Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Textool Co. Ltd.

Cce, Coimbatore vs M/S. Textool Co. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 10, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944513

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/944513
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 10, 2009
Case Number: E/561 of 2002
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, Coimbatore

Advocate Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the appellant. None for the respondent.

Respondent

M/S. Textool Co. Ltd.

Excerpt

per: chittaranjan satapathy the respondents are not present despite notice. heard the ld. sdr. this appeal has been filed against an order of the lower appellate authority who has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents while upholding the demand of duty and recording payment of the same. we find that the lower appellate authority has given a factual finding that there is no suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. as such, the impugned order requires no interference. the departmental appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy

The respondents are not present despite notice. Heard the Ld. SDR. This appeal has been filed against an order of the lower appellate authority who has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents while upholding the demand of duty and recording payment of the same. We find that the lower appellate authority has given a factual finding that there is no suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. As such, the impugned order requires no interference. The departmental appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Cce, Coimbatore vs M/S. Textool Co. Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member &...