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.
M/S. Venus Rubber Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
Per: P.K. Das, The relevant facts of the case in brief are that, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various rubber products specified under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also undertaking job work of rubberizing the rollers supplied by the customers under challans as per Rule 57F (4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 01.03.86. Show Cause Notices dated 19.01.98 and 16.06.98 were issued proposing demand of duty on rubberized rollers returned to the customers after the job work. The original authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside and demands proposed in the show cause notices were confirmed. Hence, the appellants filed this appeal. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants undertook the job work under Notification No.214/86-CE (su...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. the Nadar Press Ltd. a ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The only issue in all these three appeals is whether printed wrappers used for wrapping beedis require to be classified under Heading 4821.00 as contended by the respondents or under Heading 4823.90 as contended by the Revenue. We find that this issue has been settled in favour of the respondents in the following cases :- 1) CCE Madurai Vs Chidambaram Litho Press Ltd. - Final Order No.460/09 dt. 13.4.09 2) CCE Madurai Vs Coronation Colourpak (P) Ltd. - Final Order No.1334/09 dt. 22.9.09 Following the ratio of these two decisions, we hold that the impugned printed wrappers are classifiable under Heading 4821.00. Consequently, the three appeals filed by the department are dismissed....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Pondy Metal and R ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy All these three appeals are taken up together for hearing and decision in view of the fact that a common issue is involved in all these three cases. Appeal Nos. E/114/2004 and E/125/2004 are not listed in today’s cause list but are taken up for hearing together with Appeal No. E/1127/2003 with the consent of both sides. 2. Shri S. Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants state that the issue involved in these cases is whether the credit in respect of inputs lying in stock on 31.7.1997 can be recovered by the Department and also similar recovery can be done in respect of credit on inputs used in the finished goods which are still lying on stock on that day. He states that this issue has been decided in the following cases in favour of the respondents holding that Rule 57F(17) and Rule 57I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not allow such a recovery and what was allowed under the rules was only the lapsing of the unutil...
Dr. B. Balasundaram Vs. M/S. Proventus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Rep. b ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The appellant, as complainant approached the District Forum, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06,231/-, in addition to Rs.50000/- as compensation, for mental agony, on the ground with among other grounds, that there was a settlement between the parties for payment of Rs.1,06,231/-, as per the settlement dt.13.02.2004, and despite repeated request and notice, they have failed to pay the same, which should be construed as deficiency in service, as well the complainant should be construed as consumer. 2. The District Forum, felt that the complaint may not be maintainable, heard about the maintainability of the case, without ordering notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the complainant, and scanning the definition for consumer, as well service, the District Forum felt that the settlement between the parties and the agreement to pay a specific amount, will not come within the meaning of service, and if at all for the agreed amount, if not paid, it is open ...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Salem Division, ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2009
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The respondent in this appeal as complainant moved the District Forum in CC No.52/2002, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in addition to compensation, on the ground that for the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, the should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, being the policy amount assured, with interest thereon, in addition to seeking further direction for a sum of R.15000/- towards deficiency in service, and for further sum of Rs.10000/- for mental agony, as well for the cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. The 1st opposite party/ appellant, though appeared through counsel, not filed written version and contested the case, whereas the 2nd opposite party alone filed written version, and opposed the claim. 3. The District Forum, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as the absence of any defense from the appellant/ 1st opposite party, has come to the conclusion, that there was deficiency in service, followed by a direction...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Sigma Pack
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per: P.K. Das, The relevant facts of the case as per the record in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of cartons, boxes etc., classifiable under sub-heading No.4819.12 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods were charged NIL rate of duty till 28.2.2001. By Finance Act, 2001 effective from 1.3.2001, rate of duty was fixed @ 16% ad valorem and benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2000 as amended upto aggregate value of clearance of Rs. one crore was extended. The Notification No. 15/01-CE dated 16.3.01, was issued amending the Notification No. 8/2000, in so far as the exemption was restricted to Rs. 10 lakhs during the month of March, 2001. The respondents exceeded clearance of goods of Rs. 10 lakhs prior to 16.3.01. So, in view of Notification No. 15/01-CE, they started paying duty @ 16% ad valorem from 16.3.01. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 4,24,485/- for the period 6.3.01 to 15.3.01, as they h...
M/S.ijm (i) Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per P.K. Das None appears on behalf of the appellant despite issue of notice. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal on behalf of the Revenue. She submits that the appeal was adjourned on 17 occasions at the request of the appellant during the period 2002 to Aug. 09. She submits a detailed statement of adjournment which is kept on record. On perusal of the statement filed by the learned DR, it appears that the applicant is not interested to proceed with the matter. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Panamid Treads Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri Abrahim Morkes, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods were sent directly from the supplier to the job worker on behalf of the appellants. The job worker’s employees went on a strike at that time and hence goods were returned by the job worker to the appellants after about 10 months. The appellants have taken credit in respect of the impugned goods after a few days thereafter. The department has denied the credit on the ground that the same has been taken 9 months after the issue of the relevant documents. Ld. Advocate pleads that since late receipt of the goods was beyond the control of the appellants, as a special case, duty credit should be allowed. 2. Heard ld. SDR Shri Rangaraju. He states that, as per the rules, the duty credit can be taken only within 9 months. He further states that this provision of the rule has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further states that the...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Servalakshmi Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Both sides state that the issue involved in this case is similar to the issue in Appeal No. E/159, 162 and 163/2003 which was decided by Final Order Nos. 1261 to 1263/2009 dated 11.9.2009 with the following observation:- 2. After considering the submission of both sides, we find that the impugned orders have been passed by an officer who did not have jurisdiction to pass these orders. Hence these orders cannot be upheld. We set aside the same and remand the cases to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai to pass appropriate orders after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Before parting with the cases, we express our unhappiness that officers at the level of Commissioner are deciding cases and passing orders which are not within their jurisdiction.” 2. Both sides pray that this appeal may also be remanded on similar terms. Hence, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned order and remand the m...
Sree Karthikeya Lamination Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned SDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice. As such both the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution as it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing these appeals....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »