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.
M/S. the Indian Wood Products Co. Ltd Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of “Cutch” imported by the appellants to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 76/86-CE dated 10.02.86, at Sl.No. 6 of the Table thereto. 2. We have heard both sides. Sl.No. 6 covers “Katha (Catechu)”. Although the item imported by the appellants namely Cutch is one variety of Catechu which is an extract from the Acacia tree, it is a fact that only one variety namely Katha is covered by Sl.No.6 of the notification No. 76/87-CE. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that since Sl. No. 6 covers “Katha (Catechu)”, and the Cutch (Catechu) imported by the assessees is also one variety of Catechu, Cutch is also eligible for the exemption, cannot be accepted as the Notification chooses to grant exemption to only one variety namely Katha. We, therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned order denying benefit of the Notification to the ite...
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Belco India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard both sides. I find that in this case the respondents imported the impugned edible food products, which according to the report from the Food Analysis Lab in the King Institute did not conform to the branding, labeling requirement. The impugned goods were therefore absolutely confiscated by the original authority. The lower appellate authority on an appeal by the respondents has allowed release of the goods subject to verification of the expiry date and subject to the labeling defects being rectified by the respondents. The department has come in appeal against the impugned order of the lower appellate authority. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the conditional release order allowed by the lower appellate authority needs to be supplemented by a further condition that after the defects have been rectified by the respondents, samples should be again sent to the Food Analysis Lab and after obtaining a satisfactory report from the said lab, release should be allowed and not...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sagar Enterprises and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Appeal Nos. C/70/2010 and C/71/2010 were heard on 16.7.2010. The remaining seven appeals were head on 17.9.2010. Since all these nine appeals involve a common issue, the same are dealt with by this common order. 2. Out of these nine appeals, Appeal Nos.C/78/2010 and C/80/2010 have been filed by the appellant-importers. The learned counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj through his letter dated 21.9.2010, acting under instructions from the appellants, has sought permission to withdraw these two appeals. Granting the prayer, these two appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The remaining seven appeals have been filed by the Department challenging the orders of the lower appellate authority reducing the amounts of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the original authorities. The details of redemption fines and penalties imposed by the authorities below in these seven cases are summarized in the Table below:- Appeal No. Assessed Value Order-in-Original Order-in-Appeal R.F. Penalty R.F. Penalty (Al...
M/S. T and Co Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The lower appellate authority assessed the value of the used Cylinder Block imported by the assessees at 9185 US$ (equal to Rs.4,41,340/-) and rejected the value of Rs. 9,19,341/- as enhanced by the adjudicating authority who reduced the quantum of redemption fine from Rs. 12.00 lakhs to Rs. 1,50,000/- and also reduced the penalty from Rs. six lakhs to Rs. 75,000/-. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that Revenue’s appeal No. C/353/03, seeking enhancement to the extent of Rs. 9,19,341/- and imposition of fine and penalty as held by the adjudicating authority stands dismissed by Final Order No. 28/2010 dated 06.01.10. In view of the above, we reject the assessee’s prayer for acceptance of transaction value and setting aside of fine and penalty and uphold the order of the Commissioner (A) and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Sri Krishna Smelters
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The demand of duty of Rs.1,67,178/- together with interest and equal amount of penalty confirmed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise against the assessees herein who are manufacturers of MS ingots has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. The respondents have asked for a decision on merits - hence I heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. The demand is based upon higher quantity of production and clearance of ingots shown in the balance sheet as compared to the monthly ER1 returns. Department has not established that there was any actual removal of goods without payment of duty. In the case of Karan Textile Industries Vs Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat [2008 (232) ELT 863], the Tribunal has held that difference in balance sheet figures and RG.1 figures cannot be held to be conclusive evidence so as to arrive at an inevitable finding of clandestine removal. This decision has been followed in B.J. Brothers and Co. Vs Commissioner of...
M/S. DolphIn Enterprises Vs. Cc, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The appellants herein filed Bill of Entry in June 2004 for the import of one set of used offset printing machine with all standard accessories and declared the CIF value as Rs. 10,39,300/-. The foreign Chartered Engineer’s certificate stated that the age of the machine was approximately 20-25 yrs and that the price asked by the supplier appeared to be reasonable. In order to ascertain the correct age and value, a local Chartered Engineer’s Certificate was called for and vide Certificate dated 28.06.04, the local Chartered Engineer stated that the machine had been in use for a period of more than 15 years and had assessed the CIF value at Rs.21,50,000/- which was upheld by the Commissioner, who also ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- together with appropriate duty payable and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the importer. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the foreign Cha...
M/S. Associated Finishing Agency Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Goods imported by the appellants herein were found on test by the Customs Lab to be “fat liquor” and not “Sulphonated Fish Oil” as claimed and the classification of the imported item was held to be under CTH 34.03 and not under CTH 34.02 as claimed by the appellants. The benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 17/2001 was denied to the goods. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellants fairly states that the issue stands settled against them by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Prema Colors and Chemicals Vs. CC, Chennai - 2008 (231) ELT 96 (Tri.-Chen.), holding that identical goods containing not only sulphonated fish oil but other ingredients, is fat liquor falling for classification under CTH 34.03. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Madha Dental College and Hospital, Rep. by Its Chairman, Vs. the Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed for declaring the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, in their Letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1805 dated 10.08.2010 addressed to the 1st respondent, pursuant to an inspection conducted on 02.08.2010 on the petitioner college as biased, malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the permission for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in fresh batch of students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-11.2. The brief facts relating to this writ petition are as follows :(i) The petitioner College is run by Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Chennai, which is a Christian Minority Trust. The Trust owns institutions such as Madha Engineering College, Madha Institute of Management Studies, Madha Institute of Computer Applications, Madha College of Nursing, Madha College of Physiotherapy, Madha College of Education, Madha Dental...
S.Kumaravel. Vs. the Chief Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. The petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.03.1968 in the Nemili Panchayat Union School. He was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School on 12.08.1968. He acquired qualifications of B.A. as well as B.Ed. He was promoted as Middle School Headmaster on 03.09.1979. On 07.08.1980, the Middle School was upgraded as High School. On upgradation, he was absorbed in the same School in the Government service from Panchayat Union service. However, the scale of pay of Middle School Headmaster and B.T.Assitant were same and therefore he did not have any grievance. 2. There was a revision in scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1988, pursuant to the recommendations of V Pay Commission. Pursuant to the pay revision, the Middle School Headmasters were given higher scale of pay. The Special Commissioner and Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai issued a letter dated 15.06.1988 stating that the Middle School Headmasters who are absorbed as B.T.Assistant in Government service...
United Labour Federation. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. This appeal filed by the appellant, United Labour Federation through its General Secretary, is directed against the judgment dated 29th Oct., 2008, passed in W.P. No.20172/07 and 28487/07, whereby learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned orders challenged in the writ petitions needs no interference by the Court.2. The appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P. No.20172/07 challenging the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. (D) No.362, L&E; (C) Dept., dated 17th May, 2007, declining to refer the alleged industrial dispute raised by the appellant for adjudication. The 3rd respondent, M/s. Dynaspede Integrated Systems Pvt. Ltd., also filed W.P. No.28487/07 challenging the Government Order in G.O. No.589 dated 1st Aug., 2007, referring for adjudication the charter of demands raised by the appellant, United Labour Federation as well as the Management of Dynaspede Integrated Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Hosur Electronics and General Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »