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.
R.Balasubramanian .. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records relating to the impugned orders of the first respondent made in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.893, Public (Special A) Department, dated 24.6.2004 and as confirmed by rejecting the Review Petition in Letter NO.2730/2004-5 Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat dated 18.8.2005 and to quash the same as illegal and an unsustainable one and also consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner as District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service with all attendant benefits together with back wages and other emoluments.2. The petitioner was selected as a District Munsif through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by an order dated 09.6.1988 and posted as Additional District Munsif at the Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur during 1988. Subsequently, by direct recruitment, the petitioner was selected as Subordinate Judge in t...
M/S.Creative Infrastructure, Vs. the Government of Puducherry, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
1. The petitioner in all the three writ petitions is a firm of partnership represented by its Partner styling itself as "Creative Infrastructure".2.In the first writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.6881 of 2009, the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to first and second respondents to take action against third and fourth respondents based on their various representations dated 28.7.2007, 16.12.2008, 17.2.2009 and 09.04.2009. When the writ petition came up on 18.4.2009, notice was taken on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Further, when the matter came up on 22.4.2009, the name of the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) was directed to be printed in the cause list. Even when that writ petition was pending, the same firm subsequently filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16508 and 16509 of 2009. 3.In W.P.No.16508 of 2009, the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to first and second respondents to invoke the powers under clause 10.9 of the concession agreement dated 25.1.2006 and sub...
Ses Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in this appeal is the correct classification of item imported by the assessees and declared as micro processor and integrated circuit board. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case as seen from 2006 (201) ELT 562 holding that the item is part of computer classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 30 10 of the CETA-75 and eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.23/98-Cus. as per Sl.No.188 of the Table to the Notification. The above decision has been followed in HCL Infosystems Ltd. and two others Final Order No.1287-1289/07 dt. 22.10.07. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order by which the goods have been denied the benefit of the notification, and allow the appeal....
Indian Syntans Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.4,56,619/- as a result of disallowing cash discount claimed by the assessees on the ground that deductions were not passed on uniformly to all their customers. 2. We have heard both sides. Ld.counsel for the assessees places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Union of India and Others Vs S.S.M. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. and another [1986 (24) ELT 269 (Mad.)], holding that cash discount is admissible irrespective of whether each customer avails of the said discount or not. However, we note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with this judgment and distinguished it on the ground that the High Court had no occasion to go into the question of allowing deduction that were not passed on to the customer. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has remitted the case to the Asst. Commissioner for determination of allowance of deduction on account...
Gee Gee Granites Ltd.(100% Eou) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have disallowed the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 which grants exemption to finished products, rejects and waste or scrap specified in the Schedule to the CETA 1985 and produced or manufactured in a 100% EoU or a free trade zone wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India in accordance with the provisions of EXIM Policy, on the ground that in addition to the use of indigenous raw materials, the assessees have also used imported consumables. 2. We have heard both sides. The imported items are steel grits (powder form). The assessees have given a detailed write-up on the use of the steel grits which is as under :- Steel Grits The steel grits are angular granules having a thickness of 1 to 1.2 mm which does the cutting as a part and parcel of the machinery. Sawing Operation The blades are fixed in the frame. The steel grits are mixed with the limestone powder and converted int...
Cheraan Plast Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, in the earlier round of litigation, by Final Order No.108/2001 dt. 9.1.01, the Tribunal remitted the case to the Commissioner to re-quantify the duty and rework out the benefit of deduction of duty element from the assessable value and reconsider the prayer for fixing the penalty in the light of the duty being reduced in the matter. In spite of the above direction, the adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of deduction of duty element from the assessable value. Such benefit having already been extended to the assessees by the Tribunal vide order cited supra, and after considering the figures of duty payable ultimately after extending such benefit, and the figures having been confirmed by ld. JCDR, we hold that the assessees are liable to pay duty only to the extent of Rs.49,972/-. Since duty liability gets reduced to this extent, the penalty is also reduced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). 2. The appeal is thus allowed in th...
Sree Meenal Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The benefit of Notification No.35/95-CE dt. 16.3.95 has been disallowed to the assessees herein who carry out the process of doubling of single yarn on job work basis, on the ground that both the conditions set out in Sl.No.1 of the Table to the Notification have not been satisfied. The conditions imposed for availment of the benefit of the notification at Sl.No.1 are as under :- “If the yarn is, - (i) meant for use in the manufacture of fabrics; and (ii) manufactured out of yarn falling within Chapters 51, 52, 54 or 55 of the said Schedule on which appropriate duty of excise under the said Schedule, or as the case may be, the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has already been paid.” Both the conditions are required to be read together and since, admittedly, the assessee does not use the double yarn in the manufacture of fabrics, he is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him under the notification. We, therefo...
Shaik Abdul Azeez Versus Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen [Retd] S Pattabhiraman) 1. The petitioner, retired NCO Clerk had approached the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide Writ Petition No.25413 of 2003 for declaring the letter No.6878822/PEN/NER/COORD dated 29.05.2003 of the second respondent in denying him the promotion to Naib Subedar, as illegal and unjustified. On transfer to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Chennai, the petition is re-numbered as T.A.No.90 of 2009. 2. The short facts pertaining to the petition and relevant to the examination of the petitioners case are as under: 2(a) The petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk in Chittoor Municipality. On the eve of War with China, he joined duty on 04.01.1963 by enrolling himself in the Army (AOC) as a clerk (GD). The Municipal Commissioner Chittoor had relieved him to permit the petitioner to join the army duty. 2(b) The petitioner would state that he was a departmental candidate and was enroll...
P.Kothandaraman ... Vs. the Superintendent of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. The present Writ Petition came to be transferred from Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, wherein the petitioner had filed the Original Application in O.A.No.6720 of 1999, the challenge was made by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition is against the order of punishment passed by the 1st respondent namely, the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect.2. The brief facts of case as filed in O.A.No.6720 of 1999 which stood transferred to this Court is as follows:-The petitioner, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Voidmedu Police Station from 06.01.1993 to 03.07.1996, is said to have investigated the case registered in Crime No.741 of 1993 on the file of Voimedu Police Station which was registered for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, 336 and 307 IPC which was later on altered to Section 302 IPC. After conducting the investigation and obtaining the approval from the Public Prosecutor, a charge sheet was filed before th...
Lakshmi Machine Works Limited. Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order of learned single Judge dated 17.8.2000 made in W.P.No.8865 of 1993 confirming the award of the Labour Court dated 24.11.1992 made in I.D.No.294 of 1991 ordering reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent along with back wages.2. The brief facts are that the 2nd Respondent V.Dharmarajan was appointed as Craftsman Apprentice in the Appellant Management for a period of three years. From 1.1.1985 to 31.12.1987. The 2nd Respondent has undergone the training period during which he was paid the amount of Rs.175/- per month as stipend, Rs.200/- per month for the 2nd year and Rs.225/- per month for the 3rd year. The apprenticeship was for a period of three years. The case of the 2nd Respondent is that without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act (in short, "I.D.Act"), the Appellant Management has terminated him. The 2nd Respondent had raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D....