Chennai Court August 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.
K. Elangovan Vs. Divisional Security Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the respondents, to pursue the Departmental proceedings against the petitioner, till the disposal of the criminal case, pending in the Court of learned Special Court, CBI, Madurai in C.C.No.3 of 2005. 2. The petitioner joined as Constable in Railway Protection Force during the year 1978, and rose to the rank of Sub Inspector in the year 2002. The petitioner claims, that he has unblemished record of service, and on several occasions, was appreciated by the superiors. 3. The petitioner while serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1995, had booked a criminal case against Thiru. Bose Nadar, for illegally dealing with the railway properties under the guise of selling old iron scrap. 4. The case of the petitioner, is that due to this act, Thiru. Bose Nadar inimical towards him, therefore, foisted a criminal case against him, in which he was trapped on 23.11.200...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. India Contract
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has set aside the demand of Rs.8,96,437/- confirmed against the assessees on the ground that they had rendered “Management, Repair and Maintenance Services” as well as “Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services” on the ground that the demand raised for the period July-03 to December-07 was barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued only on 24.9.08 which is after a period of 1= years from the date of recording of the assessee’s statement. 2. I have heard both sides. I agree with the Revenue that demand cannot be held to be barred on the ground on which the lower appellate authority has held so, in the light of the apex court-s decision in Mathania Fabrics Vs CCE Jaipur [2008 (221) ELT 481 (SC)]. The extended period of limitation of 5 years is available to the department, if assessees are found to be guilty of suppression or misstatement with intention to evade pay...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Derik Monofil Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Revenue challenges the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the demand, interest and penalty against the assessees, for appropriation of interest and penalty out of the amounts paid by the assessees out of the credit amount. 2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the Revenue that interest and penalty amounts cannot be so appropriated. I, therefore, set aside the direction for appropriation of interest and penalty and direct that interest and penalty payable by the assessees should be paid in cash. However, I accede to the assessee’s request for re-credit of the amount paid out of the credit towards interest and penalty in view of the direction that interest and penalty are required to be paid by the assessees in cash. 3. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Pharmafabrikon
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the lower appellate authority that the issue of unjust enrichment does not arise in the present case as the duty was not required to have been paid at all. 2. I have heard both sides. The bar of unjust enrichment arises in all cases where duty was paid and the burden is on the assessees to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers. In the present case, the assessees themselves have claimed in their refund application that they initially collected duty amount from their customers and then sought to return it to them by way of issue of credit notes. This clearly shows that initially the incidence of duty was passed on and once the duty incidence has been passed on, whatever is done subsequently, namely, issue of credit notes, does not alter the fact that the incidence of duty was passed on by the assessees to their customers. The assessees rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in UOI Vs A....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli Vs. Tamil Nadu Newspri ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The challenge in these appeals is to the extension of credit of service tax paid towards GTA and Custom House Agent’s services beyond the place of removal. The period in dispute is entirely beyond 1.4.2008. 2. I have heard both sides and find that in the case of M/s.India Cements Ltd. and Others vide Final Order No.855-858/2011 dt. 27.7.2011, the Tribunal has remitted the cases where the period in dispute is beyond 1.4.2008, for fresh decision, after holding that credit is admissible on post-clearance services for the period upto 1.4.2008, following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s judgment in CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)]. Following the same route in these cases also, I set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 3. The appeals are thus allowed by way of re...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappali Vs. Maha Sree Aruna Che ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. In this case, a show-cause notice dt. 15.1.93 was issued to the assessees (manufacturers of sodium silicate) proposing recovery of Rs.4,36,678.56 on the ground that they had cleared the goods without payment of duty and proposing adjustment of amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid on 29/30.5.92 and also proposing penal action. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dt. 21.2.95 confirmed the demand raised in the SCN, appropriated the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- already paid and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- against which the assessees preferred appeal to the Tribunal which vide Final Order No.315-318/2000 dt. 2.3.2000, remitted the case for fresh decision. In the light of Tribunal’s order, a claim for refund of Rs.4,36,678.56 was filed by the assessees on 4.1.2001 and was rejected vide Order-in-Original No.11/04 by the Asst. Commissioner on 17.9.2004. In the remand proceedings, subsequent to the Tribunal’s order dt. 2.3.2000, the Additional Commissioner vide order dt.27.3.2002...
Krishna Mines Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the demand notice issued by the Collector, Tirunelveli, asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,52,618/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs and Fifty Two thousand six hundred and Eighteen only] representing the deficit of the stamp duty. 2.The reading of the order shows, that the basis of the demand is an audit objection, by the Accountant General. 3.It is not in dispute, that the lease deed in favour of the petitioner was duly executed and registered by the Registrar. In case of deficit stamp duty, the recovery can be effected only under section 33(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, which reads as under:- 33-A. Recovery of deficit stamp duty.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 33 or in any other provisions of this Act, if, after the registration of any instrument under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), it is found that the proper stamp duty payable under this Act in respect of s...
Uthayalakshmi Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. This petition has been filed to withdraw the entire case records pertaining to C.C.No.89 of 2010 pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatty and transfer the same to some other competent court for trial. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and on the basis of the complaint given by her, a case has been registered for the offence under Section 498(A) and 406 I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file in C.C.No.89 of 2010. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent is her husband and the 3rd and 4th respondents are her in-laws and since the case is pending in C.C.No.89 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and because of the matrimonial dispute, the petitioner/defacto complainant is residing with her parents at Gujarat and when they appeared before this Court for Mediation, they were subject...
V.iyyappan Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 01.04.2006, vide which the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion stands declined. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not included in the panel of promotion due to the pending charge- sheet, against him which resulted in punishment for stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. 3. It was during the period of punishment that the case was considered for promotion, as the petitioner was undergoing punishment, his name was not considered. The procedure followed is in accordance with the rules. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order by placing reliance on the guidelines issued by the Board for consideration of the case involving disciplinary proceedings etc, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that his case does not fall within the guidelines issued by the Board. 5. It cannot be disputed that ...
Dr.K.Moulana Vs. the Assistant Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the demand notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner is a consumer having LTC SC.No.187, Khadi Board Colony, Madurai Road, Srivilliputhur. The case of the petitioner is that he had not exceeded the sanction limit of 111.324 K.W(144 HP+3900W). It is also the case of the petitioner that the meter reading and other relevant details were periodically checked by the Board staffs and recorded in the card maintained for this purpose. 3. That all of a sudden, the impugned demand claiming a sum of 3,60,039/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the demand, filed a representation with the respondent, but, no steps have been taken to decide the representation, filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of demand, on the ground that the demand is unilateral and being contrary to law is not warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »