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.
Cauvery Stones Impex Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
The appellants herein, who are a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture and export of polished granite monuments, slabs and tiles and also cleared few of their finished products to other 100% EOUs, filed refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of input services in terms of Notification No.5/2006-CE dt. 14.3.06, under the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The period covered by the refund claims was 1.1.07 to 31.3.07 and 1.4.07 to 30.6.07. Refund claimed for the first period was Rs.3,75,978/- and the refund claimed during the second period was Rs.1,16,386/-. Claim for refund of Rs.1,04,678/- was rejected and the balance sanctioned. The adjudication order was upheld by the lower appellate authority; Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The grounds for rejection are that service availed on GTA service pertaining to transportation of export goods from factory to port is not an eligible input service and that the refund is to be restricted to their actual export tu...
M/S. the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy, Madurai and Coimba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides in respect of 15 appeals which involve a common issue. The appellants have been awarded turn-key project by Tamilnadu Water and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) for laying pipelines for supply of water. Under the project, the appellants are required to lay PSC pipes and maintain the same for one year after which the maintenance is handled by the TWAD Board. 2. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the contracted amount is received from TWAD Board for the entire project and no separate amounts are received for the pipes. As such the appellants have paid duty on the impugned pipes on the basis of cost construction method applying CAS-4 and adding 15%/10% to the cost as required under the rules at relevant times. 3. The Departmental authorities in the course of scrutiny found that the TWAD Board had issued invitation to tender document to the appellants, which gives a break-up of cost of different pipes a...
Shri K.S.Nagarajan, M.D. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
In this case, claim for refund of service tax on the ground that abatement was admissible, has been rejected by the adjudicating authority both on the ground of time-bar as well as on merits. The impugned order upholds the rejection of the claim only on the ground of time-bar and does not record any finding on the merits of the claim. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The service tax was paid on Goods Transport Agency service during the period 15.11.05 to 3.2.06 and a letter dt. 28.6.06 was filed by the assessees with the Range Officer for refund of service tax amount on the ground that benefit of abatement was available since the transport agency had neither taken credit on inputs or capital goods used for providing service in relation to transport of goods by road nor availed the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20.6.2003. The letter was returned to the assessees advising them to file the claim in proper format with proper evidence for payment of service tax. Th...
P.A.Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2009
The appellants herein filed Bill of Entry on 3.7.2007 for clearance of 85 single/double needle sewing machines of different models and sought clearance under EPCG scheme and exemption from payment of additional duty of customs under Notification No.6/06-CE (Sl.No.15 of the Table thereto) which is applicable for sewing machines other than those with inbuilt motors. The goods were assessed; duty was paid. Goods were subjected to inspection and at the time of inspection, documents such packing list, invoice were filed. The Bill of Entry did not mention that sewing machines were fitted with inbuilt motors although packing list and invoice showed that machines were supplied with motors. The benefit of Notification No.6/06 was held to be inadmissible and the differential duty demand of Rs.27,29,426/- was confirmed, the goods in question were confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imp...
M/S.S.P.K. Balakrishnan and Co., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
The issue in this case as to whether service tax is leviable on distribution of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) for sale through the public distribution system to holders of family cards. The amount of service tax involved is Rs.6,407/-. Interest has also been directed to be paid and a penalty equal to the tax amount has been imposed. 2. The plea that service tax is not leviable is not tenable in the absence of the issue of any exemption in such cases. No argument was raised before the authorities below against imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessees were approaching the Government for clarification etc. Since no case has been made out and since the amount involved is less than Rs.10,000/-, I hold that this not a fit case for admission. The appeal is, therefore, not admitted. For statistical purposes, the appeal is dismissed along with stay application....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Lumax Samlip Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed speaking order and has relied on the precedent Tribunal’s decisions to decide the matter in favour of the respondents both in regard to interest and penalty after noting that the depreciation claimed by the Income Tax authorities has been given up in the revised return. As such, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the department s appeal is rejected....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Tafe Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The impugned Show Cause Notice was against the respondents raising a demand of duty of Rs. 8,66,51,828/- in respect of the impugned sub-assemblies arising in the intermediate stage of manufacture of exempted tractors. The adjudicating Commissioner has passed a detailed speaking order after examining all aspects of the case holding that the intermediate sub-assemblies do not satisfy the condition of marketability and hence are not liable to excise duty. On the other hand, Board’s review order dated 21.04.05, based on which the department’s appeal has been filed, states that in para-4.7 that there is no need for bringing the theory of marketability. We have heard both sides on the issue. It is not in dispute that there are a number of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, where it has been held that a product to be excisable must satisfy twin criteria; one of manufacture and the other of marketability. It is surprising that ...
M/S.Titan Industries Ltd., Hosur Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
The issue in dispute in the appeal filed by the assessee relates to whether reversal of credit availed on inputs is sufficient when inputs are cleared as such or whether an assessee is required to pay duty on the transaction value of such inputs. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Eicher Tractors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2005 (189) E.L.T. 131 (Tri.-LB)] relying upon the Board’s Circular dated 01.07.2002. Larger Bench has held that the Revenue is not correct in demanding duty on transaction value of inputs cleared as such. Following the ratio of the larger Bench decision which has been followed by me in Sunshield Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2009 (234) E.L.T.682 (Tri.-Mumbai)], I setaside the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalty and allow Appeal No.E/913/2003. Appeal No.E/1111/2003 of the Revenue seekin...
M/S.Shree Suthan Promotors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
The challenge in the present appeal is only to the imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 the demand of service tax together with interest stands paid and is not challenged. 2. I have heard both sides. I find force in the submission that penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 78 is not sustainable for the reason that the penalty under the above mentioned provision can be imposed only if service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, due to fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax and review show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner does not allege any one of these five ingredients. Although the notice states that the assessees got registered, filed returns and paid service tax only after detection by the department by the department, this averment is not enough to hold that the noti...
M/S.S.N.i. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
All these cases involve a common issue and are hence heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In the above cases, show-cause notice were issued proposing rejection of abatement claim by the assessees who paid service tax on receipt of Goods Transport Agency service and proposing recovery of differential service tax together with interest and proposing penal action. The ground on which it was proposed to deny the facility of abatement from the actual freight paid was that the facility of abatement was not available to them as they were discharging service tax liability while the service was provided by the GTA. The adjudication orders, however, reject the claim for abatement on the ground that the conditions stipulated for seeking abatement are not fulfilled by the assessees and the adjudication order has been upheld by the lower appellate authority. In view of the fact that the ground on which the demands stand confirmed was not a ground in the show-cause notice, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »