Chennai Court February 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.
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Pearl Shipping Agencies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Appeal No. ST/540/2010 is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 189/10 dated 31.05.2010. The cross-objection No. ST/CO/40/10 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard the Ld. SDR. None appears for the respondent. There is a letter dated 03.02.11 from the respondents, requesting decision based on the submissions made in cross-objection. 3. The respondents were issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.07, demanding service tax of Rs. 1,96,358/- on the amount received as sub agent’s commission during the period from 01.10.02 to 31.03.06 and proposing imposition of penalties. The respondents filed reply dated 18.01.08, contesting the demand and submitted that the service tax was payable by the main service provider and they relied on Board’s circulars particularly Circular No. 96/7/07-TRU dated 23.08.07. The original authority has confirmed the demand of service tax as proposed in the show cause notice along with interest and impo...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. TuticorIn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. These two appeals are by the department arising out of common order-in-appeal No. 155 and 156/2010 dated 30.04.10. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of products like soda ash and ammonium chloride etc. At about a distance of 5 kms. from the factory they have a “captive” saltpan and salt produced there is being used by the respondents entirely in their factory as raw material. The dispute relates to availability of credit of service tax paid on security services which was provided for the saltpan. Two Show Cause Notices both dated 21.02.07 were issued, one demanding a sum of Rs. 54,617/- denying the credit for the period January, 2005 to January, 2006 and proposing imposition of penalties and another notice demanding a sum of Rs. 39,315/- denying the credit relating to the period February, 2006 to September, 2006 and proposing imposition of penalties. The original authority confirmed the demands as per the show cause n...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Adhavan Processors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Heard ld. SDR and perused the records. We find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.3891/2000 dt. 20.2.2002 in the case of same assessee, to set aside the adjudication order. The Revenue had challenged the High Court’s decision before the Division Bench by way of filing W.A.No.640/2003 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide the judgment dt. 18.7.2008. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order which we accordingly, uphold. The appeal is therefore dismissed....
R.Balakrishnan Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.7.2003 addressed to the first respondent, the consequential proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.7.2003 and the subsequent order passed by the first respondent dated 24.7.2003, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the first respondent/Food Corporation of India. 2.1. The writ petitioner has joined in the services of the first respondent/Corporation as Technical Assistant (Analyser) on 30.9.1965 and was promoted as Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the year 1977. On his application, the petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Manager (Administration) in the year 1986 and was promoted as Joint Manager in the year 1993 and in the year 2001, he was promoted as Manager, which post is equivalent to the post of Deputy Zonal Manager, governing the southern States, having office at Chennai. 2.2. The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 28.2.2003, which was subsequently...
M.Selvadurai Vs. the Director Personnel Block-i and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
O R D E R1. Heard both sides.2. This Writ Petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 3.2.2011.2. The petitioner was initially employed by the respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation in their Education Department. He was originally appointed as an Office Assistant in NLC Schools with effect from 11.4.1987. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and his scale of pay was fixed at Rs.550-11-715. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Record Clerk on 3.11.1998 with a revised scale of pay of Rs.580-12-700-13-830. But, however, in the order it was indicated that the said posting is subject to the approval by the State Government. It is needless to state that the Schools run by NLC were recognised under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and they were treated as 'private schools' for the purpose of the Act.3. A proposal for approving the appointment of the petitioner was sent to the State Government. T...
The Commissioner of Income-tax-i Vs. M/S. Zainab Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. The Revenue has come forward with these appeals and seeks to raise the following question of law as substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, treating the production of corrugated boxes from kraft sheets as manufacture for the purpose of Section 80IB of the Act, is valid?"2. To appreciate the stand of the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts of the case. The respondent/assessee company claims that it is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of paper corrugated boxes and on that basis claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, on the profits derived in its business. According to the respondent/assessee, it procures paper corrugated sheets of different sizes, which is its raw material, put them into the designed machines for chiseling them at the required places in order to fold those sheets and...
M/S. Komatsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. Heard both sides on the stay application. The prayer is for waiver of predeposit of demand of Rs. 3,43,563/- by disallowing the credit taken on trolleys treating them as inputs along with interest and equal amount as penalty. I waive predeposit of dues as per the impugned order and proceed to decide the appeal itself. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of Dump Trucks and are availing cenvat credit of dues paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services. The dispute relate to the period October,2006 to April, 2008 and show cause notice for recovery has been issued on 11.07.08. The show cause notice sought to disallow credit in respect of trolleys as well as plastic crates. The original authority disallowed credit in respect of both the items. The Commissioner (A) allowed credit on plastic crates treating them as inputs/capital goods in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Banco Products (I) Ltd. Vs. C...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Psa Sical Terminal Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
Per: M. Veeraiyan, 1. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 202/2010 dated 31.05.2010. 2. None appears for the respondents. There is a request for seeking adjournment of hearing fixed for today. 3. After hearing the Ld. SDR and in view of the order proposed to be passed, it is held that there is no need for accepting the request for adjournment. As the respondents are not aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (A) and the matter stands remanded by the Commissioner (A), it was felt that there is no need to give adjournment as sought for on behalf of the respondents. 4. A Show Cause Notice dated nil was issued in September-07 proposing a demand of interest of Rs. 52,162/- relating to the period December, 2005 to September, 2006, on the ground that Rule 4 (7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, has been violated. The respondents filed reply dated 12.11.07. The original authority passed the order nearly after a year, on 23.12.08. Fro...
R. Magesh Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to the Government ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1) According to the applicant, a retired Havildar of the Indian Army, he joined as a DMT (Driver Motor Transport) in the Corps of Artillery of Indian Army on 09.03.1984. After serving with unblemished record of service in the Indian Army for 25 years, he retired from service. He was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik on 15.07.1994 and was also promoted to the rank of Havildar on 01.10.2002 and then he has become eligible for the promotion as JCO (Naib Subedar). He was meeting the age criteria for promotion as well as ACR Criteria for promotion from the post of Havildar to Naib Subedar (DMT) as on 30.11.2007. The applicant has also served in counter insurgency arrears in Jammu and Kashmir during 2003-2004 as a Motor Transport Havildar. 1(a) He was controlling the fleet of 17 vehicles and 24 Drivers. The Screening Board has also cleared in the year 2006 for extension of service for two years in the rank of Havildar with effect from 08.0...
A.Kajendran Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 10.08.2010 made in W.P.No.25171 of 2003, in and by which the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication on two questions framed by the learned Single Judge.2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal could be briefly set out as hereunder.The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent in I.D.No.81 of 2002, challenging the order passed by the second respondent, removing the appellant from service. Earlier the second respondent had issued a charge memorandum dated 13.06.1997, alleging that the appellant while functioning as a Civil Motor Driver (CMD) in the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi assaulted one Mr.S.Ambikapathy as an ex-employee, inside the factory and that his conduct is unbecoming of a Government servant as per rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.3. It appears that a domestic enquiry w...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »