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. Nethra Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sal ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Heard ld. JCDR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice. There is no adjournment request. It appears that the appellants were not interest in pursuing the appeal. As such, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution....
M/S. Tower Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bibikulam, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
We have heard both sides. 2. In the present case, the stock staking was conducted by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) officials by sample weighment which was witnessed by the representatives of the appellants. Nothing on record to show that the manner of weighment was objected to by the appellants. As such, the contention that each piece of the CTD bar was not weighed separately cannot be a ground to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below. Moreover, the lower appellate has already reduced the penalty imposed to a very low amount of Rs.10,000/- and hence the penalty determined by the lower appellate authority does not call for any further reduction. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected....
M/S.Regional Testing Laboratory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Se ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
The request of the assessees for extension of time to comply with the direction for pre-deposit is rejected as I find that the order directing pre-deposit is dated 17.04.2009 and compliance was to be reported on 03.07.2009 and time for pre-deposit was extended by further eight weeks with effect from 07.08.2009 and compliance was to be reported by them. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
M/S. Chemfab Alkalis Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicher ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Heard both sides. 2. While dealing with the stay application, the Tribunal observed as follows:- “I have considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. The brine solution that arises in the course of manufacture of the assessee’s final product Caustic Soda is undoubtedly different from the raw materials with which the assesse’s process of manufacture of Caustic Soda starts. The raw materials used according to the Counsel are Sodium Carbonate and Sodium Hydroxide. Brine solution is different from in name, properties and use from Sodium Carbonate and Sodium Hydroxide. The fact that the item is being removed regularly to its sister concern for further manufacture of different products clearly establishes that brine solution is marketable. It has a commercial identity different from Sodium Carbonate and Sodium Hydroxide. Therefore, brine solution is an excisable product. The same is subject to nil rate of duty as per the relevant entry in the first sc...
M/S. S.A. Ivy Multipumps (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
While hearing the stay application, the Tribunal had taken a prima facie view that the impugned demand is time barred as the appellants had filed return indicating the total credit amount availed. Moreover, Shri Anandakrishnan, Director appearing for the appellants states that the raw material stock declared by the appellants was duly accepted by the Range Officer at the material time. The demand has been raised 33 months later on the basis of audit objection raised by the audit officer who has relied on the documents of the planning department which does not authenticate record of raw material stock. He further states that it is the burden of the department to do the physical verification of the raw material stock and since this has not been done and no notice has been issued within the normal period of limitation. Despite the appellants having declared their stock, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked apart from the fact that the basis of the notice itself is invalid and n...
M/S.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sale ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
The appeal and stay application are dismissed as the Committee on Disputes has declined to accord permission to the assessees to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal....
M/S. Rama Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
We have heard both sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has decided duty is payable on waste arising from the processing of the excisable goods in terms of Notification No.43/2001-CE dated 26.6.2001. However, it is the grievances of the appellants that they are entitled to exemption under Notification No.8/2003. Though the lower appellate authority has recorded his submission in this regard, there is no finding given by him on the applicability or otherwise of the exemption notification claim to cover the appellants case. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority to specifically consider the claim of the appellants entitlement for exemption under Notification No.8/03. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms....
M/S.Oasis Business Inc. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
The export goods found declared as T-Shirts etc., but actually found to be ordinary banians, have been confiscated for over-invoicing of the same with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.5 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs has been imposed upon the proprietary concern M/s.Oasis Business Inc., penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on Shri Nirmalraj, Proprietor and penalties of Rs.2 lakhs each on the other two appellants who have created M/s.Oasis Business Inc., in an attempt to export garments whose value was highly inflated. 2. I have heard both sides. The appellants do not challenge confiscation of the goods as they accept that the same were grossly over-invoiced with a view to obtain higher inadmissible drawback. The only plea raised in the appeals is that penalty both on the proprietary concern and on its proprietor is not sustainable and that penalty on the proprietary concern, S/Shri R. Velmurugan and S.M. Manickamani may be reduced having regard to the correct value of the goods vi...
M/S. United Metal Industries Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
Heard both sides. As it is possible to hear and decide the case itself today the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal is taken up for decision. 2. In this case the appellants took input duty credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the impugned goods on job work basis which was sent without payment of duty to the principal manufacturer who in turn cleared the same on payment of duty. At the instance of the Department the appellants initially reversed the credit but subsequently took suo moto credit of the same coming to know that in such a case the credit is admissible as held by the larger Bench in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri. - LB). The Department took objection to the suo moto taking of the credit and the present proceeding was initiated. In the meantime another larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2008-TIOL-1211-CESTAT-MUM-LB has held that there is no provision in...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. M/S. Salem Steel Rolling Mil ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2009
We have heard both sides. 2. No one present on behalf of the respondents when the matter was called. 3. Considering the petty amount involved in this case, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed without going into the merits of the case....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »