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.
Cri Pumps (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
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 order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the crediting of the amount of refund claimed by the assessees to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that they had not established non-passing of the incidence of duty to their customers/buyers. There is no dispute that the price at which the goods were cleared from the depot was lesser than the price at which the goods were stock-transferred. The price at which the goods were cleared from the factory to the depot was higher than the price at which the goods were sold from the depot. In this factual background, the decision of the Tribunal in CCE Visakhapatnam Vs Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. [2006 (198) ELT 237] holding that question of unjust enrichment does not arise since lower duty was collected from the buyer is squarely attracted. The fact that the invoices did not show the excise duty element separately is not a ground to hold that the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjust ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem and Another Vs. Phoenix Marketin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
The assessee, who is rendering Banking and Financial Services/Business Auxiliary Service as a direct selling agent for M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in payment of service tax on agency commission and incentives. Revenue is in appeal against the reduction of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. I heard both sides. The argument of the assessee that they were under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax is not tenable as service tax liability was introduced on such service from July’03 and the non-payment continued till Oct 04. I, therefore, hold that the assessee is liable to penalty. However, I accept the assessee’s contention that service tax is not payable on incentives collected, in the light of the Tribunal’s order in Kerala Publicity Bureau Vs CCE [2008 (9) STR 101]. The service tax liability would thus get reduced to approx. Rs.75,000/- fro...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Elkayem Auto Ancillaries (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the ground that the duty was paid prior to issue of show-cause notice. The Department is in appeal against the same. 2. Both sides agree that in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and the subsequent decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) the matter requires to be re-examined by the lower appellate authority as to whether the elements of Section 11AC are present in this case requiring imposition of penalty. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded. Both sides should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Commissioner of Customs, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. National Agency
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned SDR. The respondents are not present. We find that the impugned order has been passed by the lower appellate authority following earlier Tribunal’s order as well as the Board’s Circular. Hence, we are of the view that the same requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal of the Department is dismissed....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Sumangala Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per: P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records we find that the appellants adopted lesser price for the clearance of the finished goods M.S. Billets to their Rolling Mill Division. It appears from the Order-in-Original No. 154/99 dated 24.8.99, that the appellants had not submitted the reply to the Show Cause Notice and also not appeared in personal hearing. The order was passed exparte. It is reflected from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that he passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal without discussing the facts of the case. In our view, the impugned order was passed without examining the facts and therefore such order cannot be sustained. In view of that the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the original authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellants. Needl...
M/S. Visteon Automotive Systems India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. This case is where the appellants imported the impugned goods during February 1999 to April 2000. Afterwards they discovered that some of the goods imported have not been reflected in the Bills of Entry filed by them and no duty has been paid on the same. On such discovery, the appellants intimated the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner vide letter dated 11.10.2000 the non-inclusion of the imported items and non-payment of duty and voluntarily paid the duty thereon along with the interest. Thereafter a show-cause notice has been issued by the Department which has been adjudicated under the impugned order. While appropriating the duty amount of Rs.54,37,268/- along with interest, the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,59,370/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that taking into account the volun...
M/S. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers 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. The appellants have manufactured both exempted and dutiable goods. The dispute in all these four appeals relate to availment of credit of tax on input services. It is admitted by both sides that in the first two cases, the adjudicating Commissioner has ordered for reversal of the entire credit of service tax for the impugned services and in respect of the other two appeals, the adjudicating Commissioner has ordered for payment of 10% of the value of the exempted goods. 2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the impugned orders are unreasonable and the demands on the appellants are far in excess of the credit of service tax in respect of services used in the exempted goods. Hence, all the four impugned orders are set aside and with the consent of both sides, the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision. He shall evolve a method to calculate the proportionate amount of service tax cred...
The Superintending Engineer, Tneb, Pudukkottai Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per: P.K. Das, The Ld. SDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellants are Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) under the Government of Tamil Nadu. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. City and Industries Development Corporation, Maharashtra reported in 2009 (233)ELT 30 (S.C.), the appellants are required to obtain the clearance from the Committee on Disputes. In view of that, all the appeals are dismissed for want of clearance from COD. However, the appellants are at liberty to apply for restoration as and when COD is available....
Australian Foods India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...
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 order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand and interest and for reducing penalty to Rs.10,000/-. The demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees are not entitled to take CENVAT credit paid under supplementary invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs for the reason that the additional amount became recoverable by reason of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. I find that assessees had accepted before the Settlement Commission that removal of dough for the purpose of manufacture of cookies by one unit to another without payment of duty was due to the suppression. This fact stands recorded in the adjudication order. The Settlement Commission has also held that it is not convinced about the contention of the assessee of non-intention to evade payment of duty. Under these circumstances, Rule 9(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is clearly attracted and, therefore, they are...
M/S. Sakthi Industries Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri P.C. Anand, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the respondents states that the refund has been sanctioned by the authorities below, but the same has been credited to the Welfare fund, on the ground of Principles of unjust enrichment have been followed. He further states that this is the case where amounts initially collected from the customers have been subsequently given back by way of credit notes and he states that in such cases the refund is admissible according to the following two decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka: 1. Union of India Vs. A.K. Spintex Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj.) 2. CST, Bangalore Vs. Shiva Analyticals (I) Ltd.2009 (14) S.T.R. 301 (Kar.) 2. Heard the Ld. JCDR. 3. In view of the cited decisions of the Hon ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh order in the light of the said decision. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »