Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Hindustan Motors Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In this case the assessment was finalized and thereafter a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on account of short levy. The lower appellate authority has held that after finalizing the assessment, the original authority had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice as he had become functus officio and he could not review his own order. 2. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld.JCDR arguing the case of the department states that the impugned show cause notice has been issued under Section 11A and as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. ITC Ltd. - 2006 (203) ELT 532 (S.C.), the notice under Section 11A can only be issued after finalization of provisional assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to the relevant date for computation of the time period within which such notice can be issued and that in the case of provisional assessment, the relevant date is the date of finalization of the provisional a...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Titan Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue in dispute in this appeal is as to whether the assessees herein are required to reverse the credit @ 16% at the time of clearance of inputs (conveyor belts) as such or whether credit reversal @ 9.6% is sufficient. 2. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. 3. The issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Larger Bench decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. American Auto Service - 1996 (86) ELT 71 and CCE, Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd - 2000 (39) RLT 575. The Larger Bench has held that the credit taken by the assessees is required to be reversed--the assessees herein have reversed the credit @ 9.6% originally availed by them. The Larger Bench decisions have been followed in the case of Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh - F.O. No. 568/03 dated 10.07.03, which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Following the ...

Cce, Trichy and Another Vs. M/S. India Cements Ltd. and Another

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. 2. Appeal No. E/1071/2003 is filed by the department against credit allowed in respect of duty paid on capital goods used in the mines belonging to the respondent assessee. The Ld. Advocate for the respondents brings to our notice, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore - 2006 (197) ELT 145 (S.C.) under which credit of duty paid on the capital goods used in mines has been allowed when such mines are captive mines holding that such mines constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory. Following the ratio of the cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (supra), we hold that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority requires no interference in so far as it relates to allowing credit in respect of duty paid on capital goods used in the mines of the respondents. Consequently, Appeal No. E/1071/2003 filed by the...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. the India Cements L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending MODVAT credit of lubricants used in captive mines of the respondents herein who are manufacturers of cement, during the period from April 1996 to March- 2000 in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. We have heard both sides. The rule as it stood at the material time covered lubricating oils as capital goods as per Sl.No.12 of the Rule. In the assessee’s own case reported in 2003 (150) ELT 341, the Tribunal has held that capital goods used in the manufacturing process and outside the factory premises are eligible to credit during the relevant period under Rule 57Q. The mines in which the lubricating oils are used for lubricating the machineries such as surface miner, dumper etc., being captive mines of the assessees, credit has been rightly held to be admissible. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The cross-objection is only in the nat...

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Chennai and Another Vs. M/S. S.P. Handloom ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The appellants, as opposite parties, who suffered an adverse order in the hands of District Forum, Chennai (North), in O.P.No.356/2000, have come to this Commission, challenging the same. 2. The respondent herein as complainant, has approached the District Forum, seeking for the refund of a sum of Rs.2,47,880/-, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1 lakh as damages for mental strain, tension, etc, alleging that the 1st opposite party had been debiting interest @ 13% p.a., on the overdraft amount, much against the RBI guidelines, which was questioned, that ultimately they debited a sum of Rs.2,47,880/- on 30.9.1997, without furnishing the details, that despite of complaints to the opposite parties, they have failed to deduct the said amount from the accounts, that the complainant being a consumer and the bank being the service provider, failed in their duty, and that for the deficiency in service, they should be directed to pay the said amount,...

The Branch Manager, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation L ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party who suffered on adverse order in the hands of the lower Forum is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur, for the return of a sum of Rs.19,440/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum, in addition too, for compensation of Rs.50,000/-, on the grounds that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- as loan from the opposite party for the purchase of a Ambassador Car, agreeing to repay the same with interest thereon, on installment basis within 5 years; pursuant to the sanctioning and as per the agreement, within 4 years, paid the entire amount, that for the prompt repayment of the loan, he is entitled to 2% rebate, which was not paid, despite the demand, thereby causing mental agony and therefore the District Forum should direct the opposite party, to pay the said amount. 3. The respondent/opposite party in its Written Version, admitting the sanctio...

Rarefield Engineering Pvt. Limited Rep. by Its General Manager Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1700

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Chennai Fishing Harbour Management Committee, Chennai Port Trust (2nd respondent herein) invited sealed tenders under two cover system for Licensing of the Slipway Complex for Operation and Maintenance at Chennai Fishing Harbour, Royapuram, Chennai on annual license basis from the firms and companies having a minimum experience of three years in building/repairing the boats, trawlers, tugs, naval/coast guard and other vessels or operating such type of slipway or dry docks and having DG Shipping Registration Certificate and average annual turnover of not less than Rs. 3.00 crores in the last three years. The Firms/Companies can also quote for this tender as 'Joint Venture' . Initially, the license period will be for 7 years and it is extendable for another 3 years on satisfactory performance. The departmental minimum reserve price (license fee) as mentioned in the Tender Notification is Rs. 7.62 lakhs + service tax per month. The license fee shall be payable ever...

S. Saran Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director (Cmd) National Aviatio ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ552Mad

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The petitioner joined under the respondents as Trainee Pilot. As per the conditions of appointment, he was required to undergo training and assessment as a Trainee Pilot at Central Training Establishment, Secunderabad with effect from 1.3.2007. As per the terms of appointment, he has to execute Agreements and Surety Bonds and after completion of training and obtaining necessary endorsement and instrument rating from the Director General of Civil Aviation (for brevity, 'the DGCA') he would be appointed as Second Officer on fixed pay of Rs. 770/- per month plus other allowances and subsequently, on completion of release checks, his appointment will be as First Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 6200-175-6550-200-7550-225-7775-250-8025/-. The petitioner was asked to furnish bank guarantee from a Nationalised Bank for a sum of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs as security deposit which will be invoked in case of any breach of conditions of appointment. 2. After completion of his training...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The issue in this case relates to whether payment by utilization of CENVAT credit amounts to discharge of duty paid in cash or through account-current. 3. Shri M. N. Bharathi, Advocate appearing for the respondent states that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.) that payment through CENVAT credit is as good as making payment in account-current. 4. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal for the Revenue. 5. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision cited above has held that payment by CENVAT credit is as good as making payment by account-current, the basis on which the Department’s appeal does not survive. Hence the Department’s appeal is dismissed....

M/S. Sri Vinayaga Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether during the period of forfeiture the appellants could discharge the duty liability by utilization of CENVAT credit. 2. On hearing both sides we find that it has already been held that during the impugned period there was no bar for utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of duty during the forfeiture period by the larger Bench in the case of Noble Drugs Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nasik - 2007 (215) ELT 500 (Tri. - LB). The larger Bench relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in Thanikkudam Bhagawati Mills Ltd. judgment in Central Excise Appeal No. 22 of 2005 dated 26.10.2005. The decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.) also holds the same view. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order holding that the assessees were not eligible to pay duty by utilization of CENVAT credit and allow the appeal....