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.
A. Ganesan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of a Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent Collector of Kanyakumari District to issue the rough stone quarrying licence to the petitioner, in Survey No.165 Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, without getting the clearance certificate from the Hill Area Conservation Authority. 2. In the Affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that he is a Class I Government Contractor, and has undertaken number of Government works of the Public Works Department and Highways Department. In order to carry out the contract work, the petitioner is in need of stones, sand and cement. For that purpose, he purchased a stone quarry in Old Survey No.6203, New Survey No.165/87 and old Survey No.6200 New Survey No.163/87 measuring 2 acres 95 cents at Marunthukkottai, Kalkulam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, ...
M. Vairaperumal Vs. the Senior Engineer / Administration / Medical and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment. 2. The only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged in the writ petition is that the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. Standing Order 66 of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited reads as under:- 66. Appeals: An employee on whom any of the punishments mentioned in Standing Order No.61 is imposed shall have the right of appeal to the authority next above the punishing authority, whose decision shall be final. No further appeal shall lie to any other authority . 4. It is well settled law, that merely because a personal hearing is not given, the order in the Appeal cannot be held to be bad, unless there is a specific provision for personal hearing in the appeal. A rea...
Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Chennai Vs. Lm Glassfiber (India) P. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The delay in filing the cross objections by the assessees is condoned. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue. 2. We find that the department is of the view that the extension of the benefit of Sl.No.209 of Notification No.17/2001 dt. 10.3.2001 is not correct as condition No.33 which is attached to the above mentioned serial number was not satisfied/fulfilled by the assessees as they did not possess a valid duty exemption certificate from the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources at the time of import of the goods in order to avail the concessional rate of basic duty of 5% under the Notification. The assessees were, admittedly, not in possession of such certificate at the time of import but had subsequently obtained it from the concerned Ministry and filed a refund claim of the duty paid, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority but allowed by the lower appellate authority subject to verification of unjust enrichment. The non-possession ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Lucas Tvs Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appeals of the Revenue challenge the extension of cum duty benefit, in the light of Larger Bench decision in Sri Chakra Tyres. The assessees have filed a cross objection which is in the nature of cross appeal, challenging the classification of “Wind Shield Wiper Motor” and “Blower Motor” under Chapter Heading 85.12 as they claim that both are motors falling for classification under Chapter Heading 85.01 as electric motors. 2. We have heard both sides. The only ground of the Revenue is that the department has filed review petition against the apex court’s decision reported in 2002 (142) ELT A279 (SC) Collector Vs Srichakra Tyres wherein the apex court upheld the Larger Bench decision. However, we find that even the review petition stands dismissed by the apex court as seen from 2005 (179) ELT A102 (SC). We see no merit in the objection of the Revenue and accordingly uphold the impugned order as regards re-determination of value...
Perfetti Van Melle India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Che ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Heard both sides on the appeal against the denial of CENVAT credit on tattoos packed in jars/containers of chewing toffee and various other confectionaries manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein. 2. We find that the issue in dispute stands settled against the assessees by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the assessee’s own case as seen from 2010 (254) ELT 620 (PandH) upholding the Tribunal’s order reported in 2009 (235) ELT 850 that tattoos are only sales promotion materials and cannot be considered as inputs and not being used in the manufacture of final products, credit is not admissible. We, therefore, uphold the denial of credit. However, we agree with the assessees that in the light of the same decision cited supra, penalty is required to be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the assessees. 3. The appeal is thus partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above....
Pl Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The challenge in this appeal is the differential duty demand of Rs.2,16,029/- on the ground that the price adopted for clearing the balance stock lying with the assessees after they ceased to have the right to use brand name “Banish” on insecticide mats and mosquito destroyer device w.e.f. 24.5.95 when the brand name was assigned to M/s.Transelektra Domestic Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TDPL), was less than the price adopted by the assessees from their depot during the period when they had the right to use the brand name. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the buyer of the goods is a wholesale dealer in addition to being a manufacturer who had acquired the right to use the brand name “Banish”. The finding of the authorities below that the price adopted by the assessees is not the normal price is not legally sustainable as it is not the case of the department that the sale is not in the normal course of business or th...
Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchir ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a demand of Rs.96,04,556/- together with interest and penalty of equal amount on hosiery cotton yarn cleared by the assessees (100% EOU) to DTA, by denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.8/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 on the ground of use of imported wax in the yarn, as the exemption was available only to goods manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order. The process of waxing of hosiery cotton yarn is done at the winding stage(whether auto-cone or manual cone). In the auto-coner machine, the imported wax disc is kept in the yarn path and the yarn is allowed to pass through the wax disc while the wax disc is rotated to ensure uniform waxing. The waxed yarn is subsequently conditioned by “Yarn Conditioning Process” in which yarn is conditioned by steam injection in a vacuum ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Ford India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, optional warranty charges have been held to be includible in the assessable value of passenger cars manufactured and cleared by the assessees. While upholding the demand by inclusion of optional warranty charges, he set aside the penalty proposed in two SCNs out of the 3 SCNs issued to the assessees. The Revenue is in appeal against the dropping of penalty proceedings arising from two show cause notices. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the basic issue as to inclusion or otherwise of optional warranty charges in the assessable value of cars stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2007 (212) ELT 44 and the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against this decision was dismissed by the apex court as seen from 2010 (255) ELT A14 (SC). Once the demand itself has been set aside, as seen from the above, there is no merit in the Revenue’s ...
Dic (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellants have brought the impugned goods from their Calcutta unit and cleared the same as such from their unit in Chennai. They have paid duty on the impugned goods on transaction value whereas the Rules applicable at the relevant time required that the credit amount taken at the time of receiving the inputs is required to be reversed. Hence the demand made on the appellants is justified and the same is confirmed. As the issue involved here relate to interpretation of the Rules, taking a lenient view, the penalty imposed is waived. The appeal is dismissed except for setting aside of the penalty....
M/S. T N. Newsprint and Paper Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants states that without prejudice to all the contentions raised in the appeal, the appellants volunteers to pay 50% of the duty amount. Accepting the offer, they are directed to pre-deposit 50% of the duty amount in both the cases within four weeks from today and report compliance on 26.08.11. Subject to compliance with the above direction, pre-deposit of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »