Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Afred Berg and Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram MODVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods under export has been denied on the ground that the final products which were exported were exempted goods. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against such denial of credit. We find that in the case of export of goods the Tribunal’s decision in Norris Medicines Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2003 (56) RLT 353 is squarely applicable. In that case it was held that credit is not to be denied in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods under export without payment of duty under bond. This decision has been followed in Medispan Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004 (178) ELT 848. 3. Following the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any due to the appellants in accordance with law....
M/S. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that while hearing the stay petition and allowing complete waiver of the predeposit, the Bench had taken into consideration the following:- The appellants had taken input duty credit to the extent of over Rs.2.8 crores on components and parts of boiler, turbine and pollution control equipment during the period 1995 2000. The Commissioner of Central Excise has disallowed this credit on the ground that, during the said period, the said components and parts of machinery were not available in the assessee s factory at Achithur. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find, prior to the above period, the assessee had their factory at Tirumandankudi, where they had been availing similar credit. In respect of such past availment of credit, a dispute had arisen between them and the Department, which was ultimately resolved by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 84 to 136/2003 dated 27.2.2003. This order of...
The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. M. Oba ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2009
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, Chennai (North), in OP.No.83/2002, is the appellant. 2. The respondent, on the following grounds, approached the District Forum, for relief. 3. The complainant, took a mediclaim insurance policy, for the period from 7.9.00 to 6.9.01, by paying premium under policy No.501800/48/37/8500194/2000. After treatment of Coronary Artery disease, in Apollo Hospital, the complainant submitted a claim for Rs.30,316.44 and Rs.1,77,414.75/- on 26.6.01 and 19.7.2001, which was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the disease, for which the complainant had taken treatment, was pre-existing one, which is excluded under the policy. The rejection or repudiation is arbitrary, not based on any reasoning, and in view of this, once again claim was made through legal notice, for which also there was no proper reply, and therefore the complainant is constrained to fil...
M/S.Unique Shell Moulding (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax together with interest and penalty, I find that it is possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides. 2. Demand has been confirmed by denying credit of service tax paid on outward freight and outward freight for warehousing of final products after clearance of the goods from the factory. I find that the issue of availability of CENVAT credit paid on outward freight after clearance of goods from the factory stands covered by a recent decision of larger Bench of the Tribunal in ABB Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore [2009 (15) S.T.R.23 (Tri.-LB)]. This decision has come to be rendered subsequent to the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the proper course would be to set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority in the light of the large...
M/S. M.M. Forgings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Heard both sides. 2. Shri R. Masillamoney, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have already reversed the impugned credit and that the equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 173Q is unduly harsh. Considering the facts of the impugned goods only were cleared to the sister unit of the appellants. 2. Heard Shri T.H. Rao, ld. SDR for the Revenue. 3. In view of the fact that the penalty in this case has been imposed under Rule 173Q and keeping in view that the appellants have not challenging the duty liability and have reversed the excess credit taken, the penalty imposed is reduced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The amount of predeposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) made earlier can stands adjusted against the penalty amount determined now. 4. The appeal is partly allowed....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.Kun Auto Company P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
The issue in dispute in the present appeal, namely, as to whether service tax is leviable on free after-sales service which the department considers to be inbuilt in the dealer’s margin, stands settled against the Revenue by series of decisions of the Tribunal (i) Indus Motor Company Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2008 (9) S.T.R.18 (Tri.-Bang.)], (ii) AVG Motors Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kottayam [2008 (10) S.T.R. 20 (Tri.-Bang.)], (iii) Hindustan Auto House (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2009 (13) S.T.R.190 (Tri.-Del.)] (iv) K.P. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2009 (13) S.T.R.389 (Tri.-Del.)], and (v) Pillai and Sons Motor Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [2009 (14) S.T.R.844 (Tri.-Chennai)]. In all these cases, the Tribunal has held that it is only a presumption of the department that the dealer’s margin was inclusive of the cost of free after-sales service rendered during the ...
M/S. Veesons Energy Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Both sides agree that the issue as to whether the duty itself is payable in respect of the impugned goods exported to Nepal is yet to be decided by the lower appellate authority which is pending with him in the context of a refund application filed by the appellants. In the present case the lower appellate authority has decided the issue of interest and penalty relating to the very same transaction. Both sides agree that the question of interest and imposition of penalty would arise only when the issue of payment of duty is finally decided which is pending before the lower appellate authority. As such I waive the requirement of predeposit of interest and penalty and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for deciding the issue of interest liability and penal liability along with the refund claim pending with him. The appellants shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. The impugned order is allowe...
M/S.Nga Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld confiscation of re-rollable scrap imported by the appellants herein on the ground that the importers did not produce Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate but reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs.75,000/- and the penalty to Rs.50,000/-. Hence this appeal by the importers. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the consignment was inspected and not found to contain any serviceable articles or arms and ammunitions. It is only for the reason that the assessees did not produce a Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate that the consignment has been confiscated. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (236) E.L.T.445 (Guj.)] has held that non-compliance with the fulfilment of conditions such as production of Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate may entail an importer to undergo 100% inspection of entire consignment and that would not tantamou...
M/S. Inox Air Products Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Heard both sides. 2. The issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the appellants vide Tribunal’s decision in the case of ABB Ltd Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2009 (15) STR 23 (TRI.LB)]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Ammarun Foundries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
No one is present on behalf of the respondents. Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue states that the issue of demanding interest in cases of late payment of duty involving price escalation have since been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. S.K.F. India Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). 2. Following the ratio of the cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside and the demand of interest is confirmed. The appeal is allowed in the above terms....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »