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.
J.Doss, and ors. Vs. Rukmangadhan ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.7.2005, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, in A.S.No.38 of 2004, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.9.2002, passed by the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.825 of 1983.2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 5,6,8 and 9 in the suit and the legal heirs of one Mahalingam, the third appellant, in A.S.No.38 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.825 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, praying for a decree and judgment directing the defendants 2 to 5 therein to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for costs.3. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 30.9.2002, had directed the defendants in the suit to handover possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, within a period of three months. The defendants, had filed an app...
The Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, and ors. Vs. Mamata Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
1. The first respondent was aggrieved by an order of transfer and her case in brief is as follows:2. She joined Kendriya Vidyala Island grounds, Chennai on 2.12.1995 as a Physical Education Teacher. She was transferred to DGQA Complex, Chennai on 3.6.2005. She joined on 10.6.2005. Within seven days thereafter, she was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Army Area, Pune by order dated 17.6.2005. One year later, by order dated 14.7.2006 she was again transferred to Island grounds, Chennai. Before she had completed the period of three years and in violation of the transfer policy, she was transferred to Coimbatore by the proceedings dated 18.6.2009 to accommodate one Mr.Palanisamy, who comes under the Priority Category for the Grant of Request transfer (PCGR). The CAT set aside the order of transfer.3. The Tribunal had observed that since the first respondent had not completed three years of tenure and since the prescribed time limit was not adhered to, the transfer order should be quashed...
M/S. Maris Spinners Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
I have heard both sides on the appeal against confirmation of duty of Rs.2,45,162/- on clearances of used capital goods after a period of ten years after installation in the factory. The demand arises as a result of holding that amount equal to credit availed in respect of the capital goods has to be paid in terms of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 when capital goods on which credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory. 2. I find that although the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad 2008 (232) ELT 29 that credit is required to be reversed even in the case of used capital goods, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Cummins India Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT A120 (Bom.) has upheld the Tribunal’s order that an assessee is not required to reverse the credit originally availed at the time of receipt of capital goods but has held that credit on depreciated value is required to be reversed...
M/S. Motherson Automotive Tech and Engineering Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
The issue in dispute namely admissibility of refund claim of accumulated credit in respect of the impugned goods subject to 100% EOU without payment of duty for further manufacture and export stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal’s decisions in Manoj Handlooms Vs. CCE, Chennai 2009 (240) ELT 158, Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries 2008 (226) ELT 228 and Final Order No. 1102/2009 dated 1.9.2009 and Final Order Nos. 584 to 587/2010 dated 26.5.2010 in the case of the same assessees. Although the learned DR would seek to distinguish these decisions by relying upon the apex Court’s decision in Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2008 (229) ELT 641 (SC), holding that in the case of conflict between an exemption notification and Board’s circular, the notification prevails and it cannot be whittled down or its scope restricted by a circular, is not applicable in the facts of the present case where no conflict between a...
Shri F. Alexander, Proprietor Shine Enterprises and Another Vs. Commis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Confiscation of memory modules totally valued at a little over Rs. 38 lakhs imported by M/s. Shine Enterprises with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,32,000/-, and penalties of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.70,000/- imposed on Richard Martin and F. Alexander, Proprietor of Shine Enterprises, respectively are challenged in the above appeals. 2. I have heard both sides. The confiscation of the goods arises as a result of holding that Martin was the real importer and that Alexander who possessed an Import and Export Code was not the importer (although he had filed the Bill of Entry) and in the absence of possession of IE code by Martin, contravention of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 was made out, thus attracting the provision of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and attracting penalty under Section 112 ibid. I find no merit in the Revenue’s case for the reason that admittedly Alexander possesses a valid IE Code and he had filed the B...
M/S. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Revenue seeks to recover duty on HDPE and paper bags used by the appellants herein in the packing of cement and which get damaged during the course of packing. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the demand is not sustainable and that the damaged bags have been rightly treated by the assesses as waste and scrap not required to payment of duty, in the light of the Tribunal s decision in Charminar Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2001 (134) ELT 179 followed in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd. 2001 (130) ELT 475, CCE, Thrissur Vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT 503 and VVF Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman 2009 (248) ELT 593. In the case of Charminar Bottling cited supra, the Bench has also noted the decision in Collector Vs. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. 1994 (73) ELT 72, wherein the Tribunal had observed that the glass bottles used for filling aerated water, which are broken, are considered to be waste and that no MODVAT credit taken thereon is required to be re...
M/S. National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order adjusting an amount of Rs.1,71,691/- against confirmed demand of Rs.2,22,338/-. He has also directed credit of the refund amount of Rs.1,71,691/- to the consumer welfare fund. 2. I have heard both sides. As regards the question of adjustment I find that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2009 (94) RLT 122 holding that on finalization of provisional assessment, excess duty paid is to be adjusted against duty short-paid and thereafter net difference in duty is to be either demanded or refunded as the case may be. Following the ratio of the above order, I hold that adjustment is permissible in law. 3. As regards credit of the refund amount to the consumer welfare fund, I find that the assessees issued credit notes subsequent to the passing of the duty incidence. Applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court&...
M/S. Sree Rayalaseema Hi-strength Hypo Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
The issue in dispute in these three appeals being common, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the exporters for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEPB Shipping Bills. During the period of export that is between 1.4.1997 and 14.4.1998 the goods exported namely hydrogenerated caster oil/12 hydroxy stearic acid were not covered under the DEPB scheme. However, with the issue of Public Notice No. 31 dated 21.8.1998 export, inter alia, of the above mentioned items during the period 1.4.1997 to 14.4.1998 were covered. Section 149 of the Customs Act provide for amendment of the Bill of Entry subject to the rider that no amendment of a Bill of Entry shall be carried out after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse or the export goods have been exported, save on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time that the goods were cleared, d...
S. Jesudoss Vs. A.P. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order and decree dated 09.11.2009 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA No. 218 of 2009 confirming the order and decree dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No. 1411 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:a. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of owner's occupation so as to provide accommodation to his daughter's business.b. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord, examined himself as P.W1 along with his daughter PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The tenant examined himself as RW1 and marked exhibits R1 to R3. Ultimately, after hearing both sides, the Rent Controller ordered eviction.c. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied...
S.Jesudoss ... Vs. A.P.Ramachandran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
1.Inveighing the order and decree dated 09.11.2009 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA No.218 of 2009 confirming the order and decree dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.1411 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: a. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant on the ground of owner's occupation so as to provide accommodation to his daughter's business. b. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord, examined himself as P.W1 along with his daughter PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The tenant examined himself as RW1 and marked exhibits R1 to R3. Ultimately, after hearing both sides, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. c. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »