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, Puducherry Vs. M/S. Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of service tax on the ground that the tax was paid by the goods transport agency and therefore the question of payment once again on same services did not arise. He has also set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. This is why the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara - 2009 (13) STR 421 to hold that the assessee is not required to pay service tax once again. No contrary decision has been brought to my notice by the learned SDR. Nor has the operation of the Tribunal’s order been stayed or the order reversed by any superior forum. Since the decision of the Tribunal in Navyug Alloys (supra) is the only decision on this point, following the ratio of the same, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Kooltread Ltd Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Credit of duty has been disallowed to the assessees herein who are providing maintenance and repair services to M/s.BSNL, Nagercoil mainly for tyres, on the ground that it was taken on the strength of branch transfer invoices which were not legal documents for availing MODVAT credit. Further, penalty has been imposed on the assessees in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I have heard both sides. The evidence on record shows that the inputs on which credit was taken were duty paid. The credit taken by the transferring unit and also by the unit for which the original invoice was preferred has been reversed, as verified by the Assistant Commissioner in his report addressed to the O/o Jt. Chief Departmental Representative of the Tribunal. The report discloses one discrepancy of taking of credit of Rs.852.75 while the amount shown in the invoice was Rs.825.73. However, this discrepancy is also explained satisfactorily by the assessees who have stated that the amount was wro...
C. Nagarajan Vs. the Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner monthly pension commuted value of pension along with arrears and interest for the delayed payment as per order in Ref. No. TNSTC.KD. I /AO7/PF3/PPO-577/2003, dated 19.02.2003 passed by the respondent.2. The petitioner herein joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Driver on 23.08.1976. According to him, due to continuous strain and stress involved in the work, he suffered heart alignment and he was forced to take treatment. Hence, he opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as VRS). According to the petitioner his VRS application was accepted by the respondent and he was permitted to retire from services on 27.09.1998. As per the terms of the settlement arrived at between the workman federation and the Management, the pe...
M.Mahalingam.Vs. Abdul Bari ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 7.9.2006, made in A.S.No.57 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Myladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 29.9.2005, made in O.S.No.542 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Myladuthurai. 2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.542 of 1998, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The suit had been filed praying for a decree, directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property, to pay the sum of Rs.1,000/-, being the value of the bamboo cut and carried away by the defendant, from the suit property, and to direct the defendant to pay the future mesne profits, and for costs. 3. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.542 of 1998, has stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the tress therein, by putting up a fence around the said property, from the time of its...
M/S.Ncr Corporation Indian Private Limited,vs. Member (Central Excise) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the first respondent suspending CENVAT credit facility for a period from 22.7.2010 to 15.10.2010 to the petitioner Company.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ATM machines and their parts, which is falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff and it is having Central Excise Registration. According to the petitioner Company it is discharging its Excise Duty liability by paying about a sum of Rs.36 crores per annum. (b) It is claimed by the petitioner that during the period from October, 2008 to December, 2008, due to the change in staff attending Central Excise CENVAT credit work, there was duplication in the entry of credit to the tune of Rs.176.27 lakhs, which is also reflected in the monthly ER1 returns. On 4.12.2009 the departmental officials discovered the above mistake and recorde...
V.N.Subramaniam.Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, T I W, Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.226 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem. The respondent police had filed a final report against the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. After appearing before the Court, the petitioner herein had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5832 of 2008 before the trial Court seeking discharge on the ground that the respondent police had not filed the final report within the limitation period of three years as per Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. and the said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 02.06.2004 at about 6.30 a.m. and the First Information Report also was registered on the same day at about 7.30 a.m. The maximum period of punishmen...
M.Rajendran. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.9412 of 2000, challenging the order of removal from service. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.32056 of 2005.2. The petitioner, M.Rajendran, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer in Uthamanoor Village, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, was trapped and arrested on 29.08.89 at 8.30 hrs. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, on the ground that he demanded and accepted Rs.50/- as bribe from Santhiagu S/o Soosai, Kodimangalam Village, for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 of Kundukulam Village. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a criminal case against him and charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivaganga. But, the said criminal case was ended in acqu...
P.Murugaiayan ... Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.7329 of 2000. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.40755 of 2006.2. The petitioner, after his appointment as Junior Assistant during July, 1962, was promoted as Assistant in the year 1971 and subsequently, in the year 1993, he was further promoted as Superintendent. Finally, he was again promoted as Junior Administrative Officer during the year 1998 and on reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.11.2000. Whileso, the petitioner sought for a prayer to include his name at the appropriate place in the panel for the year 1998-99 and promote him as Administrative Officer from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted with all service and monetary benefits. As per the guidelines prescribed for the promotion of Administrative Officer from the post of Junior Admin...
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.Admn. Department, and anr.Vs. Sri Ayyap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai, who figured as the defendants in O.S.No.4429 of 1989 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants herein. Sree Ayyappa Baktha Sabha represented by its Secretary K.V.Thangappan Nair, the plaintiff in the above suit, is the respondent in this appeal. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai in O.A.No.4/1984 under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for getting a declaration that Sree Ayyappa temple constructed by the respondent/plaintiff sabha in the property bearing New No.45, (Old No.28), Sir Madhavan Nair Road, Madhavan Nair Colony, Nungambakkamm, Madras-600 034 was not a Hindu public religious institution coming under ...
Coimbatore Regional Mill Labour Union.Vs. National Textile Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, both writ petitions are taken up together.2.The writ petition in W.P.No.1440 of 2010 has been filed by the Coimbatore Regional Mill Labour Union (shortly "the CRML Union"). 3.The writ petition in W.P.No.5030 of 2010 has been filed by the Coimbatore District Mill Labour Union (shortly "the CDML Union").4.Both the Unions are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The members of both the Unions are workmen, employed in the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (shortly "the Corporation"). The Corporation is fully owned by the Government of India. The Corporation runs textile mills in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andra Pradesh and Mahe in Pondicherry. 7 textile mills are owned by the Corporation in Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu; 5 textile mills in Kerala; 1 textile mill in Andhra Pradesh and one in Mahe in Pondicherry. We are now concerned with the textile mills in the State of Tamil Nadu.5.Many Unions are functionin...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »