Chennai Court May 2012 Judgments
Maria Anthony Xavier Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ka.No.Junior Engineer/Ve/Santhi Nagar/Ko/A.No.18, dated 25.04.2012 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of law.ORDER1. The petitioner is running a Saw Mill in the name and style of Xavier Saw Mill situated at No.4A, Sevalaperi Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.2.Admittedly, the said mill was established in the year 2007, after the cut off date i.e., 29.10.2002 fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 29.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, giving certain directions to all the States and Union Territories. The following directions are relevant for the purpose of this case:No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and t...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Thaiyal Nayagi Ammal Choultry Vs. S.Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
Petition filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order and decreetal order dated 29.07.2009 made in I.A.No.791 of 2008 in O.S.No.267 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengelpattu.O R D E R1. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.791 of 2008 in O.S.No.267 of 2008 dated 29.07.2009 in revoking the leave granted to sue under Section 92 CPC as per order in I.A.No.608 of 2008 on 18.09.2008.2. The Revision Petitioners were the respondents and the respondents herein were the petitioners in I.A.No.791 of 2008 in O.S.No.267 of 2008.3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners in I.A.No.791 of 2008 / respondents herein before the lower Court would be as follows:-The petitioners are the defendants 1,2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 in a suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the reliefs specified thereunder. The petitioners have lodged a caveat in COP.No.417 of 2008 on 14.07.2008 and it was valid up to 14.10.2008. ...
Tag this Judgment!Lcs City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
Mathew John: 1. M/s.LCS Property Development (P) Ltd. (appellant herein)are engaged in construction of residential complexes. For this purpose, they used to enter into Joint Development Agreements with land owners, in terms of which they would undertake construction of residential flats/houses in the land owned by such land owners. As per the terms of the Joint Development Agreement, a portion of the constructed area, in the form of flats / houses, would be assigned in favor of the land owners and the remaining constructed area, in the form of flats/houses, would be sold by the appellant to various buyers. While selling the residential flats/houses belonging to the appellant, firstly the Undivided Share of the land (UDS) would be sold to the buyer and a construction agreement would also be entered into with the buyer, for construction of a flat/ house, in accordance with the agreed specifications. The constructed area in the form of flats/houses, allotted in favor of the land lord, wou...
Tag this Judgment!Hcl Infosystems Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate and Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of computers falling under Heading 84.71 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act,1985. Computers were exempted from duty from 9.7.04 onwards. However, duty was again imposed on the computers @ 12% vide Sl.No.16 of the Notification No.6/2006-CE dt. 1.3.2006. As a consequence, the appellants became entitled to avail CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs/raw materials lying in stock either as such or in work progress or as contained in the final product. 2. There is no dispute about the above legal position of the appellants eligibility to avail CENVAT credit. It is seen that the dispute relates to quantum of credit so availed by the appellants. According to ld. advocate, availment of credit was made by them on the basis of various documents available with them.&nb...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. S and S Power Switch Gear ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2012
Archana Wadhwa: 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the commissioner in de novo proceedings, vide which he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.37,611/- against the respondents, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR for the Revenue and Shri N. Venkatraman, Senior Advocate and Shri Muthurvenkatraman, Advocate for the respondent. 3. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ht circuit breakers of various types. During the relevant period, they were discharging duty on the said goods @ 5% in terms of Notification No.52/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 by classifying the same under Heading 8535.00. They were issued three SCNs, detailed below, raising demands of duties on the allegation that the goods were not classifiable under Heading 8535.00 but the same are properly classifiable under Heading 85.37 and as such the benefit of Notification was not available to them :- S.No.SCN DatePeriodDuty (Rs.)1.1.3.19941.3.93 t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ritzbury India (P) Ltd. Cce, Chennai Vs. Cce, Chennai M/S. Ritzbu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2012
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants manufacture biscuits bearing the brand names ‘RITZBURY’ and ‘MUNCHEE’. The appellants have been denied SSI exemption on the allegation that the brand name ‘Ritzbury’ belongs to M/s. Ritzbury Lanka (P) Limited, Sri Lanka and the brand name ‘Munchee’ belongs to M/s. Ceylon Biscuits Limited, Sri Lanka. The appellants are a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Ritzbury Lanka (P) Limited, Sri Lanka, who in turn is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Ceylon Biscuits Limited, Sri Lanka. 3. The Department’s allegation against the appellants was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2000 (115) ELT 238, wherein it was held that if the specified goods are affixed with the brand name of a foreign person, or a trader who is not a manufacturer, the benefit of SSI exemption would not be available. The Department also relied on the decision of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Tanfac Industries Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The issue relates to demand of duty on scrap which has arisen in the respondent’s factory while repairing the pipes, tubes, vessels etc. The respondent’s unit being a chemical plant requiring replacement of corroded/rusted parts of the vessels, pipes etc., periodically, they procured duty paid plates, pipe fittings etc. of base metal ferrous and non-ferrous. The worn out portion of the vessel, plant, pipes etc., are cut away and replaced by new plates and pipes cut to the required size. The worn out portion thus removed as well as the remnants of the new plate, pipe etc., form the waste and scrap of metal which, the respondent, has been selling to scrap dealers. In this process, two categories of met...
Tag this Judgment!Allianz Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd and Others Vs. Commissioner Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the stay petitions and appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri N.Viswanathan, and Shri G.Natarajan, Advocates for the appellants and Shri P. Arul, DR for the Revenue, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments, which are specified items under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requiring payment of duty on the basis of M.R.P printed on them. Apart from the regular medicaments, the appellants are also manufacturing physician samples. In some of the cases, such physician samples are being manufactured by the appellants on their own count and cleared for free distribution. In some cases, the samples are being manufactured by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›