Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

The District Collector and the Inspector of Police, C.S.C.i.D. Vs. P.R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1015

R. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Appeal is the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of confiscation of seized rice bags and directing the Government to pay the market value of rice bags to the Writ Petitioner/first Respondent.2. By consent of both sides, the Writ Appeal was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are as follows:(i) On suspicion that rice bags meant for Public Distribution System [PDS] have been hoarded in violation of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 and Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card system) Order 1982, on 02.04.2000, the premises at No. 140, Sri Ayyappan Industries Estate was inspected and it was noticed that 1244 bags weighing about 10.809 Mts has been stored in the premises owned by Natesan and the premises was being used by one Kasi Mariappan who does not have licence under Tamil Nadu ...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sinetech

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned Jt. CDR. The notice issued to the respondents has come back undelivered. However, we find that the respondents had earlier requested for decision of the appeal on the basis of written submissions dated 29.3.2004. 2. The learned Jt. CDR states that the Tribunal has decided a similar case vide Final Order No. 445 - 446/2009 dated 20.4.2009 in the case of M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. and Other. He prays for remanding the matter to the lower appellate authority to decide the case in the light of the Tribunal’s cited decision. 3. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority who shall take into account the grounds of appeal filed by the Department as well as the cited order dated 20.4.2009 before passing a fresh order. He shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....

The India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri M.N.Bharathi, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are three issues involved in this case. The first one relates to denial of credit to parts of surface miners which are used in the captive mines of the appellants. He states that credit is admissible in respect of such parts used in the captive mines in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore [2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)]. 2) The second issue relates to denial of credit on high temperature CCTVs used in the Kiln. He states that such CCTVs have been allowed credit in the following decisions of the Tribunal :- 1) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs CCE Bhopal 2006 (200) ELT 71 2) Jaypee Bela Plant Vs CCE Raipur, 2003 (161) ELT 422 3) The third issue relates to restriction of 75% of the additional duty of customs paid on imported goods received before 1.3.1997. He states that in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs Raj C...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.The Superintending ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K. Das Heard both sides and perused the records. Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent is a State Public Sector Undertaking 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 Indus. Dev. Corpn. Maharashtra [2009 (233) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.)], the Revenue is required to obtain clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. (supra) held as under:- “10. The matter is pending since 1990. Considering the nature of the controversy which is a recurring feature we direct that a committee be formed to sort out the differences between the Central Government and the State Government entities. The composition of such committee shall be as follows: (1) The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; (2) Chief Secretary of the...

Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The appellants are a public sector undertaking. They have not obtained the requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes. As such, we dismiss these appeals for want of clearance with liberty to seek restoration of the appeals as and when they obtain clearance from the Committee....

Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy We have heard both sides. The only dispute in this appeal relates to eligibility of capital goods credit in respect of surface miner used in the captive mines of the appellants. The credit was denied by the department on the ground that the mines are not part of the factory. Shri R.Parthasarathy, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that this issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore [2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)] holding that captive mines constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory. Following the ratio of the cited decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Darien Electric (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: P.K. Das, Revenue filed this appeal. It is the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. The relevant facts of the case as per the record in brief are that, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of prepared glues and adhesives, classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 3506 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents packs 12 bottles in a single pack and each bottle contain its usage and MRP printed on each of the 12 bottles. The appellants were paying duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the packings were exempted from affixing of MRP under Rule 34 (1) (a) (b) of Standards of Weights and Measured (packaged Commodities) Rules 1977, Show Cause Notice issued proposing demand of duty under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the products are sold as multi-piece packages. The Commissioner (Appeals) se...

Bhagwandas Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The impugned order records that out of the total amount of Rs.10,79,236/- confirmed against the appellants, Rs.4,35,484/- has been paid by them. It is the contention of the appellants that the said amount of Rs.4,35,484/- was paid on 30.3.98 whereas another Rs.5 lakhs was paid on 8.11.97 which has not been taken into account by the adjudicating Commissioner. Proof of the payment of Rs.5 lakhs is available in page 14 of the paper book filed by the appellants before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the appellants that once Rs.5 lakhs is also adjusted against duty demand, only balance amount of Rs.1,43,752/- is payable and the appellants are undertaking to pay the said amount along with interest thereon. It is the submission of the appellants that according to para-18 of the impugned order, for the relevant period, the appellants have paid excess duty of above Rs.12 lakhs in respect of their re-rolling mill. Considering the same, the ap...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.Consolidated Compu ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned SDR. The respondents are not represented despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such, the grounds of appeal taken by the department remain uncontroverted. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for passing a fresh order after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.K.C. Palanisamy an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K. Das Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, the impugned order requires no interference. The department’s appeal is rejected....