Chennai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.Cheyyar Co-operati ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
The issue in dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is whether the assessees herein are required to reverse 8% of the sale price of Vermi-Compost using by-products Press Mud and Bagasse as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 417, holding that Press Mud is a non-excisable product and not an exempted final product so as to attract the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and hence the demand of 8% of the sale price of Vermi-Compost was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. Following the ratio of the above order, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S.Metallic Bellows Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
For the reasons recorded below, I grant the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order for upholding rejection of the permission for conversion of Free Shipping Bill to Advance Licence Shipping Bill and proceed to decide the appeal itself at this stage, as the issue stands covered by the Tribunal’s decision reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T.479 (Tri.-Mumbai) in the case of the same assessee. 2. The request for conversion of the Free Shipping Bill into Advance Licence Shipping Bill was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the ground that conversion is not permissible in terms of sub-para (2) of Para 3.2 of Customs Circular No.4/2004, dated 16.01.2004. The lower appellate authority has relied upon the fact that the goods were not examined by the Customs to uphold the rejection of the conversion. However, I find that in the assessee’s own case cited supra, the Tribunal has set aside the order rejecting permission and remanded the case for effecting conversio...
M/S. Aruna Industries and Another Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Per: P.K. Das, Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that by Final Order No. 169, 170, 171/2005 dated 25.06.05, the Tribunal remanded these matters to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matters afresh after considering the submissions made by the appellants that part of LAB procured by them was used in the manufacture of cleaning and washing powder. It is also directed that the benefit of cum-duty price and the benefit of SSI exemption Notification would be extended to the appellants. The Ld. Advocate fairly submits that the matter was fixed for hearing on 23.08.06. The Ld. Advocate submits that the matter was fixed for hearing but the proprietrix of the firm was unwell and therefore requested for adjournment and submitted medical certificate also. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that to meet the ends of ...
Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Salem Vs. M/S.Chola Spin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Heard both sides. 2. The issue in dispute, namely, as to whether credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as also credit of service tax paid on input service can be utilised in connection with inward movement of inputs stands settled by decisions of the Tribunal in R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (8) S.T.R.186 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2008 (9) S.T.R.544 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The period in dispute in the present case is also prior to the amendment to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by which the Explanation to the above Rule was deleted. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal....
M/S.Gtp Granites Ltd. (Unit-i and Ii) and Others Vs. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
All the above appeals have been dismissed, by two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground of time-bar. 2. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants is correct in his submission that the period of limitation provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been wrongly applied for treating the appeals as barred by limitation. The issue in the appeals relates to refund of service tax and, therefore, it is the provision of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is applicable. According to this provision, the period of limitation is three months from the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone further delay of three months if he is satisfied with the reason therefor. 3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases for fresh decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall first satisfy himself as to whether the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeals with...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.Hyderabad Industries L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
The issue in dispute as to whether CENVAT credit is admissible on Tour Operators Service and Travels. The period in dispute is June, 2006 to March, 2007. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the Tour Operators Service and Travel Services are used for picking up and dropping the staff of the respondents to the factory. In the light of the above factual position, the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs Cable Corporation of India Ltd [2008-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-MUM], Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs J.J. Cement Works [2009-TIOL-411-CESTAT-Del] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. [2009-TIOL-1739-CESTAT-MAD], holding that rent-a-cab services used for transporting employees to and from the place of work is admissible, is squarely attracted and following the ratio thereof, I agree with the respondents that such services are in, or in relation to the activities of business. I, therefore, uphold t...
M/S. Xomox Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. At the outset the learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Department fairly agrees that the issue of valuation in this case has not been properly examined by the lower appellate authority in accordance with the law and CAS - 4. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision. The appellants shall be at liberty to plead their case before the lower appellate authority on all aspects of valuation including overheads and profit for which they should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. Hcl Infosystems
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides at length. There is agreement from both sides that the impugned goods initially transferred from the respondent s factory to the depot has to be assessed on the basis of the price prevailing at the depot on the date the clearance is made from the factory. The respondents have claimed refund on the ground that they have paid duty on higher value at the time of clearance during the impugned period. However, the details of value on which duty is paid and the value on which duty is payable in respect of each consignment has not been furnished by the respondents to the authorities below nor is the same available for perusal of the Bench today. In the absence of such details, the calculation and verification of the refund amount claimed is not possible. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower appellate authority granting refund in the absence of such details is not appropriate. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and rem...
V.Sriram and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
I have heard both sides on the appeal against the review order of the Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 76 as well as under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in payment of service tax. The tax liability is not disputed by the appellants. 2. I note that the adjudicating authority has recorded a clear finding that the assessees had wilfully avoided taking out service tax registration for taxable service rendered by them and that finding has not been challenged by the assessees. The ground on which the adjudicating authority set aside penalty namely payment of the tax amount before issue of notice, is no longer good in law as payment before issue of notice is not sufficient, in the case of suppression, to hold that penalty is not payable. I, therefore, uphold the penalty on the assessees. However, I accept the contention of the assessees that penalties under Section 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive and, therefore, set aside penalty of Rs.39,463/- imposed under Sectio...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Protchem Industries (i) Ltd.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the Ld. SDR on behalf of the Revenue. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The appeal relates to classification of Amino Acid/Powder and Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein. On perusal of the records, we find that the respondents had not controverted the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue. In view of that, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after considering the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Needless to say that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »