
The respondents herein imported Yogurt from Spain which on examination and test by the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore was found to be completely spoiled, hence the consignment was absolutely confiscated in terms of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs.60,000/- was imposed upon the importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. I have heard both sides. I agree with the respondents that the provisions of Section 112(a) under which penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority, are not attracted against them as it is accepted that the Yogurt got spoilt due to entry of sea water during the voyage from Spain to India. The respondents, therefore, cannot be held to be guilty of any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation, for the purpose of involving Section 112(a) against them. I also note that the importers have borne out the cost towards destruction of the spoilt consignment. 3. In the light ...
M/S.Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides (after waiving pre-deposit) as the issue lies within a narrow compass. 2. Aggrieved by the demand of Rs.45,463/- and the penalty of Rs.99,036/-, confirmed and imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, the assessees preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal as time-barred for the reason that it was filed after expiry of the statutory period of limitation the adjudication order was received by the assessees on 04.04.2009 and the appeal was filed on the last date of the expiry of the limitation period before the lower appellate authority i.e., on 04.06.2009. 3. I find that the appeal was filed on the very last date of the expiry of the period of limitation, as the date of receipt of the order in challenge or the date of filing of the appeal, is to be excluded ...
M/S.Nubiola India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
The brief facts of the case are that the assessees herein filed claims for refund on the ground that they paid excess excise duty by mistake. Show-cause notices proposing rejection on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment were issued; the notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner both on the ground of time bar and on the ground of unsustainability. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the rejection of the claims and hence the assessees preferred appeal before the Tribunal which vide Final Order No.153/2006 dated 06.03.2006, remitted the case to the original authority for readjudication after giving the assessees a reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence against unjust enrichment. The refund was once again rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 20.04.2007 are upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on the ground that the assessees had not produced original credit notes and ledger accounts to establish that they had not passed on the incidence o...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.Universal Heat Exchangers Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
The lower appellate authority has ordered refund to the respondents herein who had claimed refund of cash security deposit paid during import of goods under project import, on submission of an Indemnity Bond to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) and directed the lower adjudicating authority to verify the fact of payment with the Cash Department/Nodal Bank, as the assessee had stated that they had lost original triplicate of the bill of entry and the TR-6 challans during a fire accident. I find that he has ensured that the interest of the Revenue is safeguarded by such verification of the veracity of the claim and, therefore, the Revenue has not made out a case for filing an appeal. The appeal is dismissed as not admitted. Stay application is also dismissed along with the appeal....
R. Suresh Babu Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who was discharged from service as per the impugned order of the third respondent in No.MTT/c.826/1/2/Trg, dated 25th February 2003, for the relief of promotion to the cadre of Sergeant on par with the petitioners entry-mates or in the alternative discharge the petitioner from service immediately with Sgt rank pension benefits with 183 days of leave encashment benefits etc, has filed W.P.No.10247 of 2003 and also filed W.P.No.33903 of 2003 challenging the impugned order of the second respondent vide No.RO/2503/1/Rtd(Dis) dated 5.11.2003 challenging the order of discharge before the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Madras. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, in furtherance of the enactment of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007, both the petitions were transferred to this Tribunal and reassigned T.A.Nos.125 and 126 of 2009 respectively. 2. The short facts in the affidavi...
Prof. M.S. Karuppuswamy Vs. the Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellant/Petitioner has filed present writ appeal as against the order dated 08.09.1999 passed in W.P.No.3876 of 1988, by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. The Learned Single Judge while passing orders in the writ petition has inter alia observed that.In case if the respondent/Authority did not pass any final order with regard to the termination of service of the Petitioner, that order will be the subject matter of separate writ petition. So far as the writ petition is concerned, the Petitioner has challenged only the order passed by the respondent on 30.11.1987. As observed earlier, it is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the Petitioner was requested to vacate the quarters of the institute as allotted to the Petitioner, which was in his occupation. It is clear that any public servant who occupies quarters should vacate the quarters from the date of the termination order. In this case, the Petitioner was requested to vacate the quarters i...
Nataraj Kumar Vs. the Regional Passport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings of the respondent connected with petitioner's passport No. Z1761262 and direct the respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner for the normal period of ten years instead of one year.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has passed B.Tech course and presently employed as General Manager of B.P.O. Division of HTC Global and his office is located at Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ), Tambaram, where 800 Computer Engineers are employed. The business of the Company involves handling out-sourcing work relating to accounting and also digital publishing. The petitioner has to travel frequently outside India, not only to canvass fresh business, but also to interact with the clients of the Company, outside India. When the petitioner went for renewal of his passport, renewal was granted for the period of one year from 12.2.2008 to 11.2.2009 on the ground that the petitioner is implicated in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »