Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Crp (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. For reasons recorded below, I waived predeposit of service tax of Rs.2,36,550/- confirmed on the ground that assessees were not entitled to avail service tax credit on catering service, and proceed to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. I note that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Ultra Cement Ltd. [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST], the Nagpur Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that credit of service tax would be allowed except where the cost of food has been recovered from the employee/worker. Although, ld. counsel submits that a token amount of Re.1/- has been collected from the employees/workers of the assessee’s company, since show cause notice does not advert to this factual position nor do the orders of the authorities below consider this aspect, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Hon’ble High Court judgment ci...
Tag this Judgment!Cst, Chennai Vs. M/S. State Bank of India, Kilpauk
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The facts of the case are that the State Bank of India, (Leather and International Branch), Kilpauk, Chennai, is providing both taxable and exempted service. As such, under Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they were entitled to utilize cenvat credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on output services, since they were not maintaining separate accounts. During the month of February, 2005, they were required to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 6,56,651/-. As such, they were entitled to utilize cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,31,096/- only whereas, in contravention of the rules they have utilized cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,62,426/-. It is the allegation of the department that the said branch of the SBI did not disclose to the department that they are providing exempted output service also and that they have taken service tax in excess of the admissible 20% amount. This was only detected when ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Tanishq Show Room, Titan Industries Limited and Another Vs. S.Kan ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to exchange the bangle for 22 caratage instead of 18 caratage supplied, to pay the excess amount collected @ Rs.12/- per gram of gold, to repay the excess amount collected for 0.855 gram of gold as the weight of gold as per COA is only 21.105 grms, to pay the difference in the quality of gold sold, the rate of 22 caratage was charged but, they sold only 18 caratage, to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical torture due to their deficiency of service, to pay the litigation charge of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) dated 27.05.2008 in C.C.No.628/2006 This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.03.2...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Agarwal Vasans Eye Hospital Vs. Kasim
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Trichy, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for lost of his left eye vision and for further operation and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony, deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- for medical operation expenses incurred by the complainant and to pay Rs.5000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Trichy, dated 10.10.2005 in O.P.No.56/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on appellant side, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order ...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintending Engineer, Tneb, Electricity Distribution Circle and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Tuticorin alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to reconnect the service connection in KN661 in respect of door number 11/66/50A/1, Polpettai, Tuticorin-2, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for damages as to mental agony, and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Tuticorin, dated 6.1.2006 in C.O.P.No.103/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on Appellants side, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The appellants are the opposite parties. 2. The complainants/respondents filed a complain...
Tag this Judgment!H. Padmakara Rao Vs. the Ministry of Defence, Rep by Its Secretary, Ne ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant, who has been unfortunately denied his re-engagement due to the subsequent contract of disease by name Motor Neuron Disease (S3A3), and was discharged, has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the respondents dated 30th September 2010, which was passed on an earlier impugned order dated 5th May 2010. 2. According to the applicant, he joined the Navy as Sailor on 10th September 1987 at the age of 18 years and is due to retire from service after completing 23 years of unblemished record of service on 30th September 2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. As per the Navy Order (Starred), for a Sailor the maximum period of service permissible is 28 years for Artificier/MER, and 30 years for NMER or till the age of attainment of superannuation whichever is earlier. Initially the applicant was engaged for a period of 15 years and thereafter the applicant has been reengaged to serve for a further p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.image Solutions Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 9.3.2011 and initiate appropriate action against the fourth respondent.2. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 electricity board. He states that no authority by designation "Assistant Director", shown as the fourth respondent is holding the post. In view of the above, the relief against the fourth respondent has to fail. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and in view of the nature of order that is to be passed in this matter, the fourth respondent is directed to be deleted from the cause list.3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal for moulding the relief for appropriate relief.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a transformer installed at the instance of the petitioner in his lands under ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. Pioneer Jellice India P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees are mainly engaged in the manufacture of Gelatin by immersion of animal bones in hydrochloric acid for separation of inorganic matter and the organic matter, which is rich in collagen and is called “Ossein”, is soaked in lime for producing Gelatin. The reacted acid (spent acid) contains calcium and phosphorous present in the bones in the form of mono phosphate. Spent acid is neutralized with milk of lime solution to separate the inorganic matter in powder form and this material finds use as animal feed supplements. In 1996, the department held the view that the above product was classifiable under Chapter heading 28.35 (covering inorganic chemicals and chemical compounds) attracting 20% BED and show-cause notice dt. 31.10.96 was issued proposing classification under the above mentioned heading; adjudication order held that the product was classifiable under CET sub-heading 2302.00 and is entirely different from the one obtained from c...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Ramanathan Vs. Chairman Apollo Hospitals and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This is a complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as compensation, since the opposite parties have committed, not only medical negligence, but also caused deficiency in service. 2. The brief facts of the complaint: The complainant having come to know through newspaper, that the 2nd opposite party is lengthening the deformity in the legs, adopting Illizarov Right Fixator method, approached him on 22.5.95, for which treatment, he was admitted in the first opposite party hospital. After adopting all the necessary tests, surgery was performed on 25.4.95, under the process known Illizarov Ring Fixator and thereafter as inpatient, he was taking treatment, as instructed and as informed as if the bone will be growing, stage by stage in millimeter. The opposite parties have also informed, that the operation was success, and the length of the leg is growing further, advising to continue the physiotheraphy. The co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »