Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

Dr. S. Panneerselvam Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)423; [2009]319ITR135(Mad)

ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. Both the Writ Petitions are filed to issue Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for records in M.P. No. 92/2003 (38/Mds/2001 in I.T.A. Nos. 2501/Mds/1993) and M.P. No. 92/2003 (38/Mds/2001 in I.T.A. Nos. 2502/Mds/1993) respectively on the file of the second respondent and quash the orders dated 26.12.2005 and direct the second respondent to dispose of the claims for rectification of the order passed in I.T.A. No. 2501/Mds/1993 and I.T.A. 2502/Mds/1993.2. When the matters were listed on 19.10.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the Department/first respondent present and the matter is taken up and disposed off on merits.3. On going through the orders which are under challenge, it is found that the original orders were passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 27.11.2000 and thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P. No...

M/S. Helio Business Services Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, In this case, the benefit of concessional rate of duty under customs Notification No. 26/01 has been denied to Sulphonated fish Oil imported by the appellants herein on the ground that the goods were Sulphonated fish oil containing fatty acids. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the dispute stands squarely covered against the appellants by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Prema Colors and Chemicals Vs. CC, Chennai - 2008 (231) ELT 96 (Tri.- Chen.), wherein sulphonated fish oil containing other than fat liquor was held not to be eligible for the benefit under the said Notification. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals....

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Tvs Suzuki Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, According to the Revenue which is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending modvat credit of duty paid on the strength of supplementary invoices, credit is inadmissible. 2. We have heard both sides. The issue has been decided against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in CCE, Madras Vs. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. - 2007 (210) ELT 178 (S.C.), upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 2001 (134) ELT 647 (Mad.), holding that the assessee is entitled to avail additional credit in respect of additional duty paid on inputs while interpreting the provisions of Rule 57 E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. 3. The cross-objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue s appeal and hence it is dismissed....

Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appeal is dismissed in the absence of any clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue the same before the Tribunal, with liberty to apply for restoration of the same in the event that the clearance is granted....

M/S. Kaveri Yarns and Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants herein are manufacturers of cotton yarn exigible to duty under Chapter 52 of first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed capital goods credit for the following items. S.No. Name of the Capital Goods. 1 Ring Frame 2 Calendering Machine 3 Craft Mounting Equipment 4 Base Cylinder Grinder 5 Spares for OMA 12 1600A ACB 6 Joint Adhesive 7 Self Adhesive Tapes 8 Linkerin Machine 2. After due process of law, the Commissioner of Central Excise Virudhunagar, disallowed the capital goods credit for the items listed at S.No.1 above on the ground that Ring Frame was purchased on hire purchase agreement before 17.6.94, which is the date on which Rule 57-R of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was amended so as to permit availment of capital goods credit in respect of machinery purchased on lease. In respect of other goods, he held that they were not specified as capital goods under Rule 57-Q of CER. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order o...

The Manager Zonal Office the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. K. Anus ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Forum, Cuddalore, is the appellant. 2. The 1st complainant, having taken a mediclaim policy on 31.7.2000, for Rs.50000/-, by paying premium, again renewed the same by paying premium of Rs.803/- for the period covering 27.7.01 to 26.7.02. Thereafter, when she suffered knee pain, approached Dr. Mohandas, who advised her to take proper treatment, for which she approached MIOT Hospital, Chennai, there she was operated, for which a sum of Rs.59,454/- was spent. On the basis of the mediclaim policy, when the complainant lodged a claim, the same was repudiated, resulting seeking for redressal before the Consumer Forum. 2. The opposite party/appellant, admitting the mediclaim policy, in their written version, had stated that the 1st complainant failed to disclose the pre-existing disease, at the time of taking up mediclaim policy, which amounts to suppression of material fa...

Natraj and Venkat Associates Represented by Its Partner A. Venkat Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2010(249)ELT337(Mad); [2009]19STJ353(Madras); 2010[17]STR3

ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, directing the respondent to refund the service tax paid by them under a mistake of law, on export of services.2. I have heard Ms. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The petitioner is a firm rendering architectural services and holding a registration certificate No. Arch/Chennai-II/40/STC. The petitioner received payment from a client in Sri Lanka on 27.5.2005 in US Dollars and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 8,67,800/- on 4.7.2005 towards service tax. But after realising that the services rendered for the construction of a building in Sri Lanka, would not attract service tax, the petitioner made a claim for refund on 20.9.2006. 4. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 5.10.2006 and after receiving a reply from the petitioner, the respondent issued an Order-in-Origi...

Adarsh Shipping and Services and Others Vs. Cc, TuticorIn and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram All the above appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the reasons recorded below we waive predeposit of demands of duty confirmed and penalty imposed [details of which are contained in the Annexure to this order] and proceed to decide the appeal at this stage with the consent of both sides as the grievance of the importers is of non-implementation of Tribunal s Final Order No. 507 to 560/2007 dated 30.4.2007. 2. The benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 as per Sl. No. 215 of the Table annexed thereto read with Sl. No. 7 of List No. 31 appended thereto has been denied to importers of machines declared as computerized embroidery pattern making machine with plotter (Tajima Brand) on the ground that the imported items did not contain plotter and the goods have been confiscated. Demands of duty and penalties have also been imposed. Duty demands have also been confirmed along with confisca...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Direx Systems Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 is available to parts of image intensifier system. 2. On hearing both sides we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees in series of decisions of the Tribunal namely Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bet Medical (P) Ltd. 2006 (202) ELT 97, Commissioner of Customs Vs. Philips Medical Systems India Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 559 and Final Order No.1005/2009 dated 17.8.2009 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd. 3. Following the ratio of the above orders we hold that there is no ground for interference of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the same. 4. Cross-objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue s appeal and is therefore dismissed....

M/S. Guru Vijayalakshmi Spinners and Another Vs. Cce, Coimbatore and A ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order the lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand of Rs.4,93,665/- confirmed against the assessees by the order of the Joint Commissioner but reduced the equal amount of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority to Rs.1.50 lakhs. 2. The assessee is in appeal against the demand as well as the penalty while the Revenue is in appeal against the confirmation of duty and penalty on the ground that the benefit of cum-duty price should not have been extended to the assessees and that penalty should not have been reduced but should have been retained as imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 3. We have heard both sides. The case of the Department is that the assessees had clandestinely removed cotton yarn in cone form in the guise of clearance of cotton yarn in hank form. We find that although the order passed by the Joint Commissioner was an exparte order the assessees were heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) and they had made submission...