Chennai Court July 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.
Lason India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
The assessees claim for refund of unused input service tax credit availed for rendering output service exported by them has been partly disallowed to the extent of Rs.28,432/- and Rs.26,927/-. The reason for holding that credit is not admissible is that input services are not directly related to the output service provided by the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that in the case of KBACE Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE and ST, Bangalore [2010 (18) STR 281], the Tribunal has held that refund is admissible only on services consumed for providing output services and has remanded the case of the assessee who is an EOU exporting services to verify the admissibility of credit before granting refund and after ensuring that eligible services have actually gone into consumption for providing exported output service and not utilized for other purpose. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, I set aside the impugned orders ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli Vs. Thiru Arooran Suga ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
The issue in dispute in the present appeals is whether capital goods credit is available on Beams/MS plates/MS joists/MS steels etc. The adjudicating authority adjudicated the show-cause notice proposing denial of credit on the ground that the items do not satisfy the definition of capital goods and he hence confirmed the demands together with interest and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE [2008 (227) ELT 107]; hence these appeals by the Revenue. 2. I have heard both sides I find that the issue now stands squarely settled against the assessees by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. and Others. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned orders in so far it relates to setting aside of demands and interest. However, I agree with the ld. counsel for the respondents that this is ...
Commissioner of Customs, TuticorIn Vs. Hari and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the setting aside of the penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the assessees, by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. I have heard both sides. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs.1,41,000/- on the respondents under Section 112 (a) for violation of Section 30 and 32 ibid in respect of 45 numbers of timber logs (91 timber logs were discharged in excess of manifested quantity). Such penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the ratio of the Tribunal in Prakash Kumar Singh Vs CC Patna [2001 (131) ELT 278] and Shahi Containers Vs CC (Imports), Mumbai [2003 (158) ELT 51]. However, in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) New Cus.House, Mumbai Vs Patvolk [2006 (202) ELT 411 (Bom.)], the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that penalty under Section 112 can be fastened on the person in charge viz. steamer agent. Following the ratio of the High Court’s decision, I hold that th...
Parry Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
The claims of the appellants for refund of education cess on tea cess have been rejected on the ground that the assessees had not discharged the burden of showing that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers. 2. I have heard both sides. Ld. consultant for the assessees prays that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the Chartered Accountant’s certificate to the effect that the assessees have not passed on the duty burden to their customers. He also files copies of invoices for sale of tea in auction and submits that these documents would go to establish that there is no question of passing on incidence of duty to any customers. These documents were not before the lower authorities as they could not be produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) in spite of request for the same, due to the delay in getting such documents from their Cochin office. 3. Ld. SDR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. 4. In view of the a...
President, Voc Industrial Training Centre and Others Vs. K. Ramesh
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
(The Respondents /Complainants filed complaints before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the donation paid, alongwith compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said impugned orders, the appeals are preferred by the opposite parties to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.10.2006 in CC Nos.45/2002 and 44/2002 respectively.) COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties in OP.Nos.45/2002 and 44/2002, on the file of District Forum, Theni, are the appellants in F.A.Nos.617/2006 and F.A.No.618/2006, respectively. 2. The respondents in both the appeals, as complainant filed the case independently, on identical facts, and the cases were also opposed on identical facts, based on common law. 3. The parties are referred in these appeals, as per the ranking in the original complaints. 4. The brief facts leading to these two appeals: The complainant(s), paying a don...
The General Manager, TuticorIn District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
(The 1st Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/3rd opposite party, and 2 to 4 Respondents/ Opposite parties, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh the amount deposited with 13% from 4.1.2003. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.2.2005 in COP No.113/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 3rd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant, claimed a sum of Rs.1 lakh, with interest thereon, from 4.1.2003 at 13% p.a., alleging that she had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh, in the 1st opposite party society, on the assurance given by 3rd opposite party, which was supervised by opposite parties 2 and 4, that for some period, the 1st opposite party paid interest, and thereafter failed to pay the periodical interest, that when the complainant approached the 1st ...
Nagararajan .. Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court IV), Chennai dated 18.5.2003 made in S.C.No.167/2003, convicting the appellant who has been arrayed as A1, for the offence under Section 498A IPC and 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. There are two accused in this case viz., A1 & A2 and A2 has been acquitted by the trial Court. 2. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder:2.1. A1 is the husband of the deceased. A2 is the mother of A1. The marriage between A1 and the deceased took place on 16.9.1999. A female child was born out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage, PW1, the father of the deceased has g...
R. Kavithamani ... Vs. the Executive Officer, Karumandichellipalayam T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. On 12.10.1964 one Muthappan, Ex-service man was granted HSD patta in Karumandchellipalayam in Erode District for 2178 sq.ft. in S.F.No.791/B. The Survey No.791/B contains a very large extent and this 2178 sq.ft. is a small portion in the said Survey No.791/B. On 26.08.1983, the said Muthappan's son Chenniappan sold the said land to the petitioner's father by way of a sale deed registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Perundurai. 2. In the said sale deed, it is clearly mentioned that there was a sub division in new Survey No.812/2 representing 2178 sq.ft. That is while Survey No.791/B contained a large extent of land, Survey No.812/2 measuring 2178 sq.ft. is a small portion sub divided in the larger portion. While so, one Karuppannan, neighbour of the petitioner, filed O.S. No.475 of 1984 before the District Munsif Court, Erode praying for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner's father from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey No.791/B...
K.Bellie. Vs. the District Forest Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The petitioner was one of the 52 Foresters sent for training. The petitioner joined the training for the 6 months condensed course, but he was found in the hostel with full intoxication and causing troubles to his co-trainees. As he was addicted to Alcohol and also remained absent from the training, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed the enquiry officer and thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear for the enquiry. The enquiry officer, after completing the enquiry proceedings, submitted his report, holding that the first charge was not proved, but in respect of charge no.2, the petitioner was found proved by the enquiry officer. On the basis of the above said findings submitted by the enquiry ...
M.Suryalakshmi . Vs. the Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical Univer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2010
1. The petitioner joined M.B.B.S. Course on 31.12.2004 pursuant to the order of this Court. The institution, where the petitioner joined, already sent the list of admitted students for approval to the Medical Council of India and the admission of those students were approved. As the petitioner joined the course in December 2004, the institution thereafter sought the approval of admission of the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Course from the Medical Council of India. Till today, the matter is pending with the Medical Council of India. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petitions every year seeking permission to write the examinations and for a direction to publish the results. The last examination, which the petitioner wrote, was for the third year M.B.B.S. Course, in August 2009 as per the direction of this Court. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to publish the result of the third year examination that took place in August 2009 and to permit her to ...