Chennai Court January 2011 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. Binny Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. Shri R. Raghavan, learned counsel states that the impugned goods are nothing but boilers cleared in CDK/SKD condition. He contends that these are required to be assessed as boilers as clarified under Board s Order No. 4/92 dated 19.5.92 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and exemption is required to be allowed for such boilers accordingly. He fairly states that the adjudicating Commissioner has not examined application of the cited order nor the same was brought to his notice by the appellants. 3. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal. 4. We find that the instant case of the appellants is similar to the one covered by Board s Order No. 4/92 dated 19.5.92 cited above. The relevant extract of the Board s order is reproduced below:- “3. The Board has carefully considered the issue of classification and levy of duty of excise raised above, and the provisions of exemption notification No. 20598-CE dated 20.5...
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex and St, Ltu, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
Credit has been denied on the following :- 1) Registering and obtaining TRA 2) Trading fee for disposal of scrap 3) Service of vehicles and 4) Consultation for water drawal system. Credit on the first item has been denied on the ground that the assessees did not bring on record any evidence to establish that the imported methanol was intended for the assessees, inasmuch as they have not produced any details regarding the import of methanol. Credit in respect of the second item has been denied on the ground that there was nothing on record to establish as to in respect of which scrap, the service had been availed and the scrap material had emanated from the factory of the assessees. Credit in respect of Sl.No.3 has been disallowed in the absence of any details of vehicles, place where the vehicles were being operated and for which purpose, and in the absence of details of payment, while credit in respect of last item has been disallowed on the ground that there was an offence case ...
Astra Tel Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. and St, Ltu, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether CENVAT credit is admissible of service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Service such as sales promotion, storage and removal of export goods stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Vs Nilkamal Crates and Bins [2010 (19) STR 431] wherein it has been held that since these services are rendered in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, they relate to business activity and, therefore, the assessees are eligible to benefit of credit of service tax paid on the services rendered. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order denying credit, and allow the appeal....
M/S. Tvs Finance and Services Ltd., (Formerly Harita Finance Ltd.,) an ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite party to return and handover the original RC book, alongwith compensation of RS.25000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.06.2010 in OP.No.08/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing today. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent herein, who is the complainant, on the file of District Forum, Krishnagiri, in CC.No.8/2010, having availed the loan facilities, from the opposite parties, had purchased a two wheeler, bearing Regn. No.TN 24 Z 9492, on 1...
indirani Vs. Dr. R. Chinnappan Government Mohan Kumaramangalam and Ano ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
The Petitioner as complainant filed a petition before the District Forum for cross examination of certain doctors. The District Forum has dismissed the petition. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.08.2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either parties, this commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. (Open court) 1. The Revision Petitioner, as complainant, approached the District Forum, in C.C.No.12/2007. seeking certain reliefs, against the opposite parties, who are the respondent in this Revision, alleging as if they have committed medical negligence elsewhere in the year 1997, which is pending since the doctors have opposed the case, on various grounds. 2. Pending disposal of the case, the opposite parties have filed a petition CMP.No.81/2010, seeking a prayer as follows: pray this Honourable Forum that the summons...
M/S. Bhavane Pte Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
The above appeal arises against confiscation of cosmetics supplied by the appellants herein, for contravention of the provisions of Section 46 (the importer M/s. Raders and Co. did not file the Bill of Entry for the consignment) with an option for redemption for the purpose of re-export on payment of a fine of Rs. Three lakhs. 2. I have heard both sides. The confiscation of the goods is on the ground that the importer failed to file the Bill of Entry within the period stipulated in law. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that this does not amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 111 and therefore agree that the goods are not liable for confiscation. I, therefore, set aside the confiscation and allow the appeal....
M/S. Reshmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
The appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC for simultaneous availment of CENVAT credit and depreciation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the assessees have voluntarily reversed the credit availed when it was pointed out that simultaneous benefit of CENVAT credit and income tax depreciation were not permissible under the Central Excise law. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the assessees had any malafide intention to suppress any facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Applying the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004-TIOL-551 and CCE Vs. Hemnil Metal Processors P. Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-472, I set aside the penalty and allow the appeal....
ic-43708n Lt Col Prithiviraj Patnaik Vs. Government of India, Through ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
(Order of the Court was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This unfortunate applicant, knocked at the doors of the Honourable High Court of Delhi by way of filing W.P.(C).No.5378 of 2002 challenging the Battle Performance Report for the period from 24th May 1999 to 13th July 1999 as recorded by the competent authority with bias/subjectivity and also challenging the Confidential Report recorded for the period from 1st June 1998 to 31st May 1999, 1st June 1999 to 19th September 1999 and after contest by the respondents, got a favourable order in respect of the relief of adverse entries relating to the Battle Performance Report for the relevant period set aside by the Honourable High Court of Delhi and also got his promotion from the rank of Major to the rank of Lt Col during the pendency of the W.P.No.5378 of 2002, has come forward with this application before this Tribunal as a second round of litigation challenging the impugned order of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in No.P...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›