Chennai Court December 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. Needle Industries (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri K.R. Natarajan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that under the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, an amount of Rs. 55,822/- has been adjusted from the refund amount due to the appellants. He states that at the request of the departmental authorities, the appellants had voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 3,38,625/- though no show cause notice was issued to them. This amount was paid under protest. The department has recovered the said amount of Rs. 55,822/- towards interest on the ground that the amount of Rs. 3,38,625/- was paid after a delay. The Ld. Advocate states that since the amount of Rs.3,38,625/- was paid under protest, the department should not have held back the amount due to them by way of refund and adjusted the same towards the interest to be recovered from them. 2. Ld. JCDR, Shri V.V. Hariharan, states that since the principal amount has been paid by the appellants towards the amount du...
M/S. Rayalaseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Shri M. Kannan, learned Advocate appears as a proxy counsel for Advocate Shri V.J. Sankaram to request for adjournment of the case. I find that this appeal was filed on 18.7.2007 and thereafter the matter had been adjourned several times. As such the request for adjournment is declined. 2. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Rangaraju. He states that in this case the assessment in respect of sleepers supplied to the railways was made provisional on account of a price escalation clause and the assessment has been finalized subsequently. The issue involved in this appeal is whether interest is payable with reference to the date of removal of the impugned goods and payment of duty originally or with reference to the date of final assessment which has been done later on. 3. Both sides agree that the issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided by the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2008 (232) ELT 790 (Tri. - LB). Recently, the H...
AshwIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demands of Rs.2,61,739/- and Rs.1,70,128/- together with interest on the ground of non-fulfillment of export obligation by the appellants. 2) I have heard both sides. The assessees had partially fulfilled the export obligation as seen from DGFT’s letters dt. 23.4.04 and 22.4.04 respectively and according to the DGFT, they were to pay customs duty of Rs.63,082/- and Rs.52,968/- together with interest. Although this plea that they were required to pay lesser amount of duty than confirmed against them by the adjudicating authority was raised by the assessees in the grounds of appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), he has not adverted to this submission and upheld the entire demand as confirmed. Since the assessees have produced letters from the DGFT clarifying that their duty liability would be only Rs.63,082/- and Rs.52,968/- respectively, interest of justice requires that the impugned order be set aside a...
Sri Vinayaga Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Serv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
The assessees do not dispute the demand of service tax confirmed against them on the ground that they were rendering Commercial Construction Services during the period 1.1.05 to 30.9.06. Service tax liability was discharged on 30.11.06, along with interest. The only challenge is to the imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that tax liability was introduced in September-04 and they were not aware of their liability until it was pointed out by the authorities. 2. I have heard both sides. The department has relied upon the statement dt. 7.12.06 of Shri Ganeshamoorthy, proprietor of the assessees that CENVAT credit on the inputs/capital goods used for providing the service was not availed nor was the exemption under Notification No.12/2003-ST dt. 20.6.03 availed to hold that there was knowledge on the part of the assessees of its liability to service tax. However, as rightly contended by ld. counsel for the appellants, ...
M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
I have heard both sides. As all the three appeals relate to the same issue, these appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda and chloromethane. They have been disallowed service tax credit in respect of the impugned services on the ground that the credit was availed by them on the basis of ineligible documents namely debit notes issued by their service providers. 3. Shri V.S. Manoj, learned counsel, has shown some representative debit notes annexed to the appeal papers. These debit notes show that service tax and education cess have been debited for the commission paid by the appellants to their consignment agents. The learned counsel argues that as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the gross amount charged includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes etc. He states that when the taxable value itself includes payment by ...
M/S. India Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Heard both sides. 2. The impugned goods involved here are concrete sleepers used for railway line inside the plant for carrying material and leaf springs used in tippers which are again used for material handling. I find that the authorities below have passed detailed speaking order giving reasons as to why concrete sleepers and leaf springs cannot be considered as capital goods and therefore they have denied the credit. I find that the decision taken by the authorities below is sound and the same do not require any interference. However, I find that the appellants have been latched with equal amount of penalty. There is no finding regarding suppression, fraud etc. At the most it can be said that the credit has been availed in contravention of the rules for which the provision of Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable. Hence, the penalty is reduced to Rs.2,000/- only (Rupees two thousand only). The appeal is partly allowed by way of reduction in the penalty amount....
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Kandagiri Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
The respondents are not present. Heard the learned SDR. I find that the lower appellate authority has allowed the MODVAT credit in respect of carding and combing machines following the earlier orders of the Tribunal. The only ground taken by the applicant Commissioner is that against those orders appeal has been filed to the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. But there is no submission on behalf of the Department that the relied upon orders of the Tribunal have either been stayed or reversed by any higher judicial forum. As such, the order passed by the lower appellate authority cannot be faulted with. Consequently the departmental appeal is rejected....
Vgb Tyre Retreading Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
The appellants do not dispute the liability to service tax under the heading Maintenance and Repair Services they are carrying out the activity of retreading of tyres; however, the only prayer is that the tax amount be re-quantified after extending the benefit of cum tax price. 2. Although this plea was not raised before the authorities below, this aspect requires to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for re-computation of the tax liability in the light above terms. Interest and penalty amount re-computation shall also be carried out by the adjudicating authority. 3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Fortune Textiles Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
The appellants herein had imported ‘Air Compressor with Line reactor’ from USA on a high sea sale basis vide Bill of Entry dt. 29.9.06 under the EPCG scheme. Duty and interest thereon were paid on assessment of the Bill of Entry on 7.11.06. On 17.11.06, at the time of second check, the appellants noticed that the compressor was not the one they had ordered; vide letter dt. 15.12.06, the supplier clarified that the machine meant for their customers at Mumbai had been wrongly dispatched to the appellants through Chennai port due to wrong marking. Vide their letter dt. 8.2.07, the appellants requested for cancellation of Bill of Entry dt. 29.9.06 and recredit of EPCG licence and for refund of the customs duty paid. The request was rejected by letter dt. 26.6.07 on the ground that the consignment had already been moved in transhipment at Mumbai and, therefore, the appellants had to produce clearance details of the export consignment in Mumbai or export details from Mumbai if ex...
M/S. Sri Ram Automotive Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2009
Heard both sides. 2. Shri V. Panchanathan, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the matter has been adjourned twice before because the case records have not been produced. I find that the appellants have filed this appeal without filing a copy of the impugned show cause notice. In the absence of the show cause notice, it is not possible to ascertain the charges leveled against the appellants or to appreciate their submissions. It hardly needs emphasizing that an appellant should file a complete set of relevant documents along with an appeal. The entire proceeding is a case starts with the issue of the show cause notice. This is a basic document perusal of which is of utmost importance for deciding an appeal against an order emanating from such notice. Even the learned advocate for the appellants needs to look at the show cause notice for drafting the appeal and for arguing the case. It is my considered opinion that the appeal is not complete without the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »