Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Sivamani Spinning Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/942917 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Decided On | Dec-27-2010 |
| Case Number |
E/294/2010 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 14/2010 (SLM) (ST)
dated 26.02.2010 passed by t |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT |
| Appellant | Cce, Salem |
| Respondent | M/S. Sivamani Spinning Mills Ltd. |
| Advocates: | Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the appellants. Shri Mohd. Shaffiq, Adv., for the respondents. |
Excerpt:
.....due to the respondents herein against the higher amount owing to the revenue from m/s. sudharsana spinners. the adjudicating authority had carried out the above adjustment, on the ground that m/s. sivamani spinning mills ltd., leased out the premises to m/s. sudharsana spinners and one ms. hema ramanathan was the managing director of the respondent public limited company as well as the proprietrix of the proprietary concern m/s. sudharsana spinners. 2. on hearing both sides, i find that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order as it has been rightly held that the respondent s mills have not been taken over by m/s.sudharsana spinners and there is no change in the ownership of the respondents and therefore, order of appropriation of the refund towards arrears.....
Judgment:Per: Jyoti Balasundaram,
The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside adjustment of refund of Rs.2,86,416/- due to the respondents herein against the higher amount owing to the Revenue from M/s. Sudharsana Spinners. The adjudicating authority had carried out the above adjustment, on the ground that M/s. Sivamani Spinning Mills Ltd., leased out the premises to M/s. Sudharsana Spinners and one Ms. Hema Ramanathan was the Managing Director of the respondent Public Limited Company as well as the Proprietrix of the Proprietary concern M/s. Sudharsana Spinners.
2. On hearing both sides, I find that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order as it has been rightly held that the respondent s mills have not been taken over by M/s.Sudharsana Spinners and there is no change in the ownership of the respondents and therefore, order of appropriation of the refund towards arrears recoverable from M/s. Sudharsana Spinners is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.