Chennai Court April 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.Tnscp Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants, who are manufacturers of cotton yarn, stock transferred yarn to their consignment agents. The clearance of the same was done by adopting lesser price by misdeclaration of the value in the declaration filed under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per proviso (i)(a) of Section 4 read with sub-section 4(b)(iii) and 4 (ba) of the Act, the assessees should have adopted the price of the yarn on such variety prevailing at the consignment sale point at the time of removal from the factory gate for payment of duty with effect from 28.09.1996. Since lesser value was adopted with intention to evade payment of duty, show-cause notice was issued, which was adjudicated by Joint Commissioner upholding a demand of Rs.60,911/- together with interest and penalty of equal amount. The order was challenged by the assessees before the lower appellate authority, who upheld the demand and interest but reduced the penalty. Hence this appeal. 2. We find bo...
Cst, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Trustee Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. This appeal relates to a refund claim involving an amount of Rs. 20,502/- of service tax and an interest of Rs. 3,378/-, which the respondents have paid. The department is in appeal since the lower appellate authority has allowed the refund. The dispute is regarding whether the respondents can be allowed credit of the service tax paid on the impugned input service. From the arguments advanced from both sides and the documents submitted by the respondents, I find that they are in the business of providing output service being managers of mutual funds for which the impugned input service has been utilized as mandatory requirement under the SEBI Regulation. As such, the finding of the lower appellate authority that the respondents have utilized the impugned input service in providing the impugned output service requires no intervention. Hence, the departments appeal is dismissed....
The Special Officer, Myladi Primary Agricultural Agricultural Co-op. B ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagercoil, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, mental strain and hardship, to waive the loan amount of Rs.49,841/- as per the circular dated 11.7.2006 based on the G.O.No.70, dated 13.5.06, to return back the sum of Rs.49,841/- which the opposite parties are with holding without any reason, and to pay the cost of the proceedings. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagercoil, dated 28.04.08 in C.C.No.81/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.03.2011, 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....
S.P.Rajan Vs. C.S.i.Diocesan Counsel and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ootacamund, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,55,000/- towards the value of the cut logs and firewood, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of profit, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- as costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Ootacamund, dated 23.09.08 in C.C.No.29/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.03.2011, 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 :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties praying for the relief of Rs.8...
The Managing Director/General Manager, M/S.Whirlpool of India Ltd., an ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
The first Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to stop the unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice, to print the MRP and month and year of manufacture in numbers for consumer verification, to reduce the price of the gift in MRP, to display MRP and the discount amount for consumer verification, to refund the gift amount of Rs.2,000/- with 12% interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental agony 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.08.08.2008 in C.C.10/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and first respondent in person and perused the documents, Written Submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACH...
Mrs.Sumathi Vs. Dr.S. Kasthuri, M.D., D.G.O., Shyamala Nursing Home
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for medical treatment and extra nourishment, transport, to pay Rs.5 lakhs for continuing disability, pain and suffering, rendering deficient service, professional negligence, damages, mental torture, nervous shock and hardship and to pay the cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.09.2006 in C.C.166/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the 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 unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum in O.P.166/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy, is the appellant. 2. The c...
Bharti Cellular Limited, Oceanic Towers Vs. N. Srinivasan and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
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 total compensation of Rs.1 1,00,300/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards 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.30.04.2008 in C.C.17/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Argument of appellant filed, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first opposite party is the appellant. 2. The first respondent in this appeal as complainant, claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,300/- with interest thereon, along with cost on the following grounds. 3. The complainant at the request and pressure given by the second opposite par...
M/S.Whirlpool of India Limited, Regd. Office 4-a, Midc, Ranjangaon Vs. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Trichy alleging deficiency against the opposite parties jointly and severally to award damages and compensation of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, mental agony and to award costs of the Refrigerator of Rs.25,000/- along with the cost of the notice at Rs.500/- and cost of the proceedings. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Trichy, dt.20.05.2009 in C.C.No.70/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.3.2011, 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 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1stRespondent/complainant filed a complaint against the 1st opposite par...
M/S. Sam Turbo Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. In this case, the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2.6.98 stands denied to parts of “Fly Ash Handling System” cleared by the assessees (manufacturers of Industrial Pumps and parts thereof) during the period 02.06.98 to 20.09.98, on the ground that the Notification is applicable only to complete or entire Fly Ash Handling Systems and not on its parts and hence the benefit under the Notification was denied to the assessees and a demand of Rs.71,499/- has been confirmed. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that prior to the issue of Notification No. 5/98, list 8 appended to the predecessor Notification namely 57/95-CE dated 16.03.95 covered not only complete Pollution Control Systems but also parts thereof. Parts were left out from the coverage of the Notification under interpretation but reintroduced by Notification No. 32/98 dated 21.09.98. In such a situation, the apex Court has held in the case of WPIL L...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Abiq Plastics Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture of school bags, travel bags and other goods falling under CET sub-heading 4201.90. Investigation by the department revealed that the unit was affixing the brand name “TIP TOP” on the goods manufactured by them, and the above brand name had been registered by one Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman of Bangalore, as confirmed by the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai, in 1986. The department was therefore of the view that the respondents were not eligible to exemption from payment of excise duty under various SSI notifications during the period in dispute i.e., 1997-98 to 2001-02. A show-cause notice dated 19.06.2002 was issued to the respondents proposing recovery of duty of Rs.9,93,250/- for clearances during the above mentioned period, together with interest under Section 11AB and for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as Rule 17...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »