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.
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 discrepancie...
Arun Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Duty demand of Rs.49,681/- together with interest by inclusion of the amortized cost of repair/service charges of moulds supplied to the assessees, manufacturers of plastic caps and lids of containers, by Hindustan Lever Ltd. and penalty of Rs.1000/- imposed on the assessees stand challenged in the present appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. It is the contention of the appellants that repair charges incurred long after inclusion of amortized cost of the moulds supplied free of cost by Hindustan Lever Ltd. cannot be construed as cost of the moulds and therefore cannot be included in the cost of moulds so as to arrive at the amortized cost. We find that the adjudicating authority has decided the case ex-parte without recording any findings on the merits of the demand and the lower appellate authority has also not recorded any independent finding on merits except stating that, after the examination of case records and submissions, he is of the considered opinion...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Ecof Detergents (P) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The respondents herein were engaged in repacking and clearing Sabeena Handmade Detergent Scouring Powder in packets of 500 gms. 1 kg., 1.5 kgs and 2.5 kgs. They had claimed Rs.260/- per MT as equalized freight as abatement, while the actual freight incurred for equalized freight was only Rs.209.20 per MT. It appeared that ineligible excess abatement had been claimed by the assessees. During the period 1.4.97 to 31.3.98, the assessees had cleared 8359.53 MTs of finished product and availed a total excess abatement to the tune of Rs.4,24,664.12 and the differential duty payable, as there was excess claim of Rs.51/- per MT, was Rs.76,439.54. Show-cause notice was issued raising the demand of Rs.76,439.54; the notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who upheld the demand together with interest and also imposed a penalty of equal amount; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard bot...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue of classification of “Vaseline Petroleum Jelly Perfumed Pomade” (hair fixers) arises for determination in the above appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in Pond’s (India) Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy [2005 (190) ELT 82) accepting the contention of the assessees that the product is classifiable as “Hair Fixer” under CET sub-heading 3305.91. The Tribunal has relied upon the expert opinion to come to the conclusion that the product, namely, Pomade, is used to keep the hair dried, and thus the product is “hair fixer”. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on fours to the facts of the present case, we uphold the impugned order classifying the item under CET sub-heading 3305.91 as against the claim of the Revenue for classification under CET sub-heading 3305.99, ...
M/S. Narton Polymers Pvt. Ltd. S. Meganathan Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. By order dated 10.6.1996 the adjudicating Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of Rs.31,49,461/- and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. While hearing the appeal against the said order the Tribunal by order dated 25.9.2001 had directed the adjudicating Commissioner to work out the eligibility of the appellants to MODVAT credit and redetermine the penalty amount after taking into account the credit entitlement. In the remand proceeding, the adjudicating Commissioner has considered the letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and has come to the finding that on the basis of the said letter the MODVAT credit cannot be allowed. 3. After hearing arguments from both sides, we are of the view that since the cited letter of the Assistant Commissioner was not conclusive and adequate in the opinion of the adjudicating Commissioner, she was free to call for a further report and / or documents from the Assistant Commis...
Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Duty demand of Rs.3,99,500/- together with interest and penalty of equal amount have been challenged by the assessees in the present appeal. 2. The demand has been confirmed on shortage of sugar detected in the factory of the assessees. The lower authorities have also confiscated 4700 quintals of sugar seized from the assessees with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-. 3. We have heard both sides. The assessees have satisfactorily explained the entire shortage and excess as seen from their written statement in which they have stated that out of the total difference in quantity of 7280 quintals, as alleged by the department, 5139 quintals were brought from the Pudukottai godown to the factory and the movement is supported with gate register, 2141 quintals was the stock available at Pudukottai godown and out of 5139 quintals, 2559 quintals were physically present in the factory as confirmed in the verification report and the remaining 2...
Chief Plant Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The applications for extension of stay already granted vide Stay Order Nos.223-225/2006 dt. 13.3.2006 are allowed and the period of stay is further extended. The Miscellaneous applications are hereby allowed. 2. Now, we take up the appeals for final hearing. The issue in dispute in these appeals namely as to whether repacking of the lubricating oil of Chapter 27 of CET into smaller packs amounts to “manufacture” prior to the insertion of Note to Chapter 27 w.e.f. 1.3.2000, stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee reported in 2005 (190) ELT 408 which has been followed in Final Order No.A/239/2007 dt. 21.3.2007. Following the ratio of the above orders, we set aside the demand in the present case which arises as a result of holding that the repacking of lubricating oil amounted to “manufacture” even before insertion of the deeming fiction of “manufacture” by a Note to Chapter 27 w.e.f. 1.3...
S.Amutha Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Salem, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay a workshop bill of Rs.93,410/- with 12% interest from 31.12.02 from till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony loss of reputation and loss of business and to pay the 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, Salem, dated 7.8.07 in C.C.No.57/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.03.2011, 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. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party praying for the dir...
G.Srinivasan. Vs. the Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the provisional order of attachment, dated 05.10.2010 passed under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short POMLA) by the second respondent Deputy Director of Enforcement, POMLA as well as the consequential complaint No.70/2010, dated 01.11.2010 pending on the file of the Adjudicating Authority under the POMLA, New Delhi. 2.The writ petition was admitted on 10.1.2011. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay for a period of four weeks in M.P.No.2 of 2011. In the application in M.P.No.3 of 2011 for suspension of provisional attachment of moveable assets of the petitioner, only notice was ordered. Aggrieved by the interim order, the second respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.4 of 2011. When that application came up for hearing, with the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 3.Heard the arguments ...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jayaraman, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance company against the award dated 30.09.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Ponneri.2. Shortly stated factual conspectus are as below: On 11.08.2002 at about 9.00 a.m., when the injured/claimant was walking on the left side of the road, he was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-05-3924 causing grievous injuries to him. According to the claimant, the motor cyclist was rash and negligent in riding the vehicle and dashed against him. Immediately thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Ponneri and later, at Government Hospital, Chennai. A complaint regarding the accident was lodged at the police station and a criminal case was registered against the motor cyclist.3. The claimant filed claim petition, claiming total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »