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.
Sakthi Promoters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
I have heard both sides on the imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for belated payment of service tax on construction of residential complex. I accept the plea of the assessees that there was reasonable cause for failure to pay tax within time as levy on such services came into effect only in June-05 and the period of demand is July-05 to September-06 in other words, due to the fact that the levy was in nascent stage, assessees were not aware of the levy. I therefore extend the protection under Section 80 of the Act by setting aside the penalties under Section 76 and 78. Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is however upheld as there is no cause to set it aside. 2. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above....
Vivek Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
Demand of service tax under the heading Business Auxiliary Service covering the period 10.9.2004 to 28.2.2005 together with interest and penalty is challenged by the assessees on the ground that the activity carried out by them, namely, processing on behalf of their customers, was liable to tax under the above mentioned category only w.e.f. 18.6.2005. 2. I have heard both sides. I see merit in the assessee’s submission in the light of Tribunal’s order in M/s.Gedee Weiler Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE(ST), Coimbatore [2010-TIOL-603]. Following the ratio of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief due to the assessees in accordance with law....
G. Balakrishnan and Bros. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
CENVAT credit of Rs.35,137/- has been disallowed on the ground that while tax was paid on input service at depots and in other offices, the service was not received in the premises of the factory in which the manufacturing activity took place. Penalty of Rs.10,000/- has also been imposed. Another ground for disallowing credit is that credit was taken on the strength of the assessee’s vouchers which are not eligible documents for the purpose of taking credit. 2. I have heard both sides. I find merit in the submission of the assessees that there is no requirement in law that the credit can be taken only on service tax paid on services received in the factory premises. This view is supported by the Tribunal’s order in Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2008 (10) STR 382]. As regards the second ground namely that the assessee’s vouchers are not eligible documents for taking credit, I am satisfied with reference to the invoices that credit was taken on the strength of in...
N. Sivasubramanian Versus Government of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, as Ex Major of the Indian Army, who has been dismissed from service under the impugned order under challenge, has moved the Honourable High Court of Madras for redressal by way of filing writ petition No.8300 of 2001. The said writ petition has been transferred to this Regional Tribunal after the constitution of the same under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and re-numbered as Transferred Application No.36 of 2009. 2. In his affidavit to the petition, the petitioner would contend that he commissioned as Platoon Commander in the Corps of Engineers on 15.06.1969 and he had put in 23 years of unblemished record of service. But he was dismissed on 25.01.1993 vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi Order No.6(18)/91/D/FG dated 25.01.1993. 2(a) With dedication, the petitioner had served in the Indian Army in the following places: (i) 15 Engineer Regiment February 1970 to November, 1975 (ii) 9 Engin...
Sampath @ Arivazhagan Rathina Padaiyachi (Died), and ors. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in I.A.No.81 of 2008 in A.S.No.45 of 1992, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4. Despite printing the names of R1 and R3 in the cause list, no one appeared.3. A 'resume' of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: A.S.No.45 of 1992 filed by the revision petitioners herein was dismissed. Whereupon, with an avowed intention to file Second Appeal, the revision petitioners herein filed copy application and when the stamps were called for, they were not deposited. Whereupon the court struck off the copy application. Subsequently, I.A.No.81 of 2008 was filed after 1105 days so as to restore the said application, which was struck off. The lower court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application on the ground that there was no valid...
A.Sivakumar ... Vs. the Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The writ petition is relating to regularisation of service contending that the petitioner has put in 12 years of service and that he is not regularised in service. 2. However, today the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 23.06.2010 of the second respondent. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the order dated 23.06.2010 of the second respondent. 3. In view of the same, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ...
L.Santhoshkumar .. Vs. Sri.Arumugam Manager Indian Bank, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 30.7.2009, made in W.P.No.446 of 2009.2. The writ petition, in W.P.No.446 of 2009, is relating to the sanction of educational loan for M.B.B.S. course, which the petitioner is said to be pursuing at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College and Hospital, Pondicherry, under the Gyan Jothi Education Loan Scheme.3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the loan had been sanctioned by the respondents, it had been sanctioned only from the third year of the M.B.B.S. Course, instead of from the second year of the M.B.B.S. Course, being pursued by the petitioner. However, it has not been shown that there was a specific direction from this Court to sanction the loan to the petitioner, including the second year of the M.B.B.S. course. Further, this Court had directed the respondents to grant the loan subject to the norms, regula...
Chandrakanthammal (Died), and anr.Vs. Chittibabu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, namely, the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chidambaram dated 01.07.2002 made in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the said Court. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court.2. As against the same, Chandrakanthammal, who figured as the sole plaintiff in the said suit, had filed the appeal as the sole appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, Chandrakanthammal died and Ramakrishnan has been impleaded as the second appellant to represent the estate of the deceased Chandrakanthammal.3. O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chidambaram was filed for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties by the original plaintiff Chandrakanthammal and for mesne profits.4. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:-(i) One Raju Naidu was the absolute owner of the suit properties. He was the husband of Chandrakanthammal, the plai...
B.Abdul Khader .. Vs. Shri Rajesh Lakoni the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 6.1.2010, in W.P.No.26792 of 2009.2. Paragraph 4 of the order passed by this Court, on 6.1.2010, in W.P.No.26792 of 2009, reads as follows: "4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, within ten days from today and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after obtaining an inspection report from the second respondent and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other parties concerned, as expeditiously, as possible not later than twelve weeks, thereafter."3. Even though this Court had directed the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent within ten days from th...
S.Paulraj ... Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as Deputy Registrar / Special Officer at Salem Agricultural Producers Marketing Society (SAPCMS), Salem during the period 23.12.1991 to 07.11.1994. Later, he was promoted as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies cum Principal of Samiappa Cooperative Management Training Institute, Thanjavur. 2.While he was serving as a Joint Registrar, the respondent issued a charge memo dated 12.10.1999 alleging dereliction of duties as Deputy Registrar during the period referred to above. The petitioner submitted his explanation on the charge memo on 18.11.1999. Not satisfied with the explanation, an official in the rank of Assistant Registrar came to be appointed as Enquiry Officer. The respondent communicated the report of the Enquiry Officer along with a memo dated 21.06.2005 to the petitioner and sought his views thereon. He gave his explanation on the report of the Enquiry Officer on 12.07.2005 and no final orders were passed thereon. 3.In the meantime, he reache...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »