Chennai Court May 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.
M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
Heard both sides. Shri M. Kannan, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant states that the case involves denial of credit in respect of CTD bars used in the construction of supporting structure for machinery and he fairly states that in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. - LB), the appellants do not have a case on merit in their favour. However, as far as interest on the disputed amount is concerned, he states that the appellants had taken the credit but it was not utilized till the same was reversed by the appellants. Hence he argues that the interest and penalty levied on the appellants should be set aside. 2. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao who states that the fact of non-utilization of the credit till it was reversed requires to be verified by the jurisdictional authorities. 3. After hearing both sides the duty demand is confirmed following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in ...
Guru Ragvendra Textiles Rep. by Its Manager D. Bhoopalakrishnan Vs. Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 11.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of manufacturing textile yarn having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 12/2008 to 07/2009 and hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in Para...
P. Murali Mohan Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 10.05.2010 levying penalty for exceeding the quota during evening peak hours.2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's house has many multinational and I.T. and ITEs Companies and a foreign embassy and catering more than 2500 employees in the petitioner's premises. It has now forayed in to the fields of Engineering, Healthcare, Educational, Financial Services and Entertainment. It has been provided a High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T.S.C. No. 565 within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 7154 of 2010, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice ...
Sree Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, Janarthanam Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 11.05.2010 so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. According to the petitioner, they are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn, having High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T. Sc. No. 90. The 3rd respondent raised demand notice against the petitioner for the alleged violation of excess usage of demand during peak hours for the period between December 2008 and July 2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court, by its order had set aside the impugned demand made by the third respondent and directed the third respondent to pass orders afresh after due notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. While so, the present impugned order dated 11.05.2010 came to be passed and hence the pe...
Vishranthi Homes (P) Ltd. Represented by Its General Manager R.R. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 14.05.2010.2.1. According to the petitioner, they are a consumer under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that the respondents have sanctioned H.T. Supply with a maximum demand of 300 KVA. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 27126 of 2009, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the third respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,02,629/- towards eveni...
Rangaa Foods Industries (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director V.S.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 20.4.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of manufacturing textile yarn having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply with a maximum demand of 216 KVA to run the industry. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 12/2008 to 07/2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3285 of 2010. This Court by its order had set aside the impugned demand made by the third respondent and directed the third respondent to pass orders afresh after due notice to the petiti...
K.G.i.S.L., (K.G. Information Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Rep. by Its Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 10.05.2010.2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is involved in every sphere of the textile industry and has now forayed in to the fields of Engineering, Healthcare, Educational, Financial Services and Entertainment. It has been given a High Tension Electricity Supply in H.T.S.C. No. 280 within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1771 of 2010, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While ...
Jagadambal Textiles Rep. by the Partner Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand made by the third respondent dated 07.5.2010, so far as it relates to levy of penalty for exceeding quota during evening peak hour alleging that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are engaged in the process of spinning having High Tension Electricity supply. The respondents 2 and 3 have sanctioned High Tension supply. While so, the third respondent issued a demand to the petitioner by letter dated 07.5.2010 to pay penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hour for the period between 11/2008 to 07/2009. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.3. In the mean while, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission passed an order dated 04.05.2010 clarifying that the consumption of demand and energy quota in excess over the quota is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in...
The Kadri Mills (CBE) Limited (Unit: K.G.S. Mills) rep. by Its General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. he petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 10.05.2010 and consequently forbear respondents 1 and 3 from demanding or collecting penalty charges for the alleged excess demand and energy consumption over and above the quota during the peak hours without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is a spinning mill within the area jurisdiction of the third respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1250 of 2010, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and remitted the matter to the third respondent with liberty to the third respondent to pass orders afresh after giving due notice to the petit...
Chennai Heattreaters Private Limited Rep. by Its Director R. Nagaraj V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceeding of the third respondent dated 12.05.2010,2.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in heat treatment of ferrous components within the area jurisdiction of the second respondent. Violating the order made in M.P. No. 42 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008, the third respondent issued a demand for payment of penal charges for exceeding the evening peak hour quota. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 26353 of 2009, challenging the said demand. By its order, this Court had set aside the said notice and directed the second respondent to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their objections against such levy and pass orders after hearing the petitioner.2.2. While so, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice from the third respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,54,511/- towards evening peak hour quota excess consu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »