Chennai Court March 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.
Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The above appeal was initially disposed of vide the Final Order No.1321/05 dt. 23.9.05 by upholding duty demand of Rs.5,35,066.48 on excess quantity of 182.7083 MTs of scrap ascertained on the basis of weighment slips, less 2% allowance, but setting aside penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer moved the Hon’ble Madras High Court by filing W.P.No.10587 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dt. 26.10.2010 as under:- “10. Section 28(1) (a) of Customs Act clearly says that in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, the proper officer may within one year from the relevant date serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been so short levied requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amoun...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Hybro Chains Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides at length. The department has come in appeal against the impugned order on the following grounds:- 1. Many letters are available on record to corroborate the statements given by the staff of the assessees. 2. The correspondence between M/s. Jagdish Electronics and the assessees prove that chains were made with the brand name “POWER” of M/s. Jagdish Electronics Ltd. 3. Documentary evidence proves that they have regularly supplied the goods with brand name “POWER”. 4. Stock of chains with “POWER”, brand name were physically available on 23.05.2000 and the same were listed out as indicated in the Annexure-A to the Mahazar. 5. The statements of Shri Manjit Sahani, Proprietor of M/s.Kanwal Global Exports Ltd., that “GB” is a marking/brand name of him as mentioned in the purchase order, as also the “WA” marking. 6. The assessees had maintained separate account for production and st...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Premier Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Credit of Rs.22,17,900/- taken as BED and SED and Rs.3,32,686/- taken as AED (TandT) has been disallowed on Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) purchased by the assessees and sent directly to job workers for conversion into twisted yarn under Rule 57F(2) challan and then returned to the assessees for use in further manufacture of finished fabrics cleared on payment of duty, on the ground that job worker M/s.Roto Spin India, Pune cleared the twisted yarn at “Nil” rate of duty as per Sl.No.123 read with condition No.28 of the Table to Notification No.6/2002 and therefore they are deemed to have utilized input credit on the Partially Oriented Yarn. 2.We have heard both sides. We find that there is no dispute that the twisted yarn made out of duty paid POY was cleared by the job worker at “Nil rate of duty and, “therefore, question of his having utilized actual credit (input credit) on POY does not arise. In these circumstances, there is no reaso...
M.Kittusamy Gounder and ors. Vs. C.V.Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 in O.S.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum- Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Thiruppur.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The suit property originally belonged to the first defendant. On 9.5.1991, the first defendant entered into a lease agreement of vacant site with one Chidambara Bharathi, who is the brother of the plaintiff. The said Chidambara Bharathi took possession of the vacant site and put up building and converted the property into a dyeing factory by investing several lakhs of rupees including permission from the Pollution Control Board and other authorities. The plaintiff also became the partner in the said dyeing factory run by his brother Chidambara Bharathi under the name and style of Vaanavil Dyeing. They have formed another dyeing factory in the nearby S.F. No. and running the present dyeing factory in the suit property through their...
Cc (imports), Chennai Vs. M/S. Raja Manufacturing and Trading Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. We grant the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal and we take the appeal itself for final disposal today, as we find no reason to keep the appeal pending. The adjudicating authority (Dy. Commissioner) enhanced the unit price of “Camphor” imported by the assesses and confirmed a demand of Rs. 40,342/- on the enhanced value. The assessees filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who held that rejection of invoice value was not ratified/supported with a speaking order and also noted that proper procedure for rejection of the invoice value was not followed. He also found that the contemporaneous documents relied upon by the departed to reject the transaction value was not given to the assessees, and therefore, he set aside the order loading the value of the goods and remanded the case for issue of a proper speaking order after following the princ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep.by Its Chairman and Others Vs ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Theni, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay the sum assured Rs.5,00,000/-, to pay the interest of Rs.96,400/- as mentioned in the claim, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental anxiety and agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint. 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, Theni dated 11.01.2008 in CC.No.32/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the Distri...
M.V. Mohammed and ors. Vs. M. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
ORDER1. By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to call for the proceedings in C.C.No.2731 of 2010 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.2. Petitioners are the accused in a private complaint given by the respondent before the learned XV M.M, George Town, Chennai. The offence alleged by the complainant is a criminal trespass. The facts leading to filing of such complaint is as follows:3. The complainant is the owner of 10 grounds of land with superstructure which was the subject matter in a compromise decree in C.S.No.947 of 1990. Out of the said extent, sale to an extent of one ground was ordered under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act in O.S.No.6182 of 1992 by the 8th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The sale was effected and possession was delivered to the 1st petitioner through a sale deed dated 22.2.1995. In the meanwhile, evictio...
M/S.Prompt Canon Services Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
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...
The Management Vs. R.Sitthayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a Hospital. They have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No.386 of 2005. By the impugned order, the Labour Court entertaining the petition filed by the 1st respondent computed a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the bonus for the year 2004-2005 and surrender leave salary of Rs.26,000/- together with cost of the Claim Petition.2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 2.8.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted.3. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent who was employed as an Ayah in the petitioner hospital claimed a sum of Rs.3,40,385/- under various heads including Gratuity, Provident Fund, Family Welfare Fund, Bonus and Surrender Leave Salary. The Labour Court took up the Claim Petition and ordered notice to the petitioner management. The petitioner management filed a counter statement dated 'nil' (August 2005) denying the liability to pay the amou...
A.Shankar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned part of the Government Order No.SS.II/211-40/2008 Public (SC) Department dated 09.09.2008, accepting the recommendation (b) (i) & (ii) of the Commission of Inquiry with a consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, forbearing the respondent / State from commencing / continuing any departmental or criminal action against the petitioner in pursuance to the said recommendations. The recommendation (b) (i) & (ii) reads as under: "(b) Thiru A.Shankar, Special Assistant, DVAC:-(i) Criminal case may be registered and proceeded with under Section 5 of the Office Secret Act, Section 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, Sections 378, 463, 470 and 505 of India Penal Code investigated and proceeded against Thiru A.Shankar. (ii) To initiate departmental proceedings for misconduct and endangering the security and confident...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »