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.
Commissioner of Customs (imports), Chennai Vs. Archean Granites Pvt. L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Heard both sides. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The authorization which has been filed from the Committee of Commissioners only authorizes filing of the appeal and filing of the stay petition. It does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to file the application for condonation of delay. 3. Secondly, it is seen from the application for condonation of delay filed by the said Deputy Commissioner that the delay is on account of :- “4. As the issue involved in this case is sensitive in nature, a proper care is made in deciding the quantum of ground on which appeal has to be filed. Hence there is an unavoidable delay of 11 days occurred in the finalization of appeal papers. 5. The delay is not intentional. The delay is due to the circumstances beyond the department’s control.” 4. Apart from the fact that there is no authorization to file the appl...
The India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Heard both sides. The ld. advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants had taken credit on cement used for the purpose of erection. She fairly concedes that the credit is not admissible in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. and Others Vs CCE Raipur and Others. [Misc.Order No.296/2010-Ex(LB) dt. 30.4.2010]. However, she prays for taking a lenient view in regard to penal action taken by the authorities below. 2. I have heard ld. SDR. Taking into account the submissions from both sides and applying the ratio of the cited Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra), the duty demand is upheld. However, considering the disputed nature of the issue, the penalty imposed is set aside. The appeal is dismissed except for setting aside the penalty. The stay petition filed stands disposed off....
M/S. Essorpe Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.66,165.55 on 7.12.1989 during investigation and subsequently they had paid Rs.30,000/- on 7.10.1991 as predeposit as directed by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide Order No. 696/1995 dated 27.10.1995 decided the case in favour of the appellants. The appellants have been refunded the amount of Rs.30,000/- but the refund of Rs.66,165.55 has been denied by the authorities below on the ground of time-bar and also on the ground that they have not satisfied the authorities below that the amount was not passed on to anyone else. 2. I find that the demand was on the allegation that the appellants had shown excess wastage of raw material. Hence when such allegation has been set aside by the Tribunal, the amount paid during investigation could not have been obviously passed on to any customer. Hence, I am of the view that rejection of the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment is not justified. 3. I also find that...
Unity Electro Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants have paid service tax amount of Rs.5,35,888/- on 30.7.2005 before issue of the show-cause notice, and along with interest. The balance amount of Rs.91,370/- along with interest has been paid on 27.1.2007 after issue of the SCN on 5.7.2005. The appellants are not contesting the levy of service tax and interest thereon. The appeal is confined to the levy of penalty equal to total tax amount of Rs.6,29,229/-. 2. The learned Consultant Shri S.Kandasamy states that since the impugned amount has been paid before issue of SCN, lenient view should be taken and penalty should be waived in view of the provisions of the Section 73 and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. I have heard ld. SDR, Shri C.Dhanasekaran who points out that the appellants have collected the service tax amount but not promptly paid to the department as per the finding of the lower appellate authority. In such a case, leniency cannot be shown to the appellants and Section 80 is not applic...
R. Sambath Chandra Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the Notice dated 07.12.2005 issued under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).2. The grounds of challenge to the notice are as under:- (i) that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as under Section 36(1) of the Act, the jurisdiction vests with the Registrar Co-operative Societies, whereas the notice was issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ;(ii) that the impugned notice is hit by settled law that nobody can be Judge of his own cause.3. In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to Section 36(1) of the Act, wherein the authority vests with the Registrar Co-operative Societies to take action against the members of the Committee.4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as the Registrar has been defined to read as under:- 2 (23) Registrar...
Ammani Ammal Vs. the Special Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2. The only ground on which the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, is that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai passed as revisional authority.3. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.09.1995, 2C patta was granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 feeling aggrieved by the grant of patta, challenged the order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai. The appeal was also dismissed, on merits.4. The respondent No.3 being still aggrieved, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the District Revenue Officer. The revision filed by respondent No.3 was also dismissed on 09.10.2002.5. There is no p...
Balusamy Chettiar and ors. Vs. Abdul Razack and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is to the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, wherein the order passed in Execution Application No.264 of 2001 in Execution Petition No.174 of 1999 in Original Suit No.39 of 1981 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai is reversed.2. The appellants herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.39 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai for the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and alternatively for recovery of possession, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.174 of 1999. During pendency of the same, the first respondent herein as petitioner has filed Execution Application No.264 of 2001 under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Executing Court after considering the available evidence on record has dismissed the same. Again...
T. Subramanian Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. This Common Order shall dispose of W.P.Nos.398 to 400 of 2006, as common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.398 of 2006.2. The petitioner is running a Carbide Industry under the name and style of Sree Krishna Carbide since November 1998. The High Tension Power is the main raw material for the carbide industry.3. The case of the petitioner is, that due to the hike in power tariff for the High Tension, the petitioner was not able to run the industry in a profitable manner, hence, it was closed from 15.01.1999 to June 1999, and again from September 1999 to March 2002.4. The petitioner submitted the Accounts with the respondent for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 and 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. On the basis of the accounts submitted, the petitioner was fastened with liability, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.5. On the failure of the petitioner t...
M/S. Prime International India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
Heard both sides. The impugned orders have been passed by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the appellant scannot be considered to be aggrieved person. The fact that the appellants have filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders on the Bills of Entry, clearly demonstrates that they have grievance against the said orders and their appeals require to be heard on merit. It is not appreciated that this particular lower appellate authority has been dismissing such genuine appeals on frivolous grounds, of which there are several instances. Such orders passed by him cannot, therefore, be upheld. The impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are remitted back to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision. He shall pass fresh orders after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand....
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has recorded that the classification declared by the importers were changed by the department without following the principles of natural justice. Hence, he has directed the department to follow the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order. Hence, the impugned order does not require any interference by the Tribunal As such, the department’s appeal is rejected....