Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
M/S. Spm Trading (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants herein filed four Bills of Entry in September 2002, October 2002 and November 2002 for clearance of Soga brand glassware. They were regular importers of such brand of glassware and for assessment of the Bills of Entry the Department was following the 2000 price list obtained from SIIB. Subsequently, it was noticed from the 1999 price list that the value was much higher than that of price declared in the 2000 price list. As both the price lists were purportedly issued by the manufacturer and there was difference in prices there was a reasonable doubt to reject the declared value and to resolve the conflict in the various price list, price list was sought to be verified and both DRI and the Directorate of Valuation were contacted. Vide letter dated 6.8.2002, the Directorate of Valuation forwarded the 2001 price list of Soga brand glassware and simultaneously the Commissioner (Appeals) received a copy of the 2002 price list by post, purportedly fro...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Aishwarya Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Under the impugned order the adjudicating authority has confiscated items such as Panasonic video cassettes, Sony video cassettes, audio cassettes, floppy disc etc. on the ground that the importers had undervalued the same, with an option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the above order. We find that the finding of undervaluation is based not only upon the statement of Shri R.Suresh, Proprietor of the appellant but also on the prices shown in the NIDB data. Although the learned counsel vehemently contends that valuation cannot be arrived at on the basis of a statement and that the importer had produced copies of correspondence to show proof of the negotiated prices and relied upon the NIDB data showing lower contemporaneous price for some of the items, we find that during the personal hearing when the importers relied upon the copies of correspondences regar...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Thiruselvi, M.D (Oandg) Kugan Hospital Ramanujam Nagar Covai Ro ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
The 1st Respondent/ complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2 lakhs as medical expenses, Rs.3 lakhs as compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 separately in F.A.No.390/2008, and by 4th opposite party in F.A.No.736/2008 praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.14.2.2008 in O.P.Nos.16/2004. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.6.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order: COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 and 4th opposite parties are the appellants in F.A.No.390/2008 and 736/2008, respectively. 2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in COP.No.16/2004, on...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager Air India Baggage Service Vs. Dr.Amala Louis
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,000/- as compensation, and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.04.2009 in CC.No.10/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 14.07.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in CC.No.10/2008, on the file of District Forum, Udhagamandalam, having suffered an adverse order, has come before this commission, for redressal.2. The complainant, with his family members, travelled in Air India 130, from London to Mumbai, on 5.8.2006, in executive clause. On their arrival at Mumbai airpo...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekar Apartments Welfare Society, Rep. by Its Secretary S. Para ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.07.2011, 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: A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant is the Apartment Welfare Association, having flat owners as Members in the Society, filed this complaint against the opposite parties builders, claiming for the restoration of two rooms in the Southern portion of the cellar about 1000 sq.ft. directing the opposite party to hand over the approved plan and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the costs. 3. The complainants Society contended that the opposite parties constructed apartments and while doing the construction work for the purpose of opposite parties official use and other purposes, two rooms were constructed in the cellar portion, which are ordinarily intended for car parking and to b...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Dorothy Thomas Vs. Mr.Rex Arul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. Pending suit for a declaration that the final order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, USA in Civil Action File No. 10-1-8238-48, to the extent that it deals with issues of custody of the minor child Rhea Immaculate Arul, aged about 4 years is inconclusive, unenforceable, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the minor child and for consequential decrees of permanent injunction, the plaintiff, who is the mother of the minor child, came up with 3 applications, viz., (i) O.A.No.191 of 2011 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent father from in any manner seeking to enforce the said order of the Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, in so far as the custody of the minor child is concerned (ii) O.A.No.192 of 2011, seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner publishing any defamatory or derogatory material, lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Centerpulse India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants imported the impugned consignment “nkII ultra congruent tibial insert (Implants)”. The same has been classified under Heading 90.21 but has been denied exemption under Notification No. 21/2002. 3. We find that the said Notification No. 21/02 as amended by Notification No. 66/04 as applicable at the relevant time exempts assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 41 under Sl. No. 370 of the Table annexed to the said Notification. List 41 referred against Sl. No. 370 includes instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instruments and implants including bone cement. The impugned goods being implants meant of joint replacement for persons requiring such replacement are clearly exempted under the impugned notification. Without such implants, such persons will be severely handicapped and disabled to function ...
Tag this Judgment!The India Cement Ltd and Others Vs. Cce Trichy and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The common issue in dispute in all these appeals is as to whether transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from the place of removal are included in the definition of “input service” for eligibility to availment of CENVAT credit of service tax. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that this issue stands decided by recent decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)] holding that transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, upto 1.4.2008 are included in the definition of “input service”. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we allow the appeals filed by various assessees and reject the appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross-objections also get disposed of accordingly. 4. A copy of list showing the duty, penalty and the p...
Tag this Judgment!The India Cements Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we waived requirement of predeposit and proceeded to take up the appeals themselves for final disposal as the issue in dispute stands covered by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)]. The High Court has held that transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, upto 1.4.2008 are included in the definition of “input service” and that credit is admissible till this date. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present cases and which partly upholds the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in ABB Ltd., and noting that the period in dispute in the cases of M/s.India Cements Ltd., M/s.Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. covered both pre as well as post-1.4.2008 and also noting that the period involved in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager State Bank of India Elephant Gate Branch Vs. Prakash Chand ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12414/- with 24% interest p.a, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh, and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.07.2010 in CC.No.177/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 13.07.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent, alleging deficiency, against the opposite party, has filed the case, for the return of a sum o fRs.12,414/-, with interest thereon, in addition to a compensation of Rs.1 lakh, as if by the negligence and d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »