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.
Shanti Fortune (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (St), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Heard both sides on the appeal against the demand of service tax together with interest and imposition of penalty. The demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they were liable to service tax on taxable service received from Goods Transport Agency. 2. I find that the show-cause notice proposed recovery of tax on the ground that the assessee, recipient of services, were not liable to claim abatement in terms of Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.04 while the adjudication order confirms the demand on a different ground namely that the abatement is available only if conditions set out in Board s circular are satisfied which the assessee did not satisfy. Therefore, the demand cannot be sustained for the reason that it stands confirmed on a ground not raised in the SCN. However, without concluding the matter on this ground, I proceed to go into the point on merits raised by the assessee namely that the service is not taxable service as it was not provided by the ...
M/S. Dot Advertising Consultant Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order waiving the penalty on the appellants on the ground that they have voluntarily paid the tax and interest. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that in para (1) of their appeal before the lower appellate authority the appellants had submitted that they are not liable to pay service tax for the impugned period but there is no finding on the same by the lower appellate authority. 3. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal who supports the impugned order which is being passed presuming that the appellants had paid the tax voluntarily. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records we find that the appellants have challenged the liability to pay service tax and they had paid the service tax and interest under protest as mentioned in para 5 of their appeal before the lower appellate authority. As such, we are of the view that the appellat...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Karur Kcp Packagings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The amounts involved in each of the three Show Cause Notices, which are the subject matter of these two appeals are each less than Rs. 50,000/-. Apart from that the lower appellate authority has given findings that in each of the cases the appellants have produced the impugned goods by use of unconventional raw materials. The lower appellate authority has relied on a flow chart which is part of the order and which has not been controverted by the department. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has recorded the finding that in each of the cases the impugned goods have been produced by using unconventional raw materials. As such, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the department are dismissed....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. W.S. Industries (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present. Heard the Ld. JCDR, Shri V.V. Hariharan. The issue involved in this case relates to inclusion of cost of additional testing done at customer s request, the charges for that are reimbursed by the customers. We find this issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. Bhaskar Ispat Pvt.Ltd. - 2004 (167) ELT 189 (Tri.-LB), holding that such extra testing charges are not includible in the assessable value of goods. In view of the Larger Bench decision cited above, we find that the department has no case and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department....
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
The appellants herein, inter alia, manufacture V Belts of three varieties for use in automobile industry as well as industrial V Belts. A show-cause notice dt. 28.6.96 was issued to them alleging gross undervaluation of V Belts sold through depots and proposing recovery of approx. Rs.6 Crores towards differential duty short-paid between 1.6.91 to 31.12.95 and proposing imposition of penalty on the company and its officers. Vide order dt. 30.9.97, the Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on the appellant-company which filed appeal before the Tribunal, along with its officers. Vide the final order No.1582-1592/2000 dt. 27.10.2000, the Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for determination of the duty for a period of six months prior to the issue of the SCN, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The Tribunal also directed that the question of imposition of penalty and its quantum should be re-determined ...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sumi Supertech (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal points out that the lower appellate authority has rejected the Department’s appeal stating that there was no proposal in the show-cause notice for invoking Section 114A for imposition of penalty whereas in this case no show-cause notice was issued as the respondents had waived the requirement of issue of a show-cause notice. As such, she pleads that the order of the lower appellate authority has been passed without application of mind and without verification of the records. 3. Heard the learned counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, appearing for the respondents. He confirms that the requirement of show-cause notice was waived by the respondents. However, he states that the original authority had enhanced the value of the goods resulting in payment of differential duty of about Rs.1.76 lakhs, redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. As s...
M/S. Gas Filteration Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Appeal No. E/22/04 Heard both sides. Shri R.Parthasarathy, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are a new entrepreneur who were unaware of the SSI exemption limit and were under the impression that they can clear the goods upto Rs. 75 lakhs, without paying duty. However, on the actual exemption limit being pointed out to them, they have paid the duty as soon as possible. He states that he is not contesting the duty liability but seeks leniency on the matter of imposition of penalty. 2. Hears the Ld. JCDR, who points out that the appellants have filed only one appeal and hence, the penalty in respect of the Managing Director cannot be reduced or waived in the absence of a separate appeal. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we are of the view that this case is fit for reduction in the penalty amount. As such, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal is thus partly allowed. Appeal No. E/1442/...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shimadzu (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present. Heard the learned DR. She fairly states that in a number of cases similar appeals filed by the Department have been rejected [For example, Final Order No.1005/2009 dated 17.8.2009 in the case of CC, Chennai Vs. M/s. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd.]. 2. Following the precedent orders on the issue, we reject this appeal also filed by the Department....
Skm Egg Products Export (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
In these cases, the taxable service (Business Auxiliary Service) was received in India from abroad prior to 18.4.2006 the period in dispute is 1.1.2005 to 15.6.2005. It has already been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) that services received in India from abroad are taxable only w.e.f 18.4.06 at the hands of the Indian resident. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court has been followed in Fifth Avenue Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2009 (15) STR 387]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order which confirms the demand of service tax together with interest and imposes penalty, and allow the appeal....
L.G.Balakrishnan and Bros.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tir ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
For reasons recorded below, I dispense with predeposit and proceed to take up the appeal itself for final disposal with the consent of both sides as the issue in dispute stands covered by series of decisions of Tribunal including that in the case of the same assessee. 2. The issue for determination is whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Goods Transport Agency Service can be utilized for payment of service tax for removal of final products from the factory. This issue stands covered by series of decisions of the Tribunal including that of India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2007 (7) STR 569], RRD Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2007 (8) STR 186] and Final Order No.1400/09 dt. 7.10.09 in the assessee’s own case. The period in dispute in these cases including the present appeal is prior to deletion of the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »