Chennai Court August 2012 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.
Srf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
The appellants are in appeal along with application for stay against the impugned order where input service credit has been denied for rent-a-cab service availed by the appellant on the premise that the same is not eligible as per Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the issue is of in narrow compass, therefore I waive the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SCN was issued to them on the allegation that rent-a-cab service is not input service as per Rule 2 (l) of CCR 2004 but both the lower authorities have also observed that as the appellant has not provided documentary evidence for rent-a-cab service which has been used by the appellant for bringing and dropping their employees from their residence to the place of work and other official purposes. Therefore, if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, they will produce documentary evidence showing that rent-a-cab servi...
Lawn Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order where demand of duty of Rs.1,97,698/- has been confirmed along with interest which can be reduced to 25% if the same is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The facts of the case are that, on visit to the factory of the appellants on 9.1.2003, it was found that the appellant was clearing the goods without payment of duty. Five brown colour chits were recovered from the factory of the appellants for clearance of goods without payment of duty. A statement of Shri S. Mani, who was Accountant and looking after Central Excise matters, was also recorded. In the statement, Shri Mani has admitted that the bags mentioned in brown colour chits were cleared without invoice and without payment of duty of Central Excise. Thereafter, a case was made out against the appellant. A SCN was issued and a demand mentioned herein above was confirmed against them. The appellants are in appeal against the above said i...
India Trimmings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Serv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders where the refund claims were dismissed on the ground that the same have not been filed within one year of the duty paid. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU. During the course of their manufacturing activity, they have availed credit on inputs and input services. After manufacturing the goods, they exported the goods. These facts are not in dispute. Initially, the SCNs were issued to the appellants for reversal of the CENVAT credit availed both on inputs and input services as they are not eligible for the same. The said dispute was settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellants holding that appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the input and input services on 28.1.2009. Thereafter, the appellants filed refund claims on 13.8.2009 and 5.11.2009 respectively for the period April 2007 to September 2008. The refund claims were denied as time-barred as per clause (6) of Notificat...
The Management of Axles India Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein viz., The Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 and quash the order passed therein dated 23.09.2008 and which was received by us on 20.10.2008.) 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Management, seeking to challenge an order passed by the first respondent second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 dated 23.09.2008 and seeks to set aside the same. 2. The said petition was filed by the Management under Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 read with Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act to eschew and delete the word which occurred wrongly in Paragraphs 8 and 11 in their Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 and to read the sa...
Dr. Zubida Begum and Others Vs. Indian Bank Rep by Its Manager Guidy B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.15386 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of I.A.No.1378 of 2009 in AIR 779 of 2009. Prayer in W.P.No.8099 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the first respondent in I.A.No.1531 in M.A. A.I.R. No.989 of 2011 dated 23.3.2012 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.8381 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent comprised in order dated 2.3.2012 passed in I.A.No.179 of 2012 in AIR (SA) No.1017 of 2011, quash the same as illegal, unconstitutionl and consequently direct the first respondent to take up appeal on record and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Praye...
M/S. Rohini Hotels (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director R. Panneer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from either demanding or collecting the monthly minimum charges from the date of the alleged "first supply availability notice dated 29.04.2005" till the date of actual supply of energy ie., 30.06.2007 pertaining to the petitioner's premises i.e., "M/s.Rohini Hotels (Madras) Pvt Ltd.," bearing New No.30 (Old NO.161) situated at Anna Salai, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.) ORDER 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Hotel, seeking to forbear the respondents either demanding or collecting monthly minimum charges from the date of the alleged "first supply availability notice dated 29.04.2005" till the date of actual supply of energy viz., 30.06.2007 pertaining to the petitioner's premises bearing New No.30 (Old NO.161) situated at Anna Salai, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.0...
M. Veerapathiran and Another Vs. the General Manager (C.V.), Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.23387 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of 3rd respondents proceedings in Na.Ka.No.391/2012/R.V.2 dated 10.07.2012 and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner as per the order passed in W.P.No.15952 of 2012 dated 22.06.2012 in accordance with law. Prayer in W.P.No.23295 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of 3rd respondents proceedings in Na.Ka.No.391/2012/R.V.2 dated 10.07.2012 and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner as per the order passed in W.P.No.15952 of 2012 dated 22.06.2012 in accordance with law.) COMMON ORDER 1. Heard the ...
G. Achuthan Vs. the District Collector, Vellore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue transport permits on payment of necessary seigniorage to transport the entire 114 marketable blocks (816-366 cbm) quarried with the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.14997 of 2007 and now lying at the said petitioner's said patta lands measuring 2-00 Acres comprised in S.Nos.454/1B and 454/2A situated in ATHANAVOOR Village, Yellagiri Hills Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District (formerly North Arcot Ambedkar District), on payment of necessary seigniorage.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the Government of Tamilnadu had granted granite quarry lease in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the patta lands, measuring 2 acres, comprised in S.Nos.454/1B and 454/2A, in Athanavoor Village, Yellagiri Hills, Thirupattur Taluk, Vellore D...
A. Dhanapal Vs. K. Senthamarai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
R. Banumathi, J. 1. M.P.No.1 of 2012 is filed by the Appellant seeking interim stay of order in I.A.No.919 of 2012 in O.S.No.250 of 2011 dated 31.03.2012 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. M.P.No.2 of 2012 is filed by the Respondents 1 to 4 to vacate the stay granted on 25.4.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in C.M.A.No.1227 of 2012. 3. Marriage between the Appellant-Dhanapal @ Kalidass Manickam and the 1st Respondent-Senthamarai was solemnised on 14.6.1981 and from of the lawful wedlock three daughters viz., Respondents 2 to 4 were born. Appellant was working as Bill Collector in Namakkal Muncipality and retired on superannuation on 31.03.2012. Stating that Appellant neglected to take care of the family, Respondents 1 to 4 have filed M.C.No.494 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to each of the Respondents and the said Maintenance Case is pending. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 have also filed suit in O.S.No.250 of 201...
Ooty Tourist Car Sumo Maxi Cabs, Drivers Welfare Association, Rep by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to permit the auto rickshaws to ply beyond the permit limit in Ooty Town, in detriment of the rights of the members of the petitioner Association who operate tourist cars in and around Ooty.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 12.01.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 12.01.2012, on merits and in accordanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »