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. Premier Instruments and Controls Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Duty demand of Rs. 14,484/- has been confirmed against the assessees on the ground of non-production of re-warehousing certificate for goods cleared to M/s. Heavy Vehicles Factory. 2. We have heard both sides. The assessees have since obtained the re-warehousing certificate. Since this was not available for being furnished before the adjudicating authority or lower appellate authority, we set aside the impugned order for re-warehousing certificate to be produced by the assessees to the adjudicating authority, who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assesses for being heard. 3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Parry Confectionery Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has accepted the contention of the assessees that the products “Lakerol strong” and “Lakerol spearmint” classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under Chapter Sub Heading No. 3003.39 - it is the Revenue’s case that the products are nothing but sugar confectionery and classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading No. 1704.90. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the products are manufactured under licence for manufacturing of Ayurvedic products. The main ingredients of the products are Sugar and Glucose, Pudina Swarasam and Nilgiri Tailam as Acidulants and have Prophylactic or therapeutic uses. We find that in the case of Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2003 (158) ELT 257 (S.C.), the apex Court has held that Vicks Medicated cough drops and Vicks Vaporub throat drops manufactured in accordance with and under licence issued under Drugs and...
M/S. Hydro Aluminium Extrusion Building System Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The above appeal has been coming up for hearing from time to time since July, 2010. None has appeared for the appellants on the earlier occasions and even today there is no representation on their behalf. This clearly shows that the assessees are not interested in pursuing their appeal, which is dismissed for non-prosecution....
M/S. Henkel Spic (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in dispute namely as to whether free supplies of detergent cakes along with detergent powder by the assessees are includible in the assessable value of the detergent powder. 2. We have heard both sides. We find the issue stands decided in favour of the assessees vide the Tribunal’s order in the case of Kothari Detergents (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 1998 (104) ELT 513 (T), which has been followed in Surya Food and Agro Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida - 2003 (156) ELT 488 (Tri.-Del.). The decisions relied upon by the lower appellate authority namely those in the case of Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. Collector - 1995 (76) ELT 451 (Tri.) and Hindustan Coca Products Vs. Collector - 1997 (93) ELT 180 (Tri.) have been distinguished in the Kothari Detergents (P) Ltd. (supra). Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Kothari Detergents (P) Ltd., (supra), we set aside the impugned orders confirming demands for different periods and allow the appeals....
Regional Provident Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
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 pay pension to the complainant from 31.05.1998 onwards under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 after making necessary correction to make her date of birth as 22.05.1951 and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost. The District Forum complaint the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.02.2006 in C.C.58/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.01.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party in OP.58/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, is the appellant since they suffered an adverse ...
Senbagaraman and Others Vs. Thiru.Anbalagan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagapattinam, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay either the cost of the day of jewel for the A/c.No.16/22 and 14/65 which were illegally sold through auction or directing them to return the jewels, to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation and other costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite parties1 and 2. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to enhance the compensation of the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam, dated 20.12.2007 in C.C.No.23/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.03.2011, 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 :- COMMON ORDER A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL F.A.46/08 : The complainant is the appellant. F.A.52/08 : The...
R.Jayaraman Vs. Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Limited
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Trichy, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay Rs.30,022/- towards compensation together with interest at 12% p.a from the date of demand till date of payment and to pay cost. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Trichy, dated 11.12.2007 in C.C.No.150/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.3.2011, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party praying for the relief of compensation of Rs.30,022/- together with 12% interest for...
Poongol Vs. Union of India Represented by Chief of the Army Staff and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. An unfortunate mother, who had allowed her son to join in the Indian Army to serve the nation, was forced to approach this Tribunal due to the indifferent attitude met at the hands of the respondents, is claiming family pension for the missing of her son in the Indian Army. 2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicants younger son Raman got himself enrolled in the Indian Army as a Signal Man on 14.11. After successful completion of the training, he was sent to advance technical training to No.5 Technical Training Regiment from 19th June 1986 to 23rd January 1987. Thereafter, he was posted to Eastern Command Signal Regiment at Calcutta. There was no information received from the applicants son thereafter. The husband of the applicant viz. Mr.N.Muthusamy became mental after receiving the telegram on 04.06.1987 from the respondents intimating that his son ...
Vanathi Srinivasan. Vs. the Chief Electoral Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The petitioner who is the practicing advocate, has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent, the Returning Officer of Mylapore Constituency, to reexamine the nomination papers of the third respondent and reject the same, if the affidavit submitted by the third respondent did not disclose full and correct information with regard to the assets of the third respondent and his spouse. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. The third respondent filed his nomination as a candidate for the Mylapore constituency. According to the petitioner, the third respondent's spouse also had filed her nomination for the same constituency which was rejected by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the nomination papers of the third respondent was also liable to be rejected on account of non-disclosure of full and correct information. It is stated that the affidavit filed by the third respondent also suffers from several discre...
S.P. Balakrishnan. Vs. the Collector of Chengelpet, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This application has been filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal seeking to review the judgment passed in the appeal in A.S.No.57 of 1996 on 07.09.2006 and thereby to restore the judgment and decree dated 23.09.1993 in O.S.No.49 of 1988 on the file of the trial court.M.P.No.1 of 2007:This is an application seeking interim injunction against the 1st respondent from in anyway interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.M.P.No.1 of 2008:This application has been filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC to receive the sale deed dated 27.02.1936 executed by Manali Saravana Mudaliar, in favour of Manali Srinivasa Mudaliar and registered as document No.494/36 in the office of the Registrar, Madras, Chingelput District as additional evidence in Review Application No.19 of 2007.2. The gist of the petitioner's case would be as fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »