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.
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Chemak Holdings Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The setting aside of the liability to interest for the period prior to the introduction of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. Section 11AB having been introduced only with effect from 28.09.1996, the assessee cannot be held liable to interest when the period of demand of duty is prior to the introduction of the statutory provision for levy of interest. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is accordingly upheld. The appeal is dismissed....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Life Style International Pvt. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The assessees herein are registered merchant manufacturer of readymade garments availing the benefit of exemption with effect from 01.05.2001. The value of clearances made by them during the year for home consumption from May, 2001 to March, 2002 worked out to Rs. 3 crores approx. and the value of clearances during April, 2001 was approximately Rs. 36 lakhs. It was alleged by the department that the total value of clearances exceeded Rs. 3 crores limit and therefore the assessees were not eligible to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 01.03.2002 during the year 2002-2003, in view of proviso to condition 3 of the Notification which stated that “provided that the clearances for home consumption of goods falling under Chapter 62 of the said First Schedule, whether on payment of duty or otherwise, between 1st April 2001 and 30th April 2001 (both days inclusive) shall be taken into account while computing the aggregate value of clearances for...
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. the Aluminium Co
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. The Ld. DR states that the department is in appeal in respect of credit allowed on Non alloy Steel Flat, M.S. Plates, M.S. Joists, M.S. Rounds, M.S. Angles, HR Sheets, M.S. Flats and M.S. Channels used in the manufacture of capital goods namely Gas suction hoods used in Electrolytic cell/pot and in respect of Non Ferric Alum used for recovering cryolite from molten alumina, cryolite being an input used in the manufacture of aluminium. We find that in the respondents’ own case, while deciding an appeal filed by the department vide CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Madras Alulminium Co. Ltd. - 2008 (226) ELT 342 (Mad.), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has allowed credit in respect of Non-ferric Alum used for recovering cryolite. Hence, we find that the department’s appeal is not sustainable on this count. 2. As regards the impugned steel items, the Ld. Advocate states that these items are used for manufacture of components of capita...
Syed Abdul Jabbar. Vs. the Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Pan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.1999 in A.S.No.109 of 1997 on the file of Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, in the Judgment in A.S.No.109 of 1997 dated 13.10.1999 has among other things observed that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and further it is also held that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.20,000/- determined by the trial Court as compensation and consequently allowed the Appeal, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court passed in the main Suit O.S.No.46 of 1996 on its file.3.Before the trial Court, on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff, 1 to 9 issues were framed for trial. On t...
S.Ramadoss.Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the Agricultural Engineering Department on 14.12.1964 and was ultimately working under the 4th respondent. The second respondent, while reorganizing the Horticulture Department in the proceedings dated 24.11.1995, ordered redeployment of persons found to be surplus and under the said scheme, the post of Typist was wound up and the third respondent by the proceedings dated 28.11.1995, by winding up the post of Typist held by the petitioner at Kodaikanal, redeployed him in the place of one Seralathan, who was working as Typist in Dindigul who, in turn, was redeployed to the second respondent. 2. Even though the petitioner joined at Dindigul on 30.11.1995 under protest, the petitioner was transferred from Dindigul to Chennai in the place of said Seralathan, who was redeployed again to Dindigul by the third respondent on 8.12.1995. The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer in O.A.No.3435 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu State Admi...
Mr.M.Vethanathan ... Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The Writ Petition is for a direction against the fourth respondent-The Director of Government Examinations, to publish the results and issue diploma certificate of the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Examination of the petitioner held on July 1993. 2. The petitioner having completed 10th standard in the year 1979, joined the Secondary Grade Teacher Training course at Kalvi Ulagam Teacher Training Institute at Kilithan Pattarai, Katpadi, Vellore, North Arcot District in the year 1985. He has passed in six subject and having arrear in Maths. It is stated that thereafter, the fourth respondent has allowed the petitioner to write the arrear examination in July 1993 with Registration No.413740. However, the result of the said examination was not published and the diploma Certificate has not been issued to the petitioner. It appears that the non issuance of Diploma Certificate was due to the de-recognition of the Private Teacher Training School. According to the petitioner, he has comple...
M.Sivasubramanian.Vs. the Director of Agriculture Chepauk. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Karur. He opted for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 30.04.1987. The Deputy Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Trichy did not forward his application seeking voluntary retirement to the then Director of Oil Seeds, Madras contending that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (CCA) Rules are pending against the petitioner. Finally, the Director of Oil Seeds imposed a punishment of withholding the increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Neither the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Trichy nor the Director of Oil Seeds, Madras passed orders either accepting or rejecting his request for voluntary retirement from service. The then Commissioner of Agriculture initiated action again after merger of office of the Director of Oil Seeds with the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture. On 16.05.1991, the request of the petitioner w...
S.Sivagnanam.Vs. the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Rep by Its Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is directed against the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 18.2.2003 by the 2nd respondent proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. The petitioner was employed as a Driver under the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation in the year 1989. It appears that when he was driving the bus belong to the Transport Corporation on 23.4.2002, while the bus was nearing Valluvar Kottam, there was a traffic congestion due to the reason that the then Mayor of the Madras Corporation was on hunger strike. It is seen that due to the traffic congestion, the movement of the vehicles were restrained and the Conductor of the said bus, namely Mr.Haniff has got down from the bus and greeted the Mayor. However, the charges were framed against both the said Conductor as well as the petitioner, who is the Driver to the effect that they have stopped the transport bus...
Ms.Porselvi.P. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu , and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The Writ Petition is for a direction against the fourth respondent-The Director of Government Examinations, to publish the results and issue diploma certificate of the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Examination of the petitioner held on March 1993. The petitioner having completed 10th standard in March 1986 joined the Secondary Grade Teacher Training course at Lourdu Annai Teacher Training Institute at kandamangalam, Villupuram District in the year 1986. She has passed only in one subject and having arrears in Psychology, Administration, Tamil, English, Science, History and Geography. It is stated that thereafter, the fourth respondent has allowed the petitioner to write the arrear examinations in March 1993 with Registration No.400807. However, the results of the said examinations were not published and the diploma Certificate has not been issued to the petitioner. It appears that the non issuance of Diploma Certificate was due to the de-recognition of the Private Teacher Trainin...
M/S Suri Industries Rep by Its Partner H.S.Suri Vs. State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that all proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the lands to an extent of 3541 Sq.Meters belong to the petitioner concerned situated at T.S.No.15/28 BK 2 of Alandur Village, Saidapet Taluk, corresponding to plot No.7 (NP) Development plots, Guindy, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai 91 as illegal and non-est in law, since the same stands abated consequent to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 and also for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to deal with the said lands as their owner. 3. The ownership of the said lands by the petitioner concerned is not in dispute. As per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, Section 21 enables the authority to grant exemption from the purview of the Land Ceil...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »