Chennai Court July 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.
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Dcw Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The assessees have asked for a decision on the basis of Tribunal’s earlier Order No. 1047/2010 dated 29.09.2010 - hence, we heard the Ld. SDR. While pursuing the records we find that the issue in dispute viz., as to whether the handling charges incurred within the factory are required to be included in the assessable value of “Spent Sulphuric Acid” stands settled by the decision cited supra, accepting the contention of the Revenue that such handling charges are required to be included in the assessable value of the Spent Sulphuric Acid. Following the ratio of the above said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue. The cross objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to Revenue’s appeal and hence disposed off accordingly....
M/S. Encee Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The Ld. Consultant Shri R. Balagopal, States that he has no instructions to pursue the above appeal. The Registry has also issued fresh notice for today’s hearing and it is returned undelivered. None appeared on the previous date of hearing viz., 11.05.11. It appears that the assessees are not interested to pursue the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Punitha Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The facts of the case are that the assessees herein took deemed credit of Rs. 54,394/- on inputs namely MS bars during the period 25.09.99 to 17.10.99. It was found that the input supplier had not discharged the duty liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, it was proposed to disallow credit availed by the assessees who are the recipients of the inputs. Credit was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner, who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the assessees; the lower appellate authority set aside the disallowance, along with the penalty; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We find on hearing both sides that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad high Court in the case of CCandCE, Meerut Vs. Muzaffarnagar Pipe Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (265) ELT 182 (All.), holding that credit was rightly availed on the strength of invoices containing endorsement th...
M/S. Ioc Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The assessees challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting claim for refund of Rs. 26,46,392/-, on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. 2. Heard both sides. The claim filed for the period 14.05.01 to 13.09.01 has rightly been rejected on the ground of time bar as the assessees claimed refund after the expiry of statutory period of one year. The request for relaxation of the statutory period cannot be entertained as the Tribunal is a creation of the statute. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....
Kaikesi Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Secretary to the Government and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Challenging the impugned order No.G4/VII/MEG/Trichy/455/2010, dated 17.09.2010, of the 2nd respondent, and consequently seeking Ordinary Family Pension, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with this application. 2. According to the applicant, she is the widow of (Late) Spr A.Murugan (No.1328212), who was enrolled in the Madras Engineer Group and Centre in Army on 10.11.1962 and was discharged from service on 30.11.1980 after serving 18 years 21 days in the Army. After his discharge from Army, the applicants husband was re-employed in the State Bank of India, Sirkali Branch, as Security Guard and he died while in service in the said Bank as Security Guard. The applicant was sanctioned Ordinary Family Pension vide PPO No.F/NA/4750/99. The applicant opted for Civil side pension as required by the 2nd respondent, which resulted in the cancellation of the Army ordinary family pension by the 2nd respondent vide PPO No.F/NA/7491/99...
No.1346432 Ex. Sep G. Krishnamurthy Vs. Union of India Rep by the Secr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This is a simple case filed by Ex Sepoy G.Krishnamurthy/applicant challenging the impugned order vide F.No.1(531)2007/D(Pen/Appeal), dated 27.05.2009, of the third respondents, who had declined to give the effective date of the disability pension to the applicant as 05.01.1972 ie., the date of discharge, but sticking on to his view that the applicant is entitled to the disability pension only from 05.05.2008 ie., the date of the Appeal Medical Board. 2. The short facts of the case as narrated by the applicant in his application is that the applicant had joined as a Sepoy in the Army Madras Engineer Group on 29.01.1996 in the trade of DPMT and has served from 29.01.1969 to 05.01.1972 i.e., for 6 years and 6 days at various places. He was invalided out of service in Low Medical Category EEE on 05.01.1972 stating that his disability viz., Sensory Neural Deafness was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The appl...
Dr.Kumaradoss Vs. C.Pathrose and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioner/first defendant has filed the above C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1031 of 2011 for directing the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, to dispose of the Original Suit No.467 of 2008 within a stipulated period. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.467 of 2008 against the defendant, for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit property. In the said suit, the first defendant has filed written statement on 19.01.2009. Thereafter, there was no further progress in the suit from 19.01.2009 onwards. The case is being adjourned from time to time. 3.The first defendant has filed the above revision petition for speedy disposal of the suit within stipulated period. 4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner/1st defendant for his ...
J.Aarthi Vs. A.Harshan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife to direct the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai to expedite the trial in H.M.O.P.No.275 of 2009 and pass final order within a period as fixed by this Court. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.275 of 2009 against the husband for dissolution of marriage, which was solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.08.2001 at Madurai, on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. The respondent / husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.355 of 2008 against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 3.Under the circumstances, the petitioner/wife has filed the above Civil Revision Petition to expedite the trial in H.M.O.P.No.275 of 2009 for final disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has extended her co-operation to the Court for speedy trial. But th...
S.Rasu(Died) and ors. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature Writ Certiorari to quash the awards passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, dismissing the references filed by the petitioners. 2. 12 workmen raised industrial disputes claiming reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. It was pleaded by the workmen that they were working with the respondent/company and doing the work of mixing and loading since from the year 1979. The nature of service of the petitioners was perennial in nature. It was the pleaded case of the petitioners that they worked with eight others in the manufacturing activities of the respondent/company. The petitioners even alleged ill-treatment by the management of the respondent/company. The case set up by the petitioners is that the management created fabricated documents in order to deny the status, salary and other benefits at par with the permanent emp...
The New India Assurance Vs. Sankar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The New India Assurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 23.2.2001 passed in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai. 2. It is a case of injury. The facts of the case briefly is as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 24.5.1998. The claimant, aged 38 years, working as Driver in a private company, was riding in his bicycle. He was hit by the motorcycle driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, the claimant suffered injuries on his back and bone fracture on his wrist. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Ravikumar as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the copy of FIR dated 24.5.1998, Ex.P-2 is the O.P. Chit dated 24.5.1998 issued ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »