Chennai Court June 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.Fairtel Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Heard both sides. With the consent of both sides, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. Shri S. Janakiraman, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that during the period March, 2005 to January, 2006, the appellants removed some of the inputs on which credit was taken for refurbishment of telephone instruments. Inadvertently, the credit was not reversed though the record of transactions was kept and service tax was paid on refurbishing charges received from the customers. He states that in this case there is no ingredient of suppression, fraud etc., with an intention to evade payment of duty and hence, equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC is not warranted. 3. Heard Shri T.H. Rao, Ld. SDR, who supports the impugned order and states that the appellants only paid duty amount by reversal of the credit after the case was detected by the department. 4. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the...
M/S. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Heard both sides. For the reasons stated below, with the consent of both sides, the stay application is dismissed and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the case against the appellants and imposed equal amount of penalty in addition to demanding duty amount and interest thereon. It is agreed by both sides that duty amount, interest thereon as well as 100% penalty were paid within one month from the date of communication of the order. In the circumstances, in terms of the 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 11AC, the appellants were required to only pay 25% of the penalty and having paid the entire penalty, they are entitled to refund of excess penalty of 75%. On an application filed by them, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner has sanctioned the refund to the appellants and also they have received the amount. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Commissioner has reviewed the order of the refund leading to the impugned order by...
M/S. Indian Additives Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Heard both sides. Shri V.S. Manoj, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that in the appellant’s own case on a similar matter, the Tribunal has granted stay vide Stay Order No. 812 and 813/2006 dated 05.07.2006. Following the cited order, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived in this case also during pendency of the appeal....
M/S. Sri Krishna Smelters Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The duty demand of Rs. 71,81,377/- confirmed against the assessees together with interest in terms of Section 11AB and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is challenged by the assessees. The demand stands confirmed as a result of holing that the assessees wrongly availed credit on imported scrap, which was never received in their factory, but only on the basis of Bills of Entry covering such imports. 2. We have heard both sides. In view of the clear admission by Shri R. Duraisamy, Managing Director of the assessee company, the appellants do not seriously challenge the demand and penalty. The Commissioner has given detailed findings for sustaining the demand and for penal action against the assessees. We see no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. U.T. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed a demand of Rs. 14,48,472/- against the assessees in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, imposed a penalty of Rs.4,97,078/- in terms of Section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 1,44,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules,1944. The assessees preferred an appeal No. E/701/99 before the Tribunal, which vide its Final Order No.102/06 dated 16.02.2006, upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty under Section 11AC to Rs. One lakh and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. The Revenue preferred C.M.A. No. 100/07, raising the following questions of law:- 1. Whether the quantum of penalty prescribed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as equivalent to duty determined is mandatory in nature or not? 2. Whether or not the Hon ble CESTAT was not in error in setting aside fully, the penalty imposed under Rule 173 Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules...
S. Gaspar Versus E.M.E. Record and Another
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who had approached the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for disability pension, which was rejected under the impugned order, by way of filing W.P.No.3956 of 2008, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal after the constitution of the same under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.18 of 2010. 2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows:- The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 25.05.1962 and discharged from service with effect from 19.07.1964 on medical grounds. After undergoing the required training, he was issued with a certificate of Technical Proficiency on 30.09.1963 and was boarded as black smith. During his course of employment, he got injured in his right hand middle finger. Due to the severe injury on the finger, he lost the sense of touch inspite of the treatment giv...
M/S.Mekala Traders. Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. The question in this Original Suit Appeal is whether the rate of interest that is awarded by the Arbitrator ought to have been reduced in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The sale of discoloured rice issued by the first respondent was subject of the tender conditions issued on nil-10-1999. The tender was awarded to the appellant. On 14.10.1999 and 22.10.1999, the appellant was declared as successful tenderer. An agreement was entered into on 15.11.1999, containing an arbitration clause.3. On 06.01.2000, the appellant sold 135 bags of rice to a Trader in the State of Kerala under the cover of valid records including permit from the Special Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Tuticorin. But, these rice bags were seized by the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai on 06.01.2000 and a case was registered against the appellant's husband and the appellant's godown was sealed and her entire business came to a standstill. On 09.01.2000, the appellant gave a rep...
K.Saraswathi ... Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21985 of 2002 dated 23.10.2008, confirming the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.04.2002 in G.O.(D).No.259, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamilnadu.2. The matter relates to rejection of request for transfer of allotment of a house by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under public rental category.3. The appellant is the widow of one Kodambakkam Kumar, who was allotted a residential accommodation by the Tamilnadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "Housing Board") at Door No.11, Model House Road, C.I.T. Nagar, Chennai. While the allottee was in possession and enjoyment of the house, he died on 18.09.2000. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to transfer the accommodation in her name. However, there was no follow up action taken by the second respondent. In the meantime, the second respondent issued a notice dated 07.02.2001 calling upon the a...
Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch-i, Vs. Debt Recovery App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. The legal question that is required to be answered by us in these matters is 'could there be any complete waiver of deposit amount to be made by the borrower/guarantor while preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI' Act) and whether credit could be given to the borrower/guarantor as against the amount deposited/paid by the auction purchaser towards the sale price?'2. The writ petitioner/Bank is the creditor; the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition are the guarantors and the 5th respondent in the writ petition, who is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the auction purchaser. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.3. One late G.Venkateswaran and his wife Mrs.Sujatha Venkateswaran ...
N.Venkatesh .. Vs. Anna University Rep.by Its Registrar, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. The petitioner has come out with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to re-assess the petitioners answer book in Digital Image Processing having Subject Code EC 1009 of the year 2009-2010 and declare that the petitioner has passed the above subject.2. (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student of Meenakshi College of Engineering at K.K.Nagar, Chennai. He has joined the College in the academic year 2006-2007. As he had secured 456 marks out of 500 marks in the Plus Two examinations with 86% he claimed that he is a bright student. He had written seven semester examinations as an Under-graduate in Bachelor of Engineering in the Faculty of Electronic and Communication Engineering. He passed all the six semester examinations with good marks in all the subjects and secured 80% aggregate. The seventh semester examination was held in November-December 2009. In the 7th semester examination he wrote eight papers. In other papers he secured 69% in EC1403, 100% in EC1405,...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »