Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
A.Ramanathan Vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board Rep. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 7.1.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 7.1.2011, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the third respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks fro...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-op. Bank Vs. the Registrar of Trade Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
O R D E R1. The writ petitioner is stated to be Trade Union, having minimum required membership of the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-op. Bank, as required under Section 9-A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which contemplates either ten per cent or hundred members of the sanctioned strength of the Bank employees. It is stated that the petitioner-union was registered in the year 1958 and it has entered into 8 Wage Settlements with the bank.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent, to start a fresh trade union in the year 2004, stating that the sanctioned strength of the members as 374 with 38 members, have applied to the Registrar. It was the case of the petitioner that the members of the petitioner-union were also shown as members of the third respondent-union and there appears to have been some objections raised and the matter was ultimately referred to this Court and in the writ petition, there was an order directin...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Medical Research and Charitable Trust Vs. the Tamilnadu Dr.Mgr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.1649 of 2010 is for a direction to publish the results of the students admitted to BAMS course during the academic year 2008-2009 in Dharma Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, Sriperumbudur, who were permitted to sit for the examinations pursuant to the order in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.7598 of 2009 and all of them have written the examinations.2. Likewise, Writ Petition No.1651 of 2010 also relates to the publication of the results of the students admitted to BSMS course during the academic year 2008-2009 in Velumailu Siddha Medical College and Hospital, Sriperumbudur, who were also permitted to write the examinations pursuant to the order in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.7599 of 2009.3. Writ Petition No.1650 of 2011 relates to permission to be granted to the students, viz., (1) Achu Thilak, (2) Rinson Kurian, (3) Rijo Joseph, (4) Priyanka T.Ram, (5) Simsy K.Simon, (6) Anusree K.M. (7) Anusha Raj C.L. (8) Resma Ajith, (9) Priyanka B.P. (10) Iren G.Bab...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. K.G. Denim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of customs of Rs.3,63,029/- under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 on goods imported by the assessees and cleared from Customs Bonded Warehouse at Singanallur, on the ground that Notification No. 34/97-Cus. dated 7.4.1997 did not cover Singanallur and therefore the assessees could not have utilized DEPB credit against the DEPB licences under which the goods were imported. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the DEPB scrip was registered at Singanallur and therefore the question of following TRA facility as per Circular No. 16/99 dated 7.4.1999 as amended by Circular No. 70/99 dated 6.10.1999 does not arise. In this view of the matter there can be no objection for the utilization of the DEPB credit to the assessees. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Appalo Threads Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The authorities below have clubbed the value of clearances of M/s. Agni Textiles who were manufacturing polyester sewing threads in the same factory premises upto the first week of January 2002 with the value of clearances of the appellants who started manufacturing polyester sewing thread at the very same factory premises after M/s. Agni Textiles shifted to another new premises. The clubbing has been done in view of the provisions in the small scale exemption notification that clearances by one or more manufacturers from the same factory are required to be aggregated. The authorities below have relied on the ratio of the following decisions while deciding the matter against the appellants:- (i) CCE, Baroda Vs. Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 369 (Tri. Mumbai) (ii) Dukes Pharma Vs. Government of India 1994 (69) ELT 433 (Mad.) (iii) Shyam Sunder U. Nichani Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs 1991 (56) ELT 5 (Kar.) 3. S...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has upheld the adjudication order of the Deputy Commissioner who has ordered that 1000 kgs. of Para Bromo Fluoro Benzene re-imported by the assessees vide Bill of Entry dated 24.4.2002 be assessed on merits denying the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 dated 6.12.96. at Sl. No. 2 of the Table thereto. 2. We have heard both sides. The ground on which the benefit of the Notification has been denied is that the goods are not the same which were exported as they were not capable of being identified as being the same goods which were initially imported and exported and then re-imported, the goods in question being chemicals. We find that at the time of examination the only endorsement on the Bill of Entry is that the packages were opened and verified the marks on the drums with respect to marked description in the documents and this was verified with reference to export documents. Therefore, there is no re...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Castrol (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein are registered manufactures of lubricating oil and lube preparations. They clear the goods through their depots situated all over India. They had claimed abatements of certain post-manufacturing expenses while arriving at the assessable value for payment of excise duty and opted for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show-cause notice was issued seeking to disallow abatements claimed on interest on receivables, octroi, free supplies and distributors discount. All the abatements as proposed in the show-cause notice were disallowed by the adjudicating authority against whose order the assessees preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the impugned order has allowed all the abatements claimed by the assessees and set aside the adjudication order; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard the learned DR and perused the records - the assessees have sought for an adjournment ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Paulsons Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees who are manufacturers of ordinary portland cement in their mini cement plant were availing SSI exemption. On visit of the officers in Headquarters of Anti Evasion Unit, Trichy, and on scrutiny of records, it was found that in addition to the assessable value the assessees have collected extra amount towards freight and handling changes on which duty was not paid. Show-cause notice was issued stating that the extra amounts collected are extra commercial consideration for the sale of the goods and that the assessees have suppressed the facts in order to evade duty. The notice proposed recovery of differential duty of Rs.5,06,806/- and also proposed penal action against the assessees. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who also imposed penalty equal to duty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Vs. Venkatachalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The above second appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 30.12.1997 in A.S.No.59 of 1997 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Learned First Additional Munsiff, Coimbatore, dated 06.01.1997 in O.S.No.1166 of 1994. 2.The un-successful plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is filed for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the temple constructed in front of the appellant's house thereby preventing access to the appellant to reach the highway. 3.The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the vacant land of an extent of 19 cents and sold Northern 6 cents to the third party and constructed a house in the remaining extent. The Southern boundary of his house is the Chettipalayam road and in between his house and Chettipalayam road, there is a strip of land belongs to the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent encroached upon the piece of land in front of the plaintiff's house and has ...
Tag this Judgment!Fomra and Co. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the order of the second respondent, dated 16.12.2010, made in S.P.No.24/2010 in VAT A.P.No.43/2010, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount of taxes and the penalty of Rs.15,93,039/-, instead of furnishing security for the said amounts.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the order of the second respondent, dated 16.12.2010...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »