Chennai Court September 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.
Mrs.B.Rani.Vs. D.Hariparanthamaand anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. The petitioner is the second wife of late Mr.A.S.Bharathi. Mr.A.S.Bharathi joined the Tamil Nadu Police Services as Grade II Police Constable on 13.12.1973. Subsequently, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 02.04.1993. While he was in service, he met with an accident on 01.09.1994 and he succumbed to injuries. 2. It is stated that the first wife of Mr.A.S.Bharathi, pre-deceased him, in the year 1979. Thereafter, Mr.A.S.Bharathi married the petitioner viz., B.Rani, on 08.09.1981 at Annai Velankanni Church, Besant Nager, Chennai. 3. Mr.A.S.Bharathi left two children born through the first wife, three children born through the second wife, the petitioner herein and the petitioner as his legal heirs. Mr.A.S.Bharathi nominated the petitioner herein as his legal heir to receive all the benefits in the event of his death. 4. Based on the nomination and the legal heirship certificate produced by the petitioner, she was given various death benefits. The payment details of those be...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem. Vs. V.Vijayakumar Rep.b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. This Appeal arises out of the award 29.11.2004 passed in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore awarding compensation of Rs.19,59,895/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent/claimant.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 7.7.2002, the 1st Respondent/Claimant was walking on the road opposite to Annur Bus stand. At about 7.45 P.M, the 3rd Respondent drove the Tourist Maxi Cab - Mahendra van bearing Registration No.TN 27 L 3638 from west to east in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Criminal case was registered against the van driver in Crime No.292 of 2002 on the file of Annur Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the van driver/3rd respondent.3. The claimant sustained severe head injuries, diffuse axonal injury on the corpus callosum, subartical areas on both hemispheres. He was admitted in K.M.C.H.Hospital, Coimbatore in the Intensive ...
Arogya Scan and Research Centre (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants herein imported Whole Body CT scanner with accessories and spares and sought clearance in terms of Notification No.64/88-Cus. dt. 1.3.88. The Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) granted to the appellants was withdrawn vide the communication dt. 25.11.97. Show-cause notice dt. 12.2.2001 was issued to the importers on the ground that the benefit of above notification was not available, proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the imported item under the provisions of Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.16 lakhs and discharge of duty liability, and imposed a penalty of Rs.4 lakhs under the provisions of Section 112 (a) ibid. Hence this appeal. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the import is eligible for exemption as subsequent withdrawal or cancellation of the CDEC by the DGHS will not affect the eligibility ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Abbas Khan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue seeks restoration of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the respondent herein [penalty has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals)]. Shri Mohammed Khan who is the son of Abbas Khan files copy of the death certificate of his father. The death of the respondent has taken place on 1.10.2008. Therefore, since personal penalty dies with the person, nothing survives in this appeal against Abbas Khan. The appeal is therefore dismissed....
Chemico International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export-sea), Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. This is an appeal against the demand of differential duty of Rs.2,94,501/- on goods covered by two bills of entry and penalty of equal amount goods have been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The only plea of the ld. counsel for the appellants is that since the duty amount together with interest and fine of Rs.50,000/- were paid even prior to the order determining the duty, the penal liability gets reduced to 25% as per the first proviso to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. We have heard both sides. Ld. DR confirms that the assessees have paid the differential duty together with interest and fine as well as an amount in excess of 25% of the penalty even prior to the adjudication order. Hence ld. counsel is correct in his submission that assessee is liable to pay only 25% of the penalty imposed. The appeal is therefore partly allowed by reduction of the penalty to 1/4th of Rs.2,94,501/- with consequential reli...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Hydro S and S Industri ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on all issues. This was under Order-in-Appeal No.65/03 dt. 21.4.03. 2. Ld. consultant for the respondents brings it to the notice of the Bench that pursuant to the remand, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has passed Order-in-Original No.41-46/2005 dt. 18.4.2005 dropping the proceedings against the assessees; this order was carried in appeal by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No.4/07 dt. 28.2.07 has once again remanded the case to the original authority. 3. In view of the above, the present impugned order has worked itself out and appeal of the Revenue becomes infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed as infructuous....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Numeric Power Systems ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is whether UPSS is covered under clause (a) of Sl.No.1 of the Table appended to Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 1.3.97. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the same assessees and vide Final Order No.1575-1577/09 dt. 29.10.09, the Tribunal has held that since UPSS, as seen from the literature produced, is equipment to protect perils such as spikes, surges, voltage fluctuations, blackouts and other aberrations, it is covered under clause (a) of Sl.No.1 of the Table to Notification No.10/97 and the benefit of exemption under the notification is available to the goods in question. Following the ratio of the above order, we uphold the present impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue....
K. Shaik Dawood Al Kamiet Vs. M/S. Subedar and Sons, Rep. by Its Manag ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
(The Appellant as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/opposite party, praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.625/- being the transport charges, Rs.980/- being the cost of fresh visa, Rs.50000/- compensation for mental agony, Rs.20000/- towards damages, Rs.15000/- towards expenses alongwith cost of Rs.1000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the compensation awarded as per order of the District Forum dt.18.1.2006 in COP No.146/2005.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ appellant, knocked the doors of the District Forum, Chennai (North), seeking the following directions : i) directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.625/- being the transport charges from complainants residence to the opposite partys office and transport charges from Parrys to Shasthri Bhavan (Immigration office) (...
M/S. Autoprint Machinery Manufacturers (P) Ltd Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.97 has been disallowed to “auto print 1520 mini offset printing machine” cleared by the assessees to the Regional Engineering College, Warrangal, on the ground that it was not covered by the description of goods covered under the said Notification - the case of the Revenue is that the machine is not an equipment as claimed by the assessees and only scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment and accessories thereof and consumables, along with computer software and prototypes covered under the Notification. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that a very narrow interpretation has been placed on the expression “equipment” by the lower appellate authority. In the case of CCE, Kochi Vs. HMT Ltd., 2004 (170) ELT 242 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal has held that a Lathe machine is a technical equipment comes within description of goods as mentioned in Noti...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The respondents herein procured 21 Nos. of Refrigeration units for installation of cold storage in terms of Sl. No. 215 of the table to the Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001. They installed 19 refrigeration units and the remaining two units were kept uninstalled in their premises as spare units. A Show Cause Notice dated 30.01.2003 was issued proposing recovery of duty of Rs.40,596/- on the ground that the benefit of Notification above mentioned was not available as the assessees had not installed these two refrigeration units. The demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, who also confirmed the demand together with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalty, holding that, since the two units were still lying in the assessee’s cold storage demand was not sustainable and that the condition of the Notification that the goods were cleared ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »