Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

M/S. Rajshree Laminates Ltd Vs. Cce, Coimbatore.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy None appeared for the appellants. The written submissions dated 27.10.2009 filed by the Counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri C. Dhanasekaran, Ld. SDR, appearing for the department. 3. In this case, the appeal was listed yesterday on 27.10.09, when Shri M. Kannan, Ld. Proxy Advocate appeared and sought adjournment, which was granted posting the case for hearing today. We find that the present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 232/02 (CBE) (ADK) dated 15.11.02. The appeal against the impugned order has been filed on 14.2.03, as per the date stamp on appeal in Form EA-3. Along with the written submissions dated 27.10.09, the Ld. Counsel has enclosed an order dated 16.12.02 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in W.P. No. 44938/02. We, further find that the said writ petition has been filed against the very same impugned order No. 232/02 (CBE) (ADK) dated 15.11.02. As such, we notice that t...

M/S. Bi Metal Bearings Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Both sides confirm that in these three appeals, the only issue that is required to be considered is whether for the impugned clearances, the appellants are required to pay interest in respect of duty paid after a delay after finalization of the provisional assessment. We find that this issue was referred to a larger Bench and we have now the benefit of the larger Bench decision vide Misc. Order No. 405/2008 dated 30.9.2008 holding that interest is payable in such cases on delayed payment of duty after finalization of the provisional assessment. 2. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant raises another issue that since the impugned clearances were made by the appellants to their own factories, interest should not be charged on the plea of revenue neutrality. He, however, fairly states that this issue was not raised by the appellants before the lower authority or in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal. The l...

M/S. Sanmar Shipping Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Ms. Maithili, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have been denied exemption under Notification No. 11/97 dated 01.03.97, in respect of equipment installed by them on a vessel which was statutorily required to have such a safety device and without which the same could not go to the sea. She also states that such benefit has been allowed under the following orders of the Tribunal in other similar cases: 1. TEBMA Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai-2009-TIOL-517-CESTAT-MAD 2. A.S. Moloobhoy and Sons Vs. CC (ADJ.), Mumbai-2003 (162) ELT 196 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. Chidambaram Ship Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai.-2005 (191) ELT 697 (Tri.-Chen.) She, however, fairly states that the adjudicating Commissioner did not have the benefit of the decisions which have been passed subsequently. 2. LD. SDR, Shri R. Rangaraju, appearing for the department supports the impugned order and states that the impugned vessel on which the i...

Cce, Visakhapatnam Vs. M/S. Psl Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR appearing for the department confirms that in the impugned order, direction was given for issuing a fresh Show Cause Notice for initiation of fresh adjudication proceedings. He, further states that in pursuance of the direction contained in the impugned order, fresh show cause notice has since been issued and fresh adjudication proceedings has started. 2. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents confirms receipt of the fresh show cause notice. As such, we find that the impugned order has since been implemented. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department has become infructuous and the same is dismissed....

K. Ponnambalam Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri Ramesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the redemption fine and penalty imposed in this case are unreasonably high and he seeks reduction in the same. Heard the learned SDR. 2. We find that the value of the confiscated gold weighing 1166.500 gms. is indicated as Rs.5.05 lakhs in the impugned order. As such the redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- which is about 10% of the value of the gold cannot be said to be unreasonable and there is no scope for reduction of the same. However, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The appeal is thus partly allowed by way of reduction of the penalty as indicated above....

M/S.Ford India Ltd., Chengalpattu Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case as per record, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of passenger cars classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period Jan. 99 to Oct. 99, the appellant cleared their cars for test, display and demonstration purposes. They resorted to provisional assessment of 180 nos. of cars, as they were not able to arrive at the exact value of the cars. The original authority confirmed a sum of Rs.2,71,79,301/- as duty payable on the 180 nos. of cars and adjusted a sum of Rs.2,39,49,901/- paid by them during the clearance of the goods on the basis of provisional assessment. There was a difference of Rs.32,29,400/- payable on finalisation of provisional assessment. The excess payment of cess of Rs.26,04,671/- was adjusted against the differential amount and the appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.6,24,729/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudic...

State Bank of India, Karur/Coimbatore Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. All these three appeals and the three connected stay applications have been filed by the State Bank of India which is a Public Sector Undertaking, without obtaining the necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue these appeals before the Tribunal. As such all the three appeals along with the three stay petitions are dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellant-PSU to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining necessary clearance later on....

M/S. Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned SDR. The appellants are not present despite notice and adjournments granted earlier. It appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

Pastor John Ponnaiah, the Elected Secretary Madras Pentecostal Assembl ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1597

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner claiming to be the elected office bearer of the Madras Pentecostal Assembly, which is a registered Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the first respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai 14) to take action on the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2008 forthwith and pass appropriate orders. In his representation, the petitioner sought for handing over the Management of the Society, namely, the Madras Pentecostal Assembly, having its office at Thandavarayan Street, Royapettah, Chennai -14 to the elected committee of the Society by the fourth respondent.2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The fourth respondent has entered appearance and has also filed a counter affidavit dated 27.10.2009.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's Society was registered as early as in the year 1934 and it is governed by the by-laws of the Socie...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Brakes India Ltd. and Anot ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellant-assessee as well as the department have come up in appeal against the very same impugned order. 2. Shri R.Raghavan, ld. advocate appearing for the appellant-assessee states that the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty amount but has given no finding on the duty demand which was confirmed by the original authority even though the appellant-assessee had specifically appealed against such confirmation of the demand. 3. The grievance of the department is that the lower appellate authority has not examined the legality, propriety and correctness of the invocation of Rule 57I (4) and Rule 57U (6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has given no finding while vacating the order of penalty. 4. Considering the submissions from both sides and noting that both sides are aggrieved by the non-speaking impugned order, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decisio...