Chennai Court April 2011 Judgments
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Eveready Industries (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (A) who had upheld the order of the adjudicating authority regarding valuation of intermediate products manufactured and stock transferred by the assessees from Tiruvottiyur factory to Guindy factory during the period in dispute. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assesees by Tribunal’s Final Order No. 542/10 dated 11.05.10. The relevant extract from the Tribunal’s Order is reproduced herein below:- “2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the Cost Accountant certificate filed by the assessees, certifying the cost of material in accordance with the cost accounting standard-4 (CAS-4) which is the basis to be adopted as instructed by the CBEC. Covering letter of the Cost Accountant is reproduced herein below :- “Eveready Industries India Limited, National Carbon Plant at 1075, TH Road, Chen...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The lower appellate authority whose order is challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal, has relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of the same assessees reported as 2004 (178) ELT 423 (Tri.-Del.), to set aside the demand of Rs.33,31,224/- and penalty of Rs. Eight lakhs confirmed and imposed against the appellants by the adjudicating authority. 2. The Revenue’s submission is only that an appeal has been preferred against the above cited order before the Hon’ble High Court. In the absence of any order staying the operation of the Tribunal’s final order in the case of the same assessees, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:- “We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the appellants are placing purchase orders on suppliers for manufacturing ad supplying various washing machine parts. Thus, the suppliers were manufacturing parts as per the de...
Tag this Judgment!N. Babu Vs. the Commandant, Madras Engineering Group and Centre and Ot ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Even though the applicant would contend that he must be given another chance to serve in the Army by reinstating him, he has incidentally asked for the other reliefs, which the Tribunal Consider it just, reasonable, fit and proper. 2. The admitted facts of the case of the applicant is that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.06.1990 and while he was undergoing training at Training Batallion I, Madras Engineer Group and Centre, Bangalore, he met with an accident and he was released from service on 28.01.1991 under the medical category EEE on the recommendation of the Medical Board. Accordingly, he was sanctioned the pension of Rs.375/- and disability pension of Rs.90/- as per the Pension Payment Order No.D/252/93. Subsequently, during the re-assessment by the Medical Board, on the basis of the Applicants disablement which was assessed less than 20% (15 19%), his disability pension of Rs.90/- has been stopped as per Order No.G...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.R.i. Computers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. The above appeal has been listed for hearing from time to time and none has represented the assessees. Even today, no one appears for the assessees nor is there any request for adjournment. It is therefore clear that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the above appeal, which is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Perfetti Van Melle In ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) extending credit of service tax on services such as Cable Operator, Security Service, Mandap Keeper and Tour Operator Services. The period in dispute in both these cases is Feb.-05 to Feb.-06. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that as it stands today, the legal position is that credit is admissible only if the services had a nexus with the business of manufacture of final products, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (20) S.T.R.577 (Bom.)]. Although the assessees state that Security Services were availed for the purpose of provision of security to their factory premises, that Mandap Keeper Services were availed for the purpose of holding business convention and that Rent-a-Cab Services were availed for the purpose of ferrying the employees to and from the factory, none of these details are availab...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Real Image Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. Vide letter dated 03.11.2010, the assessees have sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Leave granted - appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer Dharasuram Primary Agricultural Co.Operative Bank ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for various reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.2.2008 in OP.No.32/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.3.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant, pledging his jewels on 5.2.1990, 6.9.90, 8.10.2010, 14.12.91, obtained loan, being the member of the society. As per the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioning order, the debt should be discharged within a year, failing which auction should be taken, issuing notice. The opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, M/S.Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., and Others Vs. A.S. Krish ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to replace the fridge with a brand new one with extended warranty or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs.19,989.49 paid by the complainant towards cost of the fridge and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.09.11.2009 in C.C.252/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and respondent in person and Written Argument of respondent, perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Facts: The complainan...
Tag this Judgment!S. Babu Proprietor (Vaishnavi Travel) Vs. Nainar Pillai and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
The 1 to 4 Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for various reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.1.2007 in OP.No.46/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 31.3.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants/respondents 1 to 4, had undertaken a tour from 10.5.2004 to 26.5.2004, to North India, organized and arranged by the opposite parties, by paying a sum of Rs.5500 + 300/- each, in order to visit Kurukshetra and Budhagaya, in addition to other usual places, which includes train fare, meals and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Nk Ravi Kumar Pola Vs. the Union of India, Through Secretary and Ot ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This application/appeal against the order of the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and numbered as O.A.No.19 of 2010, has been transferred to this Tribunal on petition by the applicant/appellant on the ground that he is undergoing life imprisonment at Hyderabad which will come only under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and after transfer, the application/appeal has been renumbered as T.A.No.202 of 2010. 2. The accused has enrolled as a Sepoy/Clerk in the Army in the year 2000 and he became Naik thereafter. He has been charged under Section 69 of the Army Act for having committed a civil offence that is to say murder contrary to Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The victim was Company Commander Major Harsh. Before the SGCM, P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined and Exhibits ME-1 to ME-43 (materials) and Exhibits 1 to 54 (Documents) were marked on the side of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »