Chennai Court December 2009 Judgments

Komathi VersusThe Adjutant General, Army Head Quarters, Dhq-po, New De ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

ACA Adityan Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who claims special family pension for her mother Tmt.Kasthuri, who was the wife of Havildar Sri Ramulu, late father of the applicant. 2. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicants father died after his retirement due to ulcer, which was attributable to the army service, that is why the applicants father was granted disability pension apart from his service pension and that the applicants mother also died in the year 2004 and till her death, she moved before the respondents and also the other competent authorities for the grant of special family pension on the ground that the death of her husband occurred due to chronic duodenal ulcer which was attributable to his army service. 3. But, Regulation 213 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part I) reads as follows:- Special Family Pension:- A special family pension may be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to or hastened by_ (a) ...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Popular Carbonic Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The appellants received Carbon di oxide gas from M/s. Madras Fertilizers, through pipeline which is stored and compressed and subsequently filled in cylinders. Cylinders carry the buyers name PILLAY apart from the particulars of gross weight and net weight. 2. The lower appellate authority has taken note of the Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28 which required at that time labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable, to satisfy the requirement of manufacture and, thereafter, he has followed the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Ammonia Supply Company Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (131) ELT 626 (Tri.-Del.), in which the tribunal had decided in favour of the respondents that the process undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. 3. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal was also approved by the Hon ble...

J.P.P.Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

After admitting the above appeal against confirmation of service tax liability for the period 1.4.05 to 15.6.05, I take up the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is 489 days. The explanation given is that the assessees were under a bona fide belief that since the Asst. Commissioner s order confirming a demand for a certain period was appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals), successfully, and the appeal is now pending before the Tribunal, they were not required to file an appeal against the Order-in-Revision. However, I do not accept the above explanation as it is clear from the AC s order that the demand for the period 1.4.05 to 15.6.05 was dropped and he only confirmed service tax demand for the period 16.6.05 to 31.12.06, aggrieved by which the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter to the Tribunal. The demand which was dropped by the AC has now been confirmed by the Order-in-Revision and the assessees w...

M/S. Vaibhav and Company Vs. Cce, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. As the appeal itself can be heard and decided today itself, the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. Shri T. Ramesh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants filed the required declaration under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, after a delay on account of the fact that the consultant of the appellants who was entrusted with the job of filing the declaration did not file it within time. However, the appellants did have the stock of inputs on the specified date ie., on 31.03.03 and hence they should not be denied the credit. 3. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order and states that since the requirement of filing the declaration by 15.06.03 has not been complied with, the appellants have been rightly denied the credit. 4. I find that the relevant Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is a tr...

Global Ventures Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Claim for refund of Rs.3,28,820/- has been held to be admissible to the assessees on merits; however, the amount has been directed to be credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund as the assessees had not established the non-passing on of incidence of duty to their buyers. 2) I have heard both sides. Although the submission that the prices did not change before and after assessment is not enough to hold that the burden cast upon the assessees has been discharged, the assessees have filed a certificate of the Chartered Accountant certifying that the assessees have not passed on the burden of duty to their customers and over and above this, the balance sheet shows that the amount is receivable from the revenue authorities. In these circumstances, the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in CCE Chennai Vs Saralee Household and Bodycare India (P) Ltd. [2007 (216) ELT 684 (Mad.)] holding that when the non-passing of duty burden has been confirmed by the certificate ...

M/S. Lovely Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Considering the fact that the appellants have paid the service tax amount and interest thereon, the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. Shri M. Kannan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the tax amount involved and prays for reduction in the same. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao. 3. Considering the whole aspect of the case including the amount of tax involved and taking into account the fact that the tax and the interest amounts have been paid, the penalty imposed is reduced to Rs. 2000/- to meet the ends of justice. The appeal is thus partly allowed by reduction in the penalty amount....

M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri S.S. Thakur, Vice President, appearing for the appellant s company states that the differential duty has been confirmed assuming that yarn has been taken for production of grey fabrics and processed fabrics in the ratio of 50:50. He states that this ratio was not correct as is evident from the details provided by the appellants in a table form which is at page No. 143 of the appeal papers. It is indicated therein that in respect of cotton fabrics only 16.05% was the production of grey fabrics and the balance was processed fabrics. In the case of man made fabrics, the percentage was 9.51% for grey fabrics and the remaining for processed fabrics. As such, it is argued on behalf of the appellants that the assumption by the department that 50% of the production was in the category of grey fabrics was not correct. Hence, the computation of yarn waste based on such assumption is also not correct. The appellants further argued that as pe...

T.Tamil Sevi Versus Goc-in-c, Western Command Headquarters, Western Co ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.21353 of 2006 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.46 of 2009. 2. The amended application of the applicant, who is the wife of the late S.Nagendran, an Ex-Indian Army Personel, runs as follows:- 2(a)The applicants husband S.Nagendran joined the Defence Services of Indian Army as REET on 30.09.1985. He had unblemished record of service. While he was working in 174, Field Regiment, a charge was made against him that on 8.4.2003 he had misappropriated 315 litres DHPO, the property of the Government valued at Rs.7,434/- entrusted to him for the VEHS Office Bty and tried to sell the same to Kabhari and he was caught by a party led by J.C.-818 309 A Sub (MP), Charan Singh of 7 INF DIV PRO Unit. According to the respondents, the said offence was committed on 08.04.2003. The applicants husband was d...

Scanwell Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Blaiklock Compass World Trans ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas491(Mad)

ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. When these appeals were taken up for enquiry, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. T.K. Seshadri appearing for the first respondent raised a question as to the maintainability of the appeals.2. On the point of maintainability, both the Counsel put forth their respective submissions.3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/applicant, these appeals have been brought forth by the second respondent in Company Applications 1625 to 1628 of 2006 in C.P. No. 387 of 2003 whereby a direction to the respondents 3 to 8 to file the statement of affairs with the Official Liquidator forthwith and also a direction to the Official Liquidator to examine the conduct of the affairs of the first respondent company by respondents 3 to 8 and submit a report before the Court on the acts of misfeasance and breach of trust committed by the respondents 3 to 8 and to take cognizance of the offence committed under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the bas...

M/S.Taher Ali Industries and Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants herein who carried out contract work in respect of water supply projects, by including the cost of transport of pipes to work sites on the ground that it is a case of equalized freight which is required to be included in the assessable value of the pipes manufactured by the appellants. Penalty has also been imposed upon the assessees. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the demand and find that the issue in dispute stands settled by Tribunal’s Final Order No.78/2005 dated 11.01.2005 in the assessee’s own case wherein it has been held that the cost of freight cannot form part of the assessable value of the goods the amount of freight is separately available and has been paid to the contractors. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier order in Filament India Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2003 (160) E.L.T.314 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3. Following the ratio of the above order, which is app...