Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
Arul, Hc 844 Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner prays for a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two year. 2. The petitioner while working as Head Constable in Prohibition Enforcement Wing in Pudukkottai District, during the year 2000, was advised to initiate proceedings for detaining one Karuppiah, Son of Raju Kandanpannai Kalam, Rapoosal, under Act 14 of 1982. Thiru. Karuppiah was known notorious prohibition offender. The Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.2441 of 2000 under Section 4(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on 14.10.2000. 3. The case of the petitioner, is that Thiru. Karuppiah got advance information, and to avoid arrest, lodged a complaint with Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, alleging therein, that police personnel attached to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing were demanding an illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) from him. After registering the complaint, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl.Dhanam Plastics Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,(CT), Thanjavur, with consequential relief for a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.3, to amend the eligibility certificate issued to the petitioner. 2.The petitioner availed a term loan of Rs.15.33 lakhs [Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Thirty three thousand only] from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Thanjavur, on 1.6.1995. The commercial production was started by the petitioner, on 01.06.1996. 3.The State Government framed a scheme for deferral payment of sale tax, stipulating that a registered dealer, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, will be entitled to deferral payment to the extent of investment made for the period of nine years, and to be repaid without interest on the expiry of the period of nine years. 4.On the basis of the eligibility certificate issued by...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sri Kannapiran Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram None appears for the respondents in spite of notice nor is there any request for adjournment. It therefore appears that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Srilak Shipping Servcies Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has ordered suspension of the CHA licence issued to the appellants for a period of two weeks from the date of service of his order and also forfeited the security deposit of Rs.25,000/-. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has given a clear, cogent and detailed reasoning for coming to the conclusion that Regulation 14(a), 14(b) and Regulation 14(d) and 14(l) as well as Regulation 20(7) have not been complied with but violated by the CHA. His reasoning is reproduced below:- “(2)As regards violation of Regulation 14(a), the I.O. has relied on CESTAT judgment in the case of P.P. Dutta Vs. CC, New Delhi 2001 (136) ELT 104 which has held that mere appending of signature by the importer is sufficient for compliance of obligation of CHA to get authorization. As the inquiry officer has found that only the CHA has appended his signature to the Shipping Bill copies, the ratio of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The claim for refund filed by the assessees herein on the ground that they were eligible to exemption in terms of Notification No. 21/2002 for spares for offshore drilling jack up, rigs imported by them, has been dismissed on the ground that the assessment made without extending the benefit of the notification was not challenged. 2. We have heard both sides and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). Since the legal position stands settled by the Apex Court and it has been followed by the lower appellate authority, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. At this stage, learned counsel for the assessees states that the assessees wish to seek re-assessment. It is open to them to do so in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Thyssen Krupp Jbm Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Demand of Rs.11,80,003/- was raised on the assessees herein on the ground they have received technical assistance and engineering services from M/s. Krupp Campfort Ltd. UK, which services fall within the category of “consulting engineering” in terms of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Interest was also proposed to be levied and penalty proposed to be imposed. The period in dispute ranged from January 2001 to December 2002. The demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who also charged interest and imposed penalties; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order both on merit as well as on limitation; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute regarding levy of service tax for the period in dispute stands settled against the Revenue by the Apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners’ Association - 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC)...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Nippon Enterprises South Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the assessee’s claim for refund of duty paid on imported digital ICE software, on the ground that the assessment without extending the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was not challenged by the assessees. 2. We have heard both sides and find no merit in the appeal as the decision in the impugned order is in consonance with the Apex Court’s decisions in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC) and CCE, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC). Following the ratio of the said decisions, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Suve Graphics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The facts of the case as recoded by the original authority are as follows:- “Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027 intercepted the bills of entry and took up for investigation. On 2.8.2004, the intending agents M/s. Monotech Systems Ltd. Chennai office premise was searched and incriminating documents viz. L.C. Cargo Forwarding note, Invoice Copy and other documents were recovered and seized under mahazarnama. Further on examination of the goods it is found that goods imports by the said two bills of entry have been artificially split up and attempted to be imported separately to escape attention. On perusal of the documents like Chartered Engineer’s certificates, the L.C. and purchase orders produced by the importers it was found that the total value of the workstation is GBP 9500/-. The examination of the goods also revealed that there is no arrival of softwar...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Valluvar Soapnut Powder Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Classification of shikakai powder arises for determination in the present appeal - whether the product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 33.05 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985 as contended by the Revenue or whether it is not excisable goods liable to duty as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Since the assessees have asked for a decision on merits and on the basis of the submission in the cross-objection, we heard learned SDR and perused the records. We find that the issue of classification of this product arose for decision before the Honoutable Supreme Court which vide order in Sree Ramakrishna Soapnut Works Vs. Supdt. Of Central Excise - 2007 (210) ELT 332 (SC) has held that generally mere conversion of shikakai pods into shikakai powder may not constitute manufacture but it will depend upon the actual activity undertaken by the assessee. The Court has held that the matter needs adjudication and cannot be decided in a writ petition. The judgm...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. N.M. Zackhriah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 32/97-Cus. dated 1.4.1997 has been denied to the appellants herein who imported unit soles (for shoes) free of duty under the notification for the purpose of job work namely use in the manufacture of men’s shoes which they exported after satisfying the prescribed value addition of 10%, on the ground that they claimed drawback on some of the Shipping Bills. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of M/s. Sierra Trading Pvt. Ltd. (Final Order Nos.449 and 450/2011 dated 9.3.2011) on an identical issue of import of shoe soles under the same notification, the denial was set aside by the Tribunal holding that the assessees are eligible for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 32/97 even where drawback was claimed and the Bench has noted that the DGFT authorities had clarified that imports made under Customs Notification No. 32/97 are for jobbing and exports made using such imports can...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »