Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Madura Coats Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. In these cases the original authority had denied MODVAT credit to the respondents on the ground that they had not filed the necessary declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In an appeal by the respondents, the lower appellate authority has allowed the credit following earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The Department has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras had directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law as to whether MODVAT credit can be extended in cases where necessary declaration has not been made. 3. During arguments in this case it was submitted before us that the Hon ble High Court of Madras has dismissed the Department’s reference petition vide Commissioner Vs. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT A69 (Mad.) with the following order:- “By filing this reference case petition, the Department seeks a direction to the Customs, Ex...

Mrs. S. Sarala, Assistant, Office of the Director of Medical Services, ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

Honble M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. The brief facts pertaining to the case as under:- 1. The complainant while using Washing Machine in her house on 04.09.2004 at about 12.30 noon, met with an accident, in which, her right hand index finger, was caught in the Washing Machine and it was cut off. Immediately, she took the amputated finger in a plastic zipper bag and rushed to the first opposite partys hospital along with her husband at about 1 p.m. where the duty doctor gave pain killer injection as well put a bandage. Though the complainant expected the specialist-qualified plastic surgeon to attend on her immediately, commence reconstructive surgery for re-implantation of the amputated finger, she was disappointed by the lack of immediate medical attention, indifference and delay in commencing the surgery, thereby, diminishing the possibility of recovery. After questioned/complaint by Muthukumar, brother of the complainant, there was some progress. 2. Only at 6 p.m., the second opp...

J. Subramaniam Advocate, Chennai Vs. the Manager, Air Travel Enterpris ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant in O.P.374/2004 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), having failed in his attempt to get any relief, has come to this Commission, as appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant had purchased an Air Ticket from the first opposite party for the flight operated by the second opposite party, on 17.09.2003, by paying a sum of Rs.29,970/-, to travel from Chennai Dubai Bahrain Dubai Chennai, having three months validity. At Dubai, due to delay in issuance of Dubai visa, the complainant could not travel on 04.10.2003 as scheduled and therefore opted to rebook for 13.10.2003 by Flight No.540 Dubai to Chennai. But, the second opposite party failed to accommodate the complainant whereas on 11.10.2003 when he approached the second opposite party, to book his return journey reservation on 13.10.2003, he was requested to approach Air India since they are having code sharing with them. But Air India refuse...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Franco Indian Remedies (P) Limited ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(171)LC268(Madras)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, is the appellant herein. Challenge is to the order of the CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal), South Zone, Chennai, dated 20.7.2005, passed in Appeal Nos. E/1318/04 and E/1428/04.2. This appeal was entertained on the following substantial question of law:Whether the penalty amount mentioned in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is the discretion of the Quasi Judicial Authority viz., the Tribunal.3. The issue arises in the following circumstances:(a) The first respondent/Assessee had taken 50% of the duty paid on the capital goods as Modvat Credit in 1999-2000 and taken Cenvat Credit to the value of Rs. 1,42,559/- vide RG23C Sl. No. 25 on 24.12.1998 for capital goods along with spares, received under invoice No. 1485 dated 7.12.1998 from M/s. Cadmach Machinery Company Limited, Ahmedabad.(b) Subsequently, under their own private invoice MC001 dated 9.9.2000 the said machineries we...

N. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1347

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were originally employed as Helpers in the first respondent Electricity Board, have sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Technical Assistants (Electrical) and (Mechanical) from the date on which 66 and 21 others respectively were internally selected and appointed by a proceedings, dated 24.12.2008 issued by the second respondent (the Chief Engineer (Personnel)) without reference to the clarification issued by the third respondent, the Additional Director of Technical Education, vide his letter, dated 23.10.2008.3. By proceedings, dated 24.12.2008, the second respondent published the result of the internal selection to the category of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and (Mechanical) and allotted them to various circles as noted in the Annexure to the order. The appointments were made in terms of Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Servic...

M/S. Srf Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the issue involved in this case namely dutiability of warped yarn in the form of beam arising at the intermediate stage has been decided in favour of the appellants in Tribunal s order in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. B.S.L. Ltd. 2000 (122) ELT 849 (Tri.). 2. The Ld. JCDR, Shri V.V. Hariharan, appearing for the department confirms that the ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to this case. As such, following the ratio of the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Bharat Cell

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether the activity of the respondents viz. purchasing pre-paid SIM cards from BSNL and selling the same to customers amounts to rendering of Business Auxiliary Services for the purpose of levy of service tax. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals), whose order has been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal, relied upon Commissioner (Appeals) order in the case of Silpa Agencies and the Tribunal’s decision in South East Corporation Final Order No.610/2007 dt. 25.5.07 to set aside the liability to service tax. The Revenue has raised a ground in the appeal before the Tribunal that the decision in Silpa Agency has not reached finality. However, I find that the department s appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Silpa Agency has been rejected by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.515/09 dt. 1.5.09, following the ratio of the earlier decision in South East Corporation (supra). 3. Since...

M/S. Sambha Publishing Co. Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellants have imported a second hand printing machine. The adjudicating Commissioner has passed a detailed speaking order and enhanced the assessable value based on the examination report given by the Chartered Engineer. We find no reason to interfere with the valuation adopted by the adjudicating Commissioner. However, considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on them calls for some reduction. We, therefore, reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 3,25,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appeal is thus partly allowed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Coimbatore Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein get wet grinders manufactured on job work basis from M/s.Blue Mountain Treads P.Ltd., Coimbatore and M/s.Precision Equipments, Coimbatore. The respondents procure various materials, components, parts, packing materials etc. from various places and the materials are directly supplied on account of the respondents to the premises of the job workers. The cost of the raw materials and freight for transportation thereof are paid by the respondents. However, the service tax due on the utilization of the service of transportation of goods by road in goods carriage was not paid by the respondents and they had also not obtained registration from the service tax authorities. On this basis, show-cause notice dt. 19.2.07 was issued and demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority but set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the respondents were not liable to pay service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted th...

Pricol Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Credit has been directed to be reversed on jigs and fixtures, moulds and dies sent by the appellants herein to job workers for manufacture of goods due to non-return of the same within a period of 180 days as prescribed under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that in the case of jigs and fixtures and moulds and dies, the condition of return within 180 days and entailing reversal of credit in the event of failure of return within the period mentioned above, does not render an assessee liable to reversal of credit availed on the same, in the light of the Tribunal’s decision Commissioner of C.Ex. and Cus., Daman, Vapi Vs Guala Closures (I) Pvt.Ltd. [2009 (237) ELT 493] and in the light of Board s supplementary instructions. 3. The assessees have already reversed the credit. The contest is confined to the direction for payment of interest. Following the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision cited supra, I set aside the direction for ...