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.A.Jaffar Ali .. Vs. the Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. The appellant herein is the first accused in C.C.No.207 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, and he stands convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c) and Section 8(c) read with 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each offence. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused has preferred this criminal appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:(i)On 21.01.2002 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.3, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B., Chennai, received an information over telephone that one person by name M.A.Jaffar Ali, was leaving to Colombu by I.C.573 Flight scheduled to departure at 12.40 hours on 21.01.2002 and also carrying heroin weighing about 2.5 kilograms. P.W.3 recorded the said information in Ex.P.11 a...
Mr. Venkataraman .. Vs. Radhabai Ammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 1991 dated 20.9.1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai.2.The averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal run as follows:-(a) Plaintiff and the defendant are sister and brother. They had another brother by name Madhavan, who died at the age of three. Their father died on 25.3.1949 and the mother died on 5.4.1979. The father of the plaintiff's married one Nagammal. Since the said Nagammal did not begot any children, the plaintiff's father married one Ranganayaki as his second wife and begot the plaintiff, the defendant and Madhavan. The plaintiff states that her father was the absolute owner of the properties in question. The house has been constructed by the plaintiff's father and the entire family have been living in the said house. The plaintiff further states that there has been no ancestral properties inherited by the her father and the p...
M/S.Rajam Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. All these writ petition are filed by the same petitioner M/s.Rajam Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai.2. W.P.No.13863 of 2005 is filed by the petitioner against the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent, the Additional Director General, Directorate of Central Excise, Intelligence, South Zonal Unit, pointing out certain omissions and commissions constituting contraventions of various provisions of Central Excise Rules in the manufacture and removal of excisable goods viz., Oorvasi Brand detergent soap and washing powder without payment of duty and noting that the petitioner is liable for payment of Central Excise duty as per the Rules apart from penal action, penalty and interest, under section 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and directing the petitioner to show-cause as to why SSI exemption availed from time to time in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 should not be denied as the turnover exceeded Rs.3 crores and as to why the excise duty amounts should not be waived duri...
M/S.Mavis Satcom Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. The writ petitions, W.P.Nos.27357 and 27358 of 2009 are filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax relating to the assessee companys objection for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the writ petitions, W.P.Nos.810 and 811 of 2010 are filed challenging the subsequent assessment orders passed for the said assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. The writ petitioner, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, carrying on the business of operating a Television Network, is stated to have filed its return for the assessment years 2003-04 on 1.12.2003 declaring Nil income and that was accepted by the respondent in the intimation dated 18.11.2004. Thereafter, the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (in short, the Act) was issued along with the questionnaire under section 142(1) of the ...
Sri Varasidhi Vinayakar Temple. Vs. Mr.N.Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff before the lower court against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 in O.S.No.143 of 1993 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in dismissing the suit filed by him. The defendant is the respondent in the appeal.2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The brief facts of the plaintiff before the lower court would be as follows:In 1862, the residents belonging to the Vania Samugam, in Coimbatore Town founded, for themselves, the plaintiff temple to perform their religious functions, communal and personal rites. The community used to elect a member of their community as the trustee from the general body members of the Samugam, in its meeting specially convened for the purpose, to manage and run the affairs of the temple. Such elected trustee was entrusted with the management and administration of the temple and is known and styled as hereditary trustee. Such hereditary truste...
M/S. South India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The appellants are herein rendering cargo handling service. During the period 2002 - 2005, a demand of service tax has been confirmed and a penalty of Rs.500/- has been imposed under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I have heard both sides. The plea of the learned counsel for the assessees that since penal proceedings have been dropped on the ground that the assessees were ignorant of the liability to pay tax, even the service tax demand cannot be sustained as it is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted for the reason that it is clear that before the adjudicating authority, the assessees did not dispute their tax liability. I, therefore, uphold the demand. 3. However, as regards the plea of benefit of abatement of transportation charges, I find that the invoices which were the documents relied upon by the Department for raising the demand clearly show the transportation charges separately and therefore as per Board s Circular dated 1.8.2002, tax is leviable on the cargo ha...
Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Coimbatore Popular Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein were registered with the Central Excise authorities and engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and were removing the excisable goods for the purpose of export without payment of duty either in their own name or in the name of merchant exporter. They cleared a certain quantity of 100% cotton yarn vide AR4 returns to one of the merchant exporter M/s. Preeti Tex for export to Bangladesh without payment of duty and also received payment from the Preethi Tex, Coimbatore. Investigation, however, revealed that the consignment had not been exported to Bangladesh and that the documents produced by the assessees before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to obtain proof of export admittance certificate was a false one, prepared in connivance with the merchant exporter, with an intention to evade payment of duty on the said goods. On this basis, show-cause notice dated 7.l0.2005 was issued for recovery of duty along with interes...
M/S. Viking Tours and Travels Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
Vide the impugned order, demand of service tax has been confirmed for the period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2001 on tour operator’s service together with interest. In addition, penalties have been imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I have heard both sides. During the period in dispute the ingredients of suppression was missing/absent in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of invoking the extended period of imitation. However, the law was amended on 10.9.2004 (which became effective from 28.3.2005) so as to incorporate the element of suppression etc. as necessary for the purpose of applying the longer period of limitation. The contention of the assessees is that, it is the law as it stood on the date of issue of show-cause notice which is relevant and since the notice in the present case was issued on 3.10.2005 (by the Assistant Commissioner) the law as it stood as on 28.3.2005 which was required to be applied, and therefore it was necessary to all...
Cce, Trichy Vs. Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The case of the Department is that the assessees herein are liable to pay service tax on foreign consulting engineer services and are not eligible to utilize CENVAT credit for the payment of service tax by treating as an output service for the payment of service tax. 2. On hearing both sides, I note that since the period for which the tax demand has been raised is prior to 18.4.2006 which is the date of introduction of Section 66A into the Finance Act, 1994, no liability arises in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India - 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) which has been upheld by the apex Court as seen from 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST. 3. In this view of the matter Revenue has not made out any case for confirmation of demand. The appeal is therefore dismissed....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Gangadharam Appliances P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessees that they are entitled to utilize CENVAT credit for payment of central excise duty on the clearances of the final product the respondents had debited the duty payable for August and September 2005 belatedly that is, in the month of June 2006 by utilizing CENVAT credit accumulations of the succeeding months. 2. The only plea by the Revenue in the appeal is that the lower appellate authority should have first crossed the hurdle of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act by either waiving predeposit or directing predeposit and then should have taken up the appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee clarifies that the impugned order itself makes it clear that the entire amount of Rs.4,82,153/- was debited and therefore there was no requirement for filing any application in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and that they had only filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was taken up for final...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »