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, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Madura Coats Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Indoworth India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur - 2004 (170) ELT 46 (Tri. - LB). Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue....
Sima Engg. Constructions and Others Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Heard both sides. The appellants under contract from the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd.. (TNPHCL), which is a Tamil Nadu Government undertaking have constructed quarters for the Tamil Nadu police officials. Shri V.S. Manoj, Ld. Adv., appearing for the appellants states that as per the definition of the expression “residential complex” under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, it does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person. He, also refers to the explanation below the said definition which states that “Personal use” includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. He argues that in view of the above definition and explanation, the quarters constructed by the appellants for the TNP...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Olympic Spinning Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. In this case the respondents availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 with effect from 1.4.2000 filing a declaration under Rule 173B. The lower appellate authority has recorded that this is an exemption available to all the manufacturers and that the respondents were not aware that small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 was available to them. As such, this is a case where the appellants were ignorant of their eligibility to the small scale exemption and this is not a case where they had opted out in writing in the beginning not to avail the small scale exemption. As such, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, we reject the appeal filed by the Department against the same....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Manatec Electronics and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal namely as to whether erection and commissioning charges recovered from the assessees are required to be included in the assessable value on motor vehicle garage equipments manufactured and cleared by the assessees herein, stands decided against the Revenue vide Tribunal’s decisions in CCE, Pune Vs. Nichrome Metal Works P. Ltd. - 2001 (135) ELT 429 and Emerson Network Power Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2002 (150) ELT 722. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon these decisions as well as upon other decisions of the Tribunal. Although Revenue has filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s order in Nichrome Metal Works (supra) before the apex Court, the appeal is still pending. Following the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Agro Tech Foods Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants seek permission to withdraw the appeal. Leave granted - the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
A.Sakila Banu, Vs. .The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2010
1. The petitioner's father was employed as a Wireman in the office of the Junior Engineer, O&M;, Aniyapuram Section, Paramathy Velur Division in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (shortly "TNEB") under the control of the third respondent. It is stated that while he was in service on 20.08.1994, he fell down from the lamp post and died on the spot. However, at another place, it is stated that he died due to heart attack. Whatever it be, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's father died on 20.08.1994 while he was in service. The petitioner's mother pre-deceased him. The petitioner studied upto 4th standard. The petitioner's elder sister got married to a dumb person, due to family circumstances. The petitioner stated that after the death of her father, there is nobody else to take care of her.2.In those circumstances, the petitioner made an application on 10.06.1997 seeking compassionate appointment. The third respondent sent a letter dated 26.06.1997 directing the petitioner to produce t...
R. Irudayaraj. Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2010
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioner is that her junior one Ramalakshmi is getting more pay. But the grievance has no merit. Admittedly, the junior was promoted as Headmistress of a Primary School long before 01.06.1988. It is true that before 01.06.1988, the scale of pay of secondary grade teachers as well as the scale of pay of primary school Headmasters/Headmistress was the same. The junior was promoted as Headmistress of a primary school even before 01.06.1988. But the petitioner never worked in the post of Headmistress of primary school until her retirement on 31.05.2000. Though she was offered promotion to the post of Headmistress of a primary school, she declined promotion to the post of Headmistress of primary school in 1991, 1994 and 1998. Hence, the petitioner cannot have grievance over the more pay being given to one Ramalakshmi, who was admittedly junior at the time of entry into service. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails an...
The Director of Elementary Education Vs. the District Elemenatary Educ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2010
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioner is that her junior one Ramalakshmi is getting more pay. But the grievance has no merit. Admittedly, the junior was promoted as Headmistress of a Primary School long before 01.06.1988. It is true that before 01.06.1988, the scale of pay of secondary grade teachers as well as the scale of pay of primary school Headmasters/Headmistress was the same. The junior was promoted as Headmistress of a primary school even before 01.06.1988. But the petitioner never worked in the post of Headmistress of primary school until her retirement on 31.05.2000. Though she was offered promotion to the post of Headmistress of a primary school, she declined promotion to the post of Headmistress of primary school in 1991, 1994 and 1998. Hence, the petitioner cannot have grievance over the more pay being given to one Ramalakshmi, who was admittedly junior at the time of entry into service. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails an...
Gojan Educational Trust. Vs. the District Revenue Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Admittedly the issue involved in all these cases is covered by an earlier order passed by this court in Tata Coffee Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (3) CTC 614, wherein this Court has held that in respect of the proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the procedure contemplated under Rule 15 has to be followed and the Collector has to issue Notice in Form-I. 3. However, the grievance of the petitioner in these cases is that Form-I has not been issued and the procedure as contemplated under Rule 15 has not been followed. However, a final order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty along with 2% interest on the basis that there has been delay on the part of the petitioner. 4. On the basis that the procedure contemplated under the Act has not been followed, the impugned orders stand set aside and the matter is...
K.Madhavan. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2010
1.This is an unfortunate case where a person, who has participated in the freedom struggle movement, who is entitled for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension as per the Pension Scheme of 1980 framed by the Government of India has been dragged by the respondents only to deny his legitimate rights as per the Scheme. This can only be termed as shame and harassment. 2. It is seen that the petitioner has approached this Court atleast two times earlier and inspite of the earlier direction given by this Court to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of pension on admitted factual matrix, the 3rd respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order once again stating that the petitioner has not produced any records or certificates to show that either he participated in the freedom movement or he was dismissed from service for such participation and was not reinstated within a period of two years. The petitioner, who is a resident of Mahe, which is in the Union Territory of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »