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.
S.Usha Selvi. Vs. the Competent Authority, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and the appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.15017 of 1999, dated 12.08.2008.2. The matter arises under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short the "Act").3. The appellant purchased an immovable property in Door No.16G/1B, Jaihindpuram, Nehru Street, Madurai-11 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Property'), from the fourth respondent herein by means a registered sale deed, dated 01.02.1999. The fourth respondent had earlier purchased the property from the third respondent by sale deed dated 06.03.1995. It appears that a notice dated 04.11.1993 was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, giving notice of forfeiture of the said property and the notice was issued to the third respondent, who is the wife of one Mr.V.Karuppaiah. This notice of forfeiture culminated in an order of forfeiture passed under Section 7 of the Act, by order dated 25.02.1999. Thereafter, the fi...
S.Ramasamy, and anr. Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this writ petition, the factual matrix needs to be placed on record.2.The lands admeasuring an extent of 20.80 acres comprised in Survey No.48/2 (part) in Veerachipalayam Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, have been owned jointly by two temples namely, Arulmighu Thanneer Kattu Perumal Thirukoil and Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukoil, the petitioners herein. 3.The petitioner temples are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "H.R.&C.E.; Act") right from the year 1966 and even prior to it. A letter was issued by two of the three trustees of the 2nd petitioner temple stating that consent has been given for the removal of limestone from the land situated in Survey No.48/2 in 14 acres belonging to the petitioners out of 20 acres and payment for the same at Rs.500/- per year. 4.After obtaining the said consent, an application was made by the respondent No.4 f...
Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant being a State Government undertaking, clearance from the Committee on Disputes is required to pursue this appeal. For want of COD clearance, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Dcw Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the inclusion of handling charges incurred within the factory in the assessable value of Spent Sulphuric Acid - hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that setting aside of inclusion of handling charges was on the ground that Spent Sulphuric Acid is not an excisable commodity liable to duty. However, this finding is no longer sustainable in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE Ahmedabad Vs Keti Chemicals [1999 (113) ELT 689] holding that Spent Sulphuric Acid is a manufactured product and has to suffer duty. The only question therefore remaining for us to decide is the inclusion of handling charges. Once the product is required to discharge duty liability, all the charges incurred within the factory of manufacture are includible in the asses...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Vijex Sales Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the declared value of Rs.11,93,010 as the transaction value, setting aside the enhancement of value to Rs.13,11,856/-, holding that the goods have been imported in violation of the provisions of Section 111 (d) as the goods required a licence for valid import, and reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs.2 lakhs and penalty to Rs.50,000/- . 2. We have heard both sides. The goods in question are old and new photocopiers. Since the import was in Nov-03, there is no requirement that the goods are to be imported under a licence, in the light of apex court’s decision in Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, Cochin [2009 (235) ELT 385 (SC)] holding that in the case of import of old and new photocopiers prior to 19.10.05, there was no necessity for possession of licence by the importer of such machines. As regards valuation, ld.counsel for the assessees fairly accepts the enhanced value of Rs....
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Vijex Office Equipment P. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. Value declared for Thermal Transfer Ribbon and Toner was compared with NIDB data and found to be on the lower side and hence the value thereof was enhanced to Rs.2,87,731.20, rendering the goods liable for confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs.70,000/- and penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs whose order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that determination of value under Rule 8 is questionable as the rejection of the declared value itself is wrong and further, value of Katun brand declared was compared with that of LG brand toner and since the brands were different, the value of LG brand toner could not be adopted for Katun brand toner. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that Katun brand toner which is used in Canon photocopier is comparable in quality to LG toner. The importers have not successfully dislodg...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Srf Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue objects to the taking of credit by the assessees of duty paid on inputs by the supplier on the ground that the inputs were not dutiable as they were exempt under a notification. 2. We have heard both sides and find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in SRF Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai - Final Order No.2000/01 dt. 7.12.2000 to extend credit on Nylon Polymide Chips which are the inputs supplied to the assessees. The Revenue’s reference petition to the Hon’be High Court, Madras stands dismissed as seen from 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.). Following the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court’s decision cited supra, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeal....
S.K.Raman. Vs. J.Dhonan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.C.No.1982 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam and the respondent herein is the complainant. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and he was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The said conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of the Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam in Crl.A.No.35 of 2002. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision.2. Though notice was ordered to the respondent/complainant, the same could not be served on him. The Village Administrative Officer of Ooty Town at Nilgiris District reported that the complainant is not residing in the given address. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, has also given a report stating that the whereabouts of the com...
Prabakar @ Babuji. Vs. Shyamala, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant herein and he filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, in A.S.No.38 of 2004, whereby the decree and judgment dated 05.03.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, in O.S.No.53 of 1994, were affirmed.2. The appellant herein filed the suit in O.S.No.53 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvallur, against the respondents as defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute title holder with regard to the suit schedule mentioned properties; for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and her men from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit items; and for a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from effecting transfer of patta in the name of the 1st defendant or her nominees.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as fol...
Jayalakshmi. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 5.4.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner by name R.Arivazhagan was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding her as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of that Act. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and all the materials and in particular, the order under challenge were scrutinized. 3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) J3 Guindy PS Cr.No.869/2008 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(2) IPC; (2) Thazhambur PS Cr.No.167/2009 under Sec.302 IPC and (3) J3 Guindy PS Cr.No.75/2010 under Sections 341, 384, 307, 336 and 506(2) IPC and also in one ground case registered by J3 Guindy PS in Crime No.158/2010 under Sections 341, 336, 307, 392 r/w 506(2) IPC for an occurrence that has taken place on 28.3.2010, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials has made the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »