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.
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Ford India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has decided this case applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal n the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. - 2001 (127) ELT 786. The Departmental representatives are not able to show us any contrary decision by any higher judicial forum. As such we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently the departmental appeal is dismissed....
G.Plast (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri Abraham Markos, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are a job worker who are clearing parts to the main manufacturer of Home Soda Maker. The impugned duty demand, which has already been paid by the appellants, is in respect of the parts on the ground that the Home Soda Maker has been cleared by the main manufacturer without payment of duty availing small scale exemption. Ld. Advocate argues that even though exemption has been availed, the fact remains that impugned Home Soda Maker is a dutiable product. We find that the argument advanced is not tenable. Since exemption is being availed in respect of Home Soda Marker, the same has to be considered as exempted goods. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Ms. Pushya Sitaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking. Since they have not initially obtained necessary clearance from the COD, the appeal was dismissed for non-production of clearance and subsequently it was restored on production of the clearance. She prays that since this is an old appeal and the case is covered by the decisions of the apex Court, the requirement of predeposit may be waived and the appeal itself may be taken up for hearing and disposed. The learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao, appearing for Revenue, has no objection and hence we dispense with the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for hearing and disposal. 2. Ms. Sitaraman, learned senior counsel states that the appellants had warehoused the impugned goods without payment of duty, warehousing period expired in 1990 and 1991 respectively but the impugned goods were cleared in the y...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sri Balaji Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not represented. Heard Shri C. Rangarajan, learned SDR for the Department. The amount of impugned credit has already been reversed by the respondents and hence the same is not in dispute. The Department is in appeal against the setting aside of the penalty by the lower appellate authority. Considering the petty amount involved in this case, we dismiss the appeal of the Department without going into the merits of the case....
American Express Banking Corp., Cyber City Tower 'C', DLF Building Vs. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2009
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party aggrieved by the order of the lower Forum in COP.477/2000, questioned the same before us, as appellant. The brief facts leading to the complaint: 2. The complainants obtained American Express Cards for individual and Corporates and one such card is bearing No.3769-711622-81008. The complainant when tried to use this card in USA during 1999, he was informed that the card was suspended due to non receipt of annual membership dues. Upon information, the due was cleared by Demand Draft bearing No.008018, dated 13.10.99. Having credited the amount, the opposite party had cancelled the card without any proper reason, that too, when this card has no outstanding. The act of the opposite party, in canceling the Corporate card without any reason is arbitrary and discloses total deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Even after the issue of notice, the card was not reinstated, thereby causing loss and sufferings to the complai...
Marvel Engineering Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri G.Natarajan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture PD pumps as well as parts thereof. The parts used in the manufacture of PD pumps were exempted prior to 1.3.94 and the exemption got omitted from that date till 24.4.04 after which the exemption was reinstated on representation from the Industry. He states that on the very same issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order in the case of W.P.I.L Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut [2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC)] holding that it was a consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption to such parts and that omission from the former notification cannot lead to the conclusion that the exemption was withdrawn, as the later notification did not grant exemption for first time, it was only clarificatory and hence retrospective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in the cited case that for the intervening period between 1.3.94 and 24.4.94, no duty ...
M/S.DolphIn Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2009
Per P.K. Das None appears on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant filed an adjournment application on the ground that he is going out of station for medical check-up as per doctor’s advice. No copy of doctor’s advice was enclosed with the letter. On perusal of the record, we find that the matter was adjourned on 09.09.2009 at the request of the learned counsel. It is also noted that on 09.06.2009, it was adjourned by way of last chance. Even thereafter, the matter was adjourned on two occasions at their request. It appears that the matter was adjourned on different occasions on various grounds. It seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue the matter. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Switzer Pneumatics Pvt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy No one is present on behalf of the respondents. Heard Ms.Indira Sisupal, ld. DR for the department. We find that only a petty amount is involved in this appeal. As such, this appeal is rejected on that count without going into the merits of the case....
M/S.Rane Trw Steering Systems Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, Che ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2009
Per P.K. Das These appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the assessee entered into a Joint Venture agreement with M/s. TRW Inc., USA, who will provide technical know-how to the assessee. As per agreement, the assessee paid technical know-how fees and royalty to foreign company. The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.17,64,295/- and imposed penalty under the category of Consulting Engineer on service rendered by the foreign company during the period 07.07.1997 to 23.02.2001. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as allowing the decution of cost drawing from the taxable value and reduced demand of tax to Rs.16,78,182.00. Hence the assessee and the Revenue filed the appeals. 3. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India [2009 ...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2009
Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy No one is present on behalf of the respondents. Heard Shri Dhanasekaran, appearing for the department. The department has not obtained the necessary CoD clearance for pursuing this appeal against the PSU-respondent. As such, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the department to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining CoD clearance later on....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »