Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Top Detective Security Services Ltd.

Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Top Detective Security Services Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Mar 04, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943408

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Appeal No. S/114 of 2006
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce, Chennai

Advocate Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Appellant. Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Respondents.

Respondent

M/S. Top Detective Security Services Ltd.

Excerpt

heard both sides. the department is in appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals) setting aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. i find that the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed reasoned order and has applied the provisions of section 80 for setting aside the penalties. as such, the impugned order calls for no interference. consequently, the department’s appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Heard both sides. The Department is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. I find that the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed reasoned order and has applied the provisions of Section 80 for setting aside the penalties. As such, the impugned order calls for no interference. Consequently, the Department’s appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial