Chennai Court June 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. It is brought to the notice of the Bench by both sides that on 27.4.2006 itself, the Committee on Disputes has declined to grant permission to the Revenue to pursue the above appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The MISC application filed by the assessees therefore also becomes infructuous and hence is dismissed....
M/S. Hirusah Cosmetics (P) Ltd., Rep. by their Managing Director Vs. M ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.66,398.68 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.31,398.68 from 11.04.2001 to till date of realization. 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.23.09.2008 in C.C.108/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.05.2011, 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 is the appellant. 2. Facts leading to this appeal, in brief: The complainant has booked 11 cartons of Agarbathis, valued at Rs.31,398.68, for transportation from Kancheepuram to Nasik as Self through the second opposite party by their lor...
ic 28598 Lt Col N.Ganganna Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This application has been transferred from the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow, by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and reassigned T.A.No.200 of 2010. Originally the applicant had challenged the verdict of General Court Martial dated 15.09.1994 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by way of filing W.P.No.3921 of 1996. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow, the same was transferred to the Regional Bench at Lucknow and numbered as T.A.No.251 of 2010 and thereafter, on his petition, the same was transferred from Regional Bench at Lucknow to this Regional Bench at Chennai under Section 27 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 by the Honourable Chairperson of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai. 2. Before the Court of Inquiry 18 witnesses were examined out of them 11th, 17th , 9th , 2nd, 20th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 4th, 5th and 8th witnesses before the Court of Inquiry hav...
M/S. Wipro Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant had imported the impugned “Lead Acid Batteries” during November, 2005 to February, 2006. At the time of import they did not have the required registration Certificate to satisfy the provisions of Rule 6(ii) of the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. They have subsequently obtained the required registration Certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 11.05.2007. The Ld. Advocate states that the application for issuance of the said registration Certificate was submitted by the appellants on 01.12.2005, but the Ministry of Environment and Forest issued it only on 11.05.2007. He also states that the impugned goods were allowed clearance by the customs authorities provisionally with the stipulation that the necessary Certificate would be produced within six months, however, they could not produce the same due to delay in issue of the same by the concerned Ministry of Environment and Forest. Hence, he requests that...
M/S. Shivam International and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Appeal No. C/107/2011 was listed today with a note from the Registry that three other appeals arising from the same impugned Order-in-Appeal have been listed on 17.6.2011. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in respect of C/107/2011 states that he is representing the appellants in all the four appeals and further states that early hearing applications have been filed in all the four cases. As only a very few cases were on board today morning and no cases for the afternoon, with the consent of both sides, the Registry was directed to list all the four cases for hearing together today itself in the afternoon. 2. Accordingly, all the four stay petitions, all the four miscellaneous applications for early hearing and all the four appeals listed in the supplementary list are taken up for hearing in the afternoon. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants had paid 10% of the penalties imposed by the original authority before the appeals were heard ...
R. Kalyanakrishnan Vs. Ramasamy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite party to pay Rs.1,20,000/-, to pay Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed 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, Coimbatore, dated 25.09.07 in COP.No.293/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 31.05.2011, 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 complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for refund of the amount paid towards the unfinished construction of house for Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs....
M/S. Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. During March 2006 to April 2006, the appellants entered into a contract with the transport agencies to carry copper anodes from Tuticorin to Silvasa. For this period, the appellants paid Rs.85,51,033/- towards transportation charges to the transport agencies and on such transport charges, as a service recipient, they paid service tax of Rs.2,25,702/-. The appellants subsequently took credit of the service tax amount. During audit it was found that the transport of goods was done in container by rail. It is the contention of the Department that transport of rail was not liable for payment of service tax prior to 1.5.2006 and hence for the impugned period the appellants were not eligible for taking service tax credit for the service which was not taxable. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they had entered into contracts with the transporters for carrying the impugned goods through road transport only but due to transport strike the road transp...
N. Sainathan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant in these four cases has been penalized to the extent of Rs.74,000/- collectively. The adjudicating Commissioner has given a finding in respect of him in each of the four cases to the effect that he was the employee of the CHA firm which dealt with the impugned shipments where goods were grossly overvalued and there was no realization of the export proceeds. It has been detected by the officials of the DRI that large amounts of inadmissible drawback has been sanctioned in each of the cases. The learned SDR says that the exporters are not traceable and the Department has not been able to recover all the drawback amounts disbursed of earlier. It is the case of the Department that the appellant was required to show due diligence and verify the genuineness of the exporters which was found wanting. There is also a statement from one Shri Satish Kumar given on 30.5.2007 which implicates the appellant and says that he received extra amounts over and above ...
Cce, Ltu Chennai Vs. M/S. Cognizant Technology Solutions (i) P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has remanded the case to the original authority to pass a fresh order after examining the issue of unjust enrichment. The Department is in appeal on the ground that the lower appellate authority does not have the power of remand. This is a service tax matter and this Bench has taken a view vide Final Order No. 1276/2010 dated 13.12.2010 in Appeal No. ST/462/2010 that in service tax matters, the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remand. As such, the Department’s appeal is dismissed....
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. King Point
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR. The grounds of appeal advanced by the Department in the appeal filed before the Tribunal remain uncontroverted by the respondents. As such, the impugned order is set aside to the extent challenged against and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh determination after considering the grounds of appeal advanced by the Department and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »