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.
M/S. Areva T and D India Ltd. Vs. Cce (Ltu), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. For the purpose of hearing of these appeals, predeposit of the amount of service tax in dispute together with interest and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed. We now take up the appeals itself for final disposal, with the consent of both sides. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that demands of Rs.92,835/- and Rs. 23,346/- have been confirmed as service tax payable on GTA services during the period April,2005 to March, 2007 and April, 2007 to September, 2007, together with interest and a further demand of Rs. 8,963/- representing education cess and higher education cess short paid during the period May to August, 2007, together with interest, and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 have been imposed. Tax demand arises for the reason that the assessees had not been able to produce any declaration from the Goods Transport Agents that they had either availed the credit on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service or availed exe...
M/S. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. In this case, the assessee had described the goods imported by them as “Fractions of Crude Palm Oil” and sought amendment of the description as “Crude Palm Oil”. They also sought permission to transfer the imported goods to a licencee having manufacturing facility/refinery. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim for amendment and his order was upheld by the Commissioner (A). Hence, this appeal.2. We find that although the Bill of Entry described the goods as “Fractions of Crude Palm Oil”, the invoice describes them as “Crude Palm Oil” and the test report shows that the goods are “Crude Palm Oil”. In this view of the matter, the request for amendment was valid in the eye of law. Further, the request for transfer of the goods to a licencee having manufacturing facility/refinery for the manufacture of refined oil is also permissible as per the warehousing provisions. We, therefore, pe...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Arumu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / State Transport Corporation, against the award and decree dated 13.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Dharmapuri. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 15.11.2002, at around 6.30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding on a TVS-50 Moped bearing Registration No.TN 29 B 9650 from his residence to Chellampatti and at that point of time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 55 N 0085 came from Harur towards Periyapatti, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claim petition had been filed against the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 3.The respondent Corporation had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent stated that the owner of the TVS 50 and its insurer were not included in the cl...
Selvi and ors. Vs. A.Saraswathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants, against the award and decree dated 31.01.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1080 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 17.05.2002, the deceased Dhasappan and a few others were travelling in a Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN38 B 3845 from Salem to Thittakkudi, when the van was nearing Narasingapuram bridge near Attur Town, the driver of the van had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the lorry bearing Registration No.AP 09 T 7541, as a result, Dhasappan expired on the spot. In the said accident, a case had been registered against the driver of the van. Therefore, the claimants have filed a compensation petition against the respondents and claiming a compensation a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. 3.The second respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited had...
Karpagam Vs. A.Saraswathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / claimant, against the award and decree dated 31.01.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1081 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 17.05.2002, the petitioner had been travelling along with others in a Mahindra van bearing Registration No.TN38 B 3845 from Salem towards Athur. While the van was nearing Narasingapuram bridge and at that point of time, the driver of the van had driven the vehicle in a reckless manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No. AP-09-T-7541, as a result, the petitioner had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries, hence, she filed a compensation petition against the respondents claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest as compensation. 3.The second respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The responden...
Commissioner of Customs TuticorIn Vs. Sripathi Papers and Boards Pvt. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.37/2010 dt. 16/9/2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents imported two consignments (one consisting of 11 containers and another consisting of 9 containers) said to contain “waste paper” and filed the Bills of Entry dt. 9.2.2010 and 2.3.2010. The examination of the cargo revealed that the containers were stuffed with paper waste, along with municipal solid waste comprising of broken toys, used diapers, used sanitary napkins, empty perfume bottles, broken bottles, used battery cells, used undergarments, thermocol, used aluminum foils, packing materials, used leather shoe base, broken CD with cover and used latex white and coloured surgical gloves etc. In both the cases, consignments have arrived with pre-inspection certificates from an agency authorized by DGFT authorities. The consignment was examined by the officers of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board who opined that it c...
P.A.P. Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 146/2010 dt. 26.8.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Original authority vide order dt. 13.1.2010 sanctioned refund of service tax of Rs.1,54,797/- in respect of services utilized in connection with export in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007. The impugned goods have been exported during the period January to March09. Against the order of the original authority sanctioning the refund, the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority in so far as it related to refund of Rs.1,50,855/- which related to service tax paid on commission paid to foreign based agents in connection with the exports undertaken. The reasoning and finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the refund was not admissible is as follows :- “Further the following are the discrepancies are also noticed in the relevant documents of refu...
K.G. Denim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue involved in both the above appeals being common, they are taken up together for decision. 2. The appellants herein are a 100% EOU holding Customs Bonded Warehouse Licence for the manufacture of denim fabrics classifiable under CTH 5209.42 and they were permitted to remove specific quantities of denim fabrics to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of appropriate duty of excise. The department was of the view that in respect of ECRU fabrics and fents and rags to DTA, the assessees had adopted incorrect rate of basic customs duty for computing the duty of excise and hence show cause notice dt. 26.12.2000 for recovery of duty of Rs.1,98,402/- for the period 1st January 2000 to 30th June 2000 and for imposition of penalty, and SCN dt. 7.8.2001 for recovery of duty of Rs.19,298/- for the months of July and August 2000 and for imposition of penalty, were issued. Out of the demand of duty of Rs.1,98,402/-, demand of Rs.1,86,815/- was confirmed and the ...
Kaushal Kishore Sahs Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. During the course of the argument, when the Tribunal exposed it mind after referring to the Judgment of this Tribunal delivered in T.A.No.171 of 2010 relating to the co-accused Mr. R.S.Singh wherein this Tribunal has directed the respondents to conduct denovotrial on the ground that the impugned warrant proceedings under which the punishment of dismissal and Rigorous Imprisonment were awarded to the said co-accused, the mandatory provisions contemplated under Regulations 27 and 29 of the Regulations for the Navy were not followed, the learned Assistant Judge Advocate SLT Chinmay Sharma has come forward, after getting a cue from his higher ups, to make an endorsement as to the effect that since the petitioner has not exhausted his statutory remedy, if he withdraws this petition and approaches the competent authority as per the rules contemplated under Navy Act 1957, the second respondent is ready to modify the sentence of dismissal ...
A.Krishnamoorthy Vs. the Common Cadre Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
ORDER1. The writ petitioner, while working as a Secretary of the Marakkanam Primary Agricultural Cooperative bank, was imposed with a punishment of dismissal by the second respondent. It was against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity, "the Act"). While the revision was pending, the Board of Directors of the second respondent/Bank had reconsidered the issue by constituting a Sub-Committee and the Sub-Committee has filed a report in favour of the petitioner. Based on the report of the Sub-Committee, the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner came to be recalled by the Board on 9.2.2002 and thereafter, the petitioner joined duty on 9.2.2002. However, the revisional authority, before whom the revision was pending under Section 153 of the Act, instead of dismissing the revision by virtue of the order passed by the Board, has passed an order on 14.8.2002 con...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »