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.
V. Ravi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2009
The application for raising the additional ground that the demand is barred by limitation, as the notice dated 06.07.2005 for recovery of service tax covers the period 2003-04 and there is no allegation or finding of suppression, is allowed as this is a legal plea raised by the assessee. 2. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the demand of service tax together with interest confirmed against the assessee herein on the ground that the assessee was providing rent-a-cab service, together with penalty. I find force in the submission of the appellant that the demand raised vide show-cause notice dated 06.07.2005 covering the period 2003-04 is barred by limitation for the reason that there is no material on record to establish suppression on the part of the assessee who although had not got himself registered with service tax authorities and although had not paid the taxes, stated that he did so out of ignorance, which stand has not been controverted or rebutted by the Revenue. Thi...
M/S. Sri Vignesh Textiles Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2009
Shri R. Balagopal, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants fairly states that the appellants are not contesting the duty liability which has been discharged well before the issue of Show Cause Notice. However, he pleads for reduction in the penalty and waiver of the interest amount. 2. Shri T.H. Rao, Ld. SDR, appearing for the department states that this is a case of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods and in such cases, in view of the ruling by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.), the penalty under Section 11AC has to be mandatorily imposed and interest charged as no discretion is available under the law. 3. After hearing both sides and following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dharamendra Textiles (supra), I hold that there is no discretion available with the Tribunal to grant the prayer of the appellants for waiver of interest and reduction in the penalty...
M/S.Meena Leather Exports and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Che ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2009
Both appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants herein filed duty drawback shipping bills for export of burnishable upper finished leather. On examination of the consignment it was found to be semi-finished burinishable finished leather as against the declaration that it was finished leather. CLRI opined that samples drawn from the consignments did not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down for finished leather in the absence of wax coating and dying. Hence the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption and penalty was also imposed on the appellants. The orders were set aside by the Tribunal which remanded the cases for fresh decision and on remand, fresh orders which are now challenged in these appeals were passed once again upholding confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of a fine and on imposition of penalty; hence this appeal. 3. I have heard both sides. I find that in an identica...
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager, Chennai Vs. Met ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2009
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The Opposite Party in COP.31/2004 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), Chennai, is the appellant. 2. The complainant, who is running a business, in the name and style of Meta Films (India) Ltd., in order to insure the machineries, took a comprehensive policy called Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite party, covering the period from 09.07.2002 to 08.07.2003. On 30.10.2002 at about 2.00 a.m. fire broke out in the complainants factory, in which, some of the switches, ACB, Cables and other machines got burnt. On the day itself, a claim was lodged, on that basis, on 31.10.2002, a Surveyor was sent by the opposite party to assess the damage. On the very same day, without assigning any reason, the claim was rejected. Thereafter, further representation was made in writing as well telephonically. Though the complainant had insured the goods valued at Rs.6.5 crores and paid the premium alone Rs....
The Director (Marketing) Maruti Udyog Ltd., and Another Vs. S. George ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2009
M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The opposite parties in OP.No.65/2003, on the file of District Forum, Tirunelveli, having suffered an adverse order, have come to this Commission, to erase the same, as appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent has filed a case before the District Forum, seeking certain reliefs, interalia contending that he had applied to the 2nd respondent, expressing his willingness to establish Maruthi Authorised Service Station (MASS), by depositing a sum of Rs.1500/-, that as instructed in LOI, he had remitted the sum of Rs.10000/-, that he having fulfilled all the necessary requirements for MASS, the opposite parties have failed to issue necessary orders, thereby they have committed breach of agreement, which should be construed as deficiency in service, that by the negligent act of the opposite parties, he had incurred loss, suffered mental agony, etc., and that therefore they should be directed to refund the application fee of Rs.1500/-, that they should be further direc...
M/S.Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
The brief facts of the case are that the assessees (hereinafter referred to as ‘TEL’), who are manufacturers of explosives and accessories thereof, have depots at various places like Kanpur, Bilaspur, Dehradun etc., and their products are sold to actual customers on stock transfer basis from their depots at the above places. During the year 1996-97, TEL cleared products discharging duty at the rate of 20% from the factory. In the budget 1997-98, the rate of duty for goods in question was reduced to 18% with effect from 01.03.1997. The major customers of TEL like M/s.Coal India Ltd. did not accept duty of 20% after the budget and insisted that only 18% should be charged with effect from 01.03.1997 and, therefore, TEL was not able to collect excise duty at 20% which is the rate at which duty was remitted by them at the factory gate at the time of clearance, differential duty of 2% not collected from the customers on clearances effected on consignment notes from the factory fo...
M/S. Sri Venkatakrishna Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Heard both sides. 2. This is a case of clandestine production and removal of the impugned goods. The appellants have not made out a case on merits as the Department’s case is supported by adequate evidence as well as statements of the responsible officials of the appellants unit. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant makes the only prayer that in respect of clearances where the duty has not been separately collected, the amount received by the appellants from their customers should be taken as cum-duty price and the demands should be reworked accordingly. While making this prayer he fairly states that in several cases the appellants have collected the duty amount in addition to the value and there is no scope for allowing cum-duty price assessment in respect of such clearances. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao. 4. In view of the submissions made, the appeal is rejected. However, the limited prayer made by the counsel appears to be acceptable. In s...
M/S.Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
The liability to service tax on testing services carried out by the assessees situate at Mettur Dam to their Karikal unit has been upheld by the authorities below who have also imposed penalties upon the assessee. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the authorities below have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Government Ceramic Service Centre, Cannanore Vs Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1215 (C.E.G.A.T.)] to hold that the Mettur Dam unit is a separate legal entity from the Karikal unit of the assessee. However in the context of service tax liability, the Tribunal has held in Precot Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupati [(2006) TIOL 818 ] that different units of a corporate entity will not make them separate legal entities for the purpose of leviability to service tax and when one renders service to oneself service tax is not leviable. The above decision has been followed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Exci...
M/S. Marudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Spinning Mills Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The assessees have asked for decision on merits. Hence, we have heard Ld. SDR and perused the records. The challenge in this appeal is both to the confirmation of differential duty demand of Rs.89,151/- together with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- which is the extent to which the penalty of equal amount imposed by the adjudicating authority has been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the entire duty was paid before the receipt of the Show Cause Notice. 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a clear finding in para-3 of the impugned order that the assessees do not dispute the duty liability and only plead to set aside the penalty. We, therefore confine our order to the penalty aspect. We find that the only ground on which the penalty has been reduced is the payment of the duty prior to the issue of show cause notice. However, this is now no longer a ground to reduce or set aside the penalty. Therefore, the Commission...
M/S. Rigid Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 15/2001-CE dated 16.03.01 has been disallowed to the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of corrugated boxes/containers falling under CETA 4819.12, on the ground that the clearance value as on 08.03.01 extended the sealing prescribed in the said notification. On this basis, a demand of Rs.1,64,114.67 has been confirmed together with interest, and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- has been imposed upon the assessees. 2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue in dispute was the subject matter of the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs. Sigma Pack Final Order No.1735/09 dated 05.11.09, the Tribunal has held that the amended Notification No.15/01-CE dated 16.03.01, has to be given prospective effect and therefore uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held that the benefit is available to the assessees, and rejected the appeal of the revenue. 3. Ld. SDR is no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »