Chennai Court April 2014 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.
The India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. After hearing this matter at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and availed Cenvat credit of Rs.15,58,483/- in 1996 on MS Channels, MS Angles, CHN Channels and Transformer Oil. By the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority denied the credit on these items as they are not treated as capital goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal by Final Order No.1226/10, dated 16.11.2010 remanded this matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh and give a finding as to whether the impugned goods have been used as capital goods or as components of capital goods and thereafter passed a fresh order on the question of admissibility of Modvat credit/Cenvat credit. By the impugned order, Commissioner (...
M/S. Aarkey Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Serv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Grey Fabrics and duty was levied on 01.04.2003. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.9,81,585/- along with interest and penalty for the period May, 2003 to June, 2003 on the ground that they have cleared the goods without payment of duty. The appellant paid the entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty 25% of duty within one month from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The learned Consultant fairly submits that as the case is old one, they are not contesting the demand of duty on merit subject to their claim of benefit of exemption notification. He submits that they have paid the duty erroneously on the basis of the Notification No.7/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003 without considering the amendment to the Notification No.38/2003-CE, dated...
M/S. Srf Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Nylone Tyre Cord Fabric classifiable under Chapter 59 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the instant case, there is a demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on payment of differential duty on revision of the cost of production. The learned Consultant Shri Srinivasan fairly submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs SKF India Ltd., reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T.385 (S.C.) decided this issue against the assessee. He submits that in some cases they paid excess amount of differential duty on which no interest is payable. He submits that an opportunity may be given to requantify the demand of interest on the basis of actual amount payable after adjusting the excess duty paid on price revision. He submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Pfizer ...
Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member. 1. The appellant is a Govt of Tamil Nadu Enterprise registered with the Service Tax authorities under "Banking and other Financial Services'. They filed a refund claim on 28.4.2004 for Rs.12,48,187/- on the ground that they paid the tax at 8% instead of 5%. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and ordered it to be deposited with the "Fund" as per Section 11B (2) of Central Excise Act,1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. On perusal of the adjudication order, it is seen that the appellant took a stand before the adjudicating authority that the appellant had collected this amount from M/s.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board @ 8% for the services rendered during 1.4.2003 to 30.5.2003. Subsequently, they have refunded the amount to TNEB which was originally collected in excess and filed the refund claim. Both the authorities below rejected the refund claim following the de...
K.Suresh Babu Vs. Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11.04.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.32750 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 K.Suresh Babu ..Petitioner versus 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, North Chennai Registration District, Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue certificate of Document Writer Licence by either correcting the existing certificate bearing Serial No.412 and Registration No.Co 30950 dated 20.07.1998 or by issuing fresh certificate of document writer in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of the latest representation dated 16.11.2012. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Navaneethan Additional Government Pleader ORDER The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for...
S.Kumarappan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY CRL.R.C.No.311 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1. S.Kumarappan 2. K.Balakrishnan 3. P.Ravi @ Senthilnathan 4. Krishnaraj 5. P.Nagaraj 6. Settu 7. Murugan 8. Sithuraj 9. Sabapathy 10.Ramesh Babu 11.Jayakumar 12.S.Sundaresan 13.Vijayakumar 14.K.Murugan 15.Dayaldoss 16.Ganesan 17.Shanmugam 18.K.Rukmangathan 19.Jayaraman 20.Ramu 21.M.Sivaprakasam 22.E.B.Balan 23.V.Palanisamy 24.Daiyas 25.Rajkumar 26.Subramaniyam 27.S.Balachandran 28.Karnan 29.A.B.Baskar 30.Jayaraj ... Petitioners/Accused Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem. ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.231/2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem dated 01.03.2012 and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam, for Mr.S.A...
Mr.PravIn Kumar Tatia Vs. S.Abdul Salam Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11. 4.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.S.No.481 of 2010 C.S.No.481 of 2010: MR.PRAVIN KUMAR TATIA [ PLAINTIFF ]. S/O.JAWARILAL TATIA NO.18 RITHERDON ROAD VEPERY CHENNAI-60007. Vs 1 M/S.S.ABDUL SALAM SAHIB & COMPANY, NO.2 EV CHETTY STREET PERIAMET, CHENNAI-03. 2 S.ABDUL SAMAD S/O.LATE. MOHAMED ISHAQ3S.KALEEMULLA S/O.S.ABDULLAH BASHA4S.ANJUM AARA W/O.S.ABDUL RAHMAN5S.FAIZULLA S/O.ABDULLA BASHA6S.ZAKIULLA S/O.S.ABDULLA BASHA (DEFENDANTS2TO6ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.9/26, NATTAMKAR AZIMUDIN STREET AMBUR TOWN-635 802 VANIYAMBADI TALUK VELLORE DISTRICT. 7 N.NOOR CHASMA W/O.ABDUL SALAM8S.SHAHID AHMED S/O.ABDUL SALAM9S.GAZALA NISHATH W/O.KAMAL BASHA10S.RAINA NISHATH W/O.SHAMEEL AHMED11S.LUBNA NISHATH W/O.IFTIQAR ALLAM12S.SHADAB AHMED S/O.ABDUL SALAM (DEFENDANTS7TO12ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1/1 SANKAKUPPAM MEERDIN SAHIB STREET, NOORULLAPET AMBUR TOWN, VANIYAMBADI TALUK VELLORE DISTRICT- 635 802. 13 S.SHAHEENA BANU W/O.S.ABDUL SAM...
S.Hemalatha Vs. P.Murali Vittal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2014 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN Cont.P.Nos.333 of 2013 and Sub.A.No.79 of 2013 S.Hemalatha .Petitioner versus 1.P.Murali Vittal 2.Mr.P.Mahaveer Chand, S/o.Sr.Parasmal, Contractor/Sponsoror, Commotard Private Limited, 19 Robinson Park Colony, Old Washermenpet, Chennai 21. 3.Mr.P.Mahaveer Chand, Director, M/s.Sponcer Commotrade Private Limited, No.34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkatta 700 013.Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order dated 07.10.2013 in Sub.A.No.597/2013) Prayer: Contempt Petition filed praying this Court to punish the respondents for not obeying the directions given in O.A.875/2006 in C.S.No.318/2002 dated 15.11.2006. Sub.A.No.79 of 2013 has been filed to declare the sale deed dated 25.06.2012 executed by fiRs.respondent to and in favour of the 2nd respondent and registered as Document No.744 of 2012 at SRO, Sowcarpet as null and void and the same may be communicated such cancellation of sale deed t...
M.Sadagopan Vs. Shanmuga Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :11.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH S.A.No.1376 of 2004 1.M.Sadagopan 2.Venkatesan ..Appellants /versus Shanmuga goundar ..Respondent Prayer: The second appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 17.03.2004 made in A.S.No.18 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.02.1998 made in O.S.No.616 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Arni. For Appellants :Mr.P.Thiagarajan For Respondent :Mr.A.R.Krishnan ------------ JUDGMENT The appellants, who are the defendants in the original suit, filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 17.03.2004 made in A.S.No.18 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.02.1998 made in O.S.No.616 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Arni. 2.For the sake of convenience, the defendants in th...
The Managing Director, Vs. 1.Minor Kanagarani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.A(Md.No.380 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division, Pudukkottai.Appellant versus 1.Minor Kanagarani (Minor fiRs.respondent is represented through her grandmother and guardian Mookkayee, second respondent herein) 2.Mookkayee 3.Mangalam .Respondents Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.534 of 2010 dated 21.10.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. !For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman :JUDGMENT Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.534 of 2010, the Transport Corporation has filed the appeal. 2.Brief facts of the case are that on 13.04.2010, the deceased Laksh...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »