Chennai Court April 2011 Judgments
M/S. Ucal Fuel System Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
1. CENVAT credit of service tax of Rs.1,28,914/- has been disallowed on the ground that the assessees did not mention the nature of the taxable services in any of the documents on the basis of which credit has been taken. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the show-cause notice itself proceeds on the basis that the bills raised by the service provider, M/s. UCAL Exports P. Ltd. were for service charges towards preparation of documents and other export related services for exportation of the assessee’s final products, namely carburetor and parts. I have also perused some of the documents and find that the bills of M/s. UCAL Exports Pvt. Ltd. are towards service charges for preparing pre-shipment and post-shipment documents in respect of export of carburetors and parts. Such services relate to preparation of export related documents and therefore the service rendered has a nexus with the business of the manufacture of the assessee’s final product and is hence in the natu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Indo Tech Transformers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
1. Credit of Rs. 2,80,160/- has been disallowed to the assessees who are manufacturers of electrical transformers, on the ground that the credit was taken on the strength of photostat copies of invoice which is not a valid duty paying document for the purpose of availment of credit. In addition a penalty of Rs.30,000/- has been imposed. 2. Heard both sides. The show-cause notice proposed denial of credit on the ground that the photostat copies were not valid duty paying documents for availing credit; however, in addition to this ground the adjudicating authority also disallowed credit in the absence of any corroborative evidence for receipt and utilization of goods (copper wire rods). The lower appellate authority, after stating that the only issue to be decided in the appeal is whether the credit availed on the basis of photostat copies of invoice is correct in law, has also fallen back on the finding of the adjudicating authority regarding absence of evidence of receipt of inputs and...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamilnadu Housing Board ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to desist from claiming any more additional amount arbitrarily other than that of already settled, to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the allotment, to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant, and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost. The District Forum, allowed the complaint 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, Coimbatore, dated 22.05.07 in O.P.No.28/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, 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 party is the appellant. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ranganayagi Vs. the Proprietor, Gowtham Thanga Maligai
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
The appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.31,500/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the order of the District Forum dt.02.07.2007 in C.C.45/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant claiming a sum of Rs.31,500/-, filed a consumer complaint, before the District Forum, Tiruvallur, in C.C.45/2006, alleging that she joined as a Member in the opposite partys Jewellery Shop under a Scheme, paying a sum of Rs.250/- per month for 25 months, under which, the opposite party agreed to give 1 sovereign, that if t...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.Saravanan Vs. the Management, M/S.Nepc Textiles Ltd., and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,696/- towards arrears of amount due to the complainant with interest at 24% from March 2001 till payment, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and torture caused by them to the applicant, and to award cost. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the 1st opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore, dated 25.03.08 in O.P.No.21/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, 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 complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a...
Tag this Judgment!The Franch Express Network Pvt. Ltd., and Others Vs. S. Rajendran Mana ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.60,638/- towards compensation and cost. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.8.2008 in OP.No.53/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 29.3.2011. 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 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to the subject, in brief: The 1st respondent, in this appeal, who is the complainant had an account with the 4th opposite party bearing No.006 1503 10875059. For the transaction the complainant had with the 7th opposite party, he had drawn a cheque, in their...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. the Vysya Bank Ltd., Bvhss Extens ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
The 2nd Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3 lakhs with interest, alongwith compensation,. 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.19.9.2007 in OP.No.22/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 29.3.2011. 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 party is the appellant. 2. The facts leading to the appeal. The 1st respondent/Complainants son, by name S. Marlan Brando had premium Savings Bank Account No.10808, with the 2nd opposite party/ bank, which had a tie up with the 1st opposite party/insurance company, for Group Accident Insurance Policy, wherei...
Tag this Judgment!Sep N. Baskaran Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Def ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant has approached the Madya Pradesh High Court by way of filing W.P.No.11294 of 2007, which was transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow, under Section 34(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.898 of 2010 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow. Thereafter, on petition by the applicant, from the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, the same was transferred to this Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai on the point of Jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, and renumbered as T.A.No.201 of 2010. 2. This appeal is against the verdict of the DCM Proceedings initiated against the applicant/appellant/accused under Section 40(a) of the Army Act for having pushed and slapped P.W.1 07412P Major Mr.Azim Ahmed, Adjutant, on his face. 3. According to the applicant, the District Court Marital had awarded the p...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Trichy Vs. Sbi, Kumbakonam
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned SDR appearing for the Department states that the Department’s appeal is in respect of reduction in the penalty by the lower appellate authority as well as in respect of not confirming the additional duty demand for the period prior to 19.4.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in none of the grounds of appeal from para A to E and similar paragraphs in the Order-in-Revision passed by the Committee of Commissioners, there is any challenge to non-confirmation of additional duty demand for the period prior to 19.4.2006. As such, the Tribunal cannot go into this question in the absence of any ground taken in this regard in the Department’s appeal. 3.As regards the reduction in the penalty, I find that the original authority in para 14 of his order had clearly pointed out that if the tax amount, interest and penalty are paid within 30 days of his order, the penalty will stand reduced to 25%. His order is there...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Bumi Hiway (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appeal has been coming up for regular hearing from time to time and has been adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the appellants. Even today, there is a request for adjournment from the counsel. However, since the appeal has been pending for a long time, we see no reason to accede to the request. Since the assessees are not interested in pursuing their case, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »