M/S.Lakshmi Electrical Control Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Oct-30-2009 |
| Appeal Nos.C/236 of 2002 & 237 of 2002 |
| THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER |
| M/S.Lakshmi Electrical Control Systems Ltd. |
| Commissioner of Customs, Chennai |
| Shri T. Ramesh, Adv. Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR |
per dr. chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. shri t. ramesh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are two issues involved in these two appeals. the first one relates to the period for which warehoused goods can be allowed to be kept in the warehouse and the second issue relates to the limitation period for claiming refund of extra interest paid for warehoused goods. he further states that both the issues have been decided in favour of the appellants in their own case vide lakshmi machine works ltd. vs commissioner of customs, trichy [2008 (230) e.l.t.183 (tri.-chennai)]. 2. heard learned sdr. he is not able to show any contra decision by any higher judicial forum. as such, following the decision of the above cited case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential benefit if any to the appellants.
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy
Heard both sides. Shri T. Ramesh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are two issues involved in these two appeals. The first one relates to the period for which warehoused goods can be allowed to be kept in the warehouse and the second issue relates to the limitation period for claiming refund of extra interest paid for warehoused goods. He further states that both the issues have been decided in favour of the appellants in their own case vide Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2008 (230) E.L.T.183 (Tri.-Chennai)].
2. Heard learned SDR. He is not able to show any contra decision by any higher judicial forum. As such, following the decision of the above cited case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential benefit if any to the appellants.