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. Sidha Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The assessees herein availed the SSI Exemption under the Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 01.04.97, during the financial year 1997-98 upto a clearance value of Rs. 30 lakhs. After crossing this limit of clearance value, they took credit of Rs. 1,89,684/- on capital goods received by them and utilized an amount of Rs. 1,89,106/- for paying duty on final products manufactured and cleared by them from 24.4.97 to 21.6.97. The appellants repaid the said amount by debiting the PL account. A Show Cause Notice proposing denial of the benefit of exemption availed in terms of the above mentioned notification and proposing demand of differential duty of Rs.12.66 lakhs as well as penal action was issued; the Additional Commissioner dropped the proceedings for denial of exemption and the demand of differential duty but imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh on the assessees under the provisions of Rule, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) up...
M/S.Zen Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
The application for restoration of the above appeal which was dismissed for non-appearance vide Final Order No.1133/2009 dated 04.09.2009 is allowed by setting aside the dismissal order and restoring the appeal to its original number, as I am satisfied with the explanation given for non-appearance, namely, that the hearing date was wrongly noted by the applicant in his diary. 2. Now I take up the appeal for final hearing. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by the confiscation of air-conditioners containing Refrigerant R-22 imported by them under bill of lading dated 17.09.2005 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.65,000/- and upholding of a penalty of Rs.15,000/-. 4. I have heard both sides. Policy Circular No.26 (RE-2005)/2004 2009 dated 13.09.2005 states that import of air-conditioners is free in terms of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import and that the DGFT in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and Forest in order to evolve a GATT compatible regulat...
M/S. Saravana Insulators Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Heard both sides. 2. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the appellants have taken the factory premises on lease from Mr. Padam J. Challani who had acquired the same in auction conducted by DRT, Mumbai. The appellants have cleared the impugned insulators which were lying in the factory premises and were probably manufactured when the earlier owners were running the same. He states that the appellants have sold the impugned goods at a lower price to clear their factory premises and the same are reflected in the books of accounts and sales tax has also been paid. However, they were under the bonafide belief that no excise duty is payable on such goods which were manufactured earlier and were lying around in the factory taken by them on lease from the person who paid it in the auction. He states that they had no intention to evade excise duty since there is no allegation of suppression etc. in the impugned orders. He fairly states that the appellan...
M/S. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (Beml) Vs. Cc, Sea Port (Export), Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had imported the impugned goods for manufacture of Dumpers to be exported to Jordan under the Advance Licence Scheme, availing customs duty exemption under the Notification No. 204/92-Cus. dated 19.05.1992. However, on account of the Gulf war, the appellants were not able to fulfill the export obligation and they have used the impugned goods for manufacture of dumpers, which have been cleared for home consumption. The appellants have paid the duty and interest @ 24% in terms of the bond executed by them. It is the case of the appellants that non-fulfillment of export obligation entails payment of duty at the normal rates which is applicable otherwise. The Ld. Advocate states that the appellants are otherwise eligible for the concessional duty under exemption Notification No. 72/93-Cus dated 28.2.93. He further s...
T.S. Marimuthu Versus Assitant Record Officer, Headquarters, Western C ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2009
The petitioner has filed the petition before the High Court, Madras, as W.P.No.21063 of 2008 challenging the order of the first respondent bearing Ref.No.2901/15314951/FA/06/MA dated May 2008, under which the maintenance allowance was granted to the second respondent, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner. After the constitution of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.1 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the petition sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner is serving in the Indian Army as Naik. The marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent took place on 21.04.1999, while the petitioner is in Army service. After the marriage, the second respondent was living with the petitioner at Tuticorin at Door No.4/120, Varthagapatti Village. Out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with two children, the first being a female born on 13.12.2001 and the second being a male born on 12.04.2006. Since the p...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sharada Motors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the assessees herein are manufacturers of automobile components. It was found that they had raised debit notes on M/s. Hyundai Motors Ltd. for differential value on material cost and paid duty on the differential value. The raising of debit notes was not informed to the Department and duty on the debit notes was not paid until the date of visit of the central excise officers. The assessees did not dispute the raising of the debit notes. An amount of Rs.9,63,365/- was appropriated against the duty demand of Rs.9,74,659/-. A show-cause notice dated 28.2.2002 was issued for alleged contravention of the relevant rules, proposing recovery of duty and appropriation of the amount already paid and proposing levy of interest and imposition of penalty. The charge of suppression was upheld by the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand together with interest under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of equal amount to duty under Se...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Computer Graphics Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy This is an appeal filed by the Department based on the Review Order No. 167-R/2004 dated 21.9.2004 passed by the Board. The issue involved in this case relates to the question of adding the reimbursed amount received from the brand owners [M/s. Konica] towards advertisement expenses incurred by the respondents to the assessable value of film rolls manufactured and sold by the respondents. The adjudicating Commissioner has passed a detailed speaking order in this regard. She has given the following reasons for not including such amounts in the assessable value:- “The SCN cites Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules 75 and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 to uphold the liability for addition of the advertisement expenses, incurred by CGL, in the assessable value/transaction value of the finished goods sold by them. It is seen that the products manufactured by CGL are directly sold by them to various dealers. It is contended by the department that CGL are no...
M/S. AlmIn Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Duty demand of Rs.52,268/- has been confirmed against the assessees together with interest and penalty of equal amount has been imposed. The demand is raised as a result of clubbing of clearances of the assessee and M/s. ECA Products for the purpose of determining whether the assessee is eligible to exemption under SSI Notification. The case has been made out on the basis of admission by Shri C.S. Madan, Managing Director of ECA Products to the effect that manufacturing activity required for the project accounted in ECA Products was carried out only by the assessees herein and not at the site of the customers as claimed by them. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that detailed grounds had been raised in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). Some of the contentions raised by the assessees are that there was no financial flow back between the two units, that M/s. ECA Products are also a separate legal entity with independent existen...
M/S. Iskraemeco Seahorse Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tric ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The impugned order confirms duty demand on transportation charges collected by the appellants who are manufacturers of electricity supply motors in excess of the actual charges incurred for delivery of the goods from the assessee to the buyer. The period of dispute in Appeal No. E/969/2003 is April to August and the period of demand in Appeal No.E/970/2003 is September 1999 to December 2000. 2. We have heard both sides and find that in the assessee’s own case vide Final Order No. 1380/2007 dated 19.11.2007 the Tribunal has set aside the demand raised on identical grounds, relying upon the decision of the apex Court in Baroda Electric Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1997 (94) ELT 13 (SC). 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
M/S. the Kaikatty Industrial Co-op. Tea Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Demand of Rs.48,778/- has been confirmed on clearances of tea by the assessees during the period 1.4.2000 to 16.4.2000 by denial of the benefit for exemption in terms of Notification No. 41/99-CE dated 26.11.1999 on the ground that during the period of demand, no undertaking as required under the notification was filed the notification clearly states that the benefit of exemption from duty will commence from the date of undertaking with the Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as specified in condition (b). In addition a penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the penalty as imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Golden Dew Tea Factory and Ors. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2007 (219) ELT 362. Therefore, the assessee’s argument that since they had filed classif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »