Chennai Court December 2009 Judgments

M/S. Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy These two appeals relate to two different periods October 1998 to March 2000 and April 2000 to September 2001. The related show-cause notices have been issued on 9.5.2001 and 28.1.2002. The issue involved in both the cases is the same and hence both the appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Shri R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that demands of service tax amounting to Rs.11,97,041/- and Rs.8,75,064/- have been respectively confirmed for the two periods on the ground that the appellants have provided management consultancy services. He states that out of the said amounts Rs.7,23,254/- and Rs.5,30,934/- relate to deputation of staff in respect of which service tax is not payable for the relevant periods. For such activities, the appellants are paying service tax subsequently after the manpower supply service has been brought under the service tax net. In respect of the balance amount of Rs.4,73,786.80 an...

D. Pandu Versus the Commanding Officer, Madras Regiment, A.P.O. and An ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.33929 of 2004 before the Honourable High Court, Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal, and renumbered as T.A.No.17 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the application reads as follows:- The applicant joined in Military Service on 07.01.1976 and was serving in the Military continuously for about 8 years and 11 months as a Sepoy. While he was serving at Trivandrum, he was deputed to night duty and during night hours higher military personnels in the rank of Major came to the Quarters and misbehaved with his wife. When this was questioned by the applicant by way of a complaint to the Superiors and also to the Police Officials, to take vengeance on this issue and to take a revenge on this applicant, the Higher Officers were awaiting for an opportunity and ultimately, the applicant was lodged in Military Prison without any enquiry. On 30.11.1984 the applicant was...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]321ITR257(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 875/Mds/1996 relating to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The facts:(i) The assessee company is the manufacturer of piston, piston rings cylinders, liners etc. The assessee claimed deduction of excise duty and custom duty payable from the value of closing stock. The Assessing Officer of the opinion that the excise duty payable on finished goods is not taken into account for the purpose of valuation of stock of finished goods. The Income tax Officer added back the excise duty payable on finished goods. The first appellate authority deleted the addition so made. The department preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. English Electric Co. of India Limited reported in : 243 ITR 512 held that excise liability not to be included in valuation of closing sto...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thiruvengadam Investments P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]320ITR345(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By formulating the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not applicable in the matter of computation of the assessee's income from the sale of the property at Greams Road and the sale consideration should be taken only at Rs. 5 crores as shown in the sale deed?the Revenue has come up by way of an appeal under Section 260A of the Act before this court against the order of the Tribunal dated May 22, 2009, made in I.T.A. No. 1307/Mds/2008 relating to the assessment year 2004-05.2. The minimum facts for the disposal of the appeal as culled out from the statement of facts contained in the memorandum of grounds are as follows:3. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on November 1, 2004, admitting an income of Rs. 78,23,894 and...

Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Chennai Vs. Appasamy Medical Equipme ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram M/s.Appasamy Medical Equipments Pvt. Ltd. had filed a Bill of Entry dt. 13.2.2003 for the clearance of SMZ 645 Zooming Body, C-W10XA Piece lens 10X (FN22) and G-A.C Auxiliary objective 0.5X, and claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.02 as per Sl.No.367 (B) of List 38 Sl.No.33 as parts of Surgical Operating Microscope Manual. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner who held that the Stereoscopic Zoom Microscope consists of a zooming body, stand, slider, stage adapter etc. and while zooming body is the main component, all other items are accessories and thus the zooming body itself has essential characteristics used for examination of the samples in lab which is not a surgical operating microscope. He, therefore, held that the zooming body itself has to be considered as Stereoscopic Zoom Microscope and hence not a part of Surgical Operating Microscope Manual for coverage under Sl.No.367(B) List 38 Sl.No.33 of the notification above m...

Sofeene Plastics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants herein are eligible to the benefit of the exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No.34/98-Cus. dt. 13.6.98 on High Density Polyethelene imported under a Bill of Entry dt. 30.6.98 under DEPB scheme. According to the Revenue, the benefit is not available as the benefit came to be extended only with the issue of Notification No.48/98-Cus. dt. 17.7.98, amending Notification No.34/98, while according to the assessees, they are covered by Notification No.34/98 even prior to its amendment in terms of Sl.No.13 of the Table to the Notification as per clause (xi) of Sl.No.13 as they had imported the goods in terms of Notification No.34/97-Cus. dt. 7.4.97. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra as it stands settled by the Tribunal’s order in J.Tex Poly Products Vs Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore [2005 (179...

Hi Tech Arai Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the adjudication order passed by the Asst. Commissioner vide which he has confirmed only an amount of differential duty of Rs.96,258/- raised in the show-cause notice dt. 2.2.99 and dropped proceedings for recovery of the duty raised in the remaining show-cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that duty could be demanded retrospectively under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on reclassification of excisable goods, despite the fact that the past clearances were made on payment of appropriate duty as per the approved classification list. Hence this appeal by the assessees. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that in the case of the same assessee, the issue of classification of the goods in dispute of which demand has been confirmed has been remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the classification, vide Final Order No.1064 to ...

M/S. Vasta Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The appellants have imported Uni-Lite XCEL claiming classification under CTH 9027.80 as an instrument for measuring quantity of light. The authorities below have classified the same under CTH 9031.80 as measuring or checking device not specified elsewhere. 2. Shri Sriprakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argues at length that the instrument in question uses the method of measuring the light for determining pollution content on work surfaces and in liquids. He states that the Uni-Lite XCEL is a luminometer which works in conjunction with Biotrace reagents. Biotrace reagents detect ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) a chemical found in all cells including bacteria, yeast and mold. When the firefly enzyme luciferace, combines with ATP, light is emitted. The Biotrace system measures this light. The more contamination present, the more light emitted and the higher the readings. The swab is used on the surfaces, the cleanliness of which has to be meas...

M/S.The Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticori ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The duty demand of Rs.12,31,208/- is on 247379 kgs. of raw cotton imported free of duty under advance licences but not utilized for the manufacture of yarn for export but instead utilized for manufacture of yarn sold in the domestic market, together with interest. The assessees do not challenge the duty demand but only plead for setting aside the penalty of equal amount imposed upon them in terms of Section 112 (a) and Section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that non-fulfilment of export obligation which is the reason for confirmation of duty demand, was due to fall/crash in the export market and not with intention to evade payment of duty so as to warrant penalty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that provisions of Section 112 (a) are attracted against the assessees for violation of the provisions of Section 111 (o). For the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 112 (a), intention to evade payment of duty or any mens rea is not an essential ...