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.Office Tec Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tut ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
The above appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution as none appears for the appellants in spite of notice and this makes it clear that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the case....
M/S.Pashun Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as none appears for the appellants in spite of notice....
M/S.Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of watches in their Watch Division. They also undertake the process of gold plating of watch cases and straps. During the course of gold plating, titanium and gold get deposited in the walls of the chamber and these are peeled off. Besides, there is also gold in the batch solution and on the copper wire in which the components are tied. This gold is recovered and cleared to their own Jewellery Division for melting/refining and conversion into gold ingots/bars. According to the Department, recovered gold is waste and scrap of gold classifiable under CET sub-heading 7101.80, while according to the assessees, the item falls for classification under CET sub-heading 7101.39 2. We have heard both sides against the classification of gold recovered during the course of gold plating. We find that in the case of the same assessees, the Tribunal has accepted their claim for classification under 7101.39, as seen from 2001 ...
M/S.Carborandum Universal Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by way of remand with a direction to the lower authority to only redetermine the value of the goods in consonance with the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Madurai) 1999 (108) E.L.T.361, which order was upheld by the apex court in 2002 (142) E.L.T.A.279. 2. The prayer of the appellants is that all issues raised by them namely non-applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 34 and Note 5 to Chapter 38, and that the goods are not repacked from bulk to retail pack may also be directed to be considered afresh by the lower appellate authority to whom the case has already been remanded which accepts the prayer for an open remand. Learned SDR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. 3. We find that in a similar situation vide Final Order No.218/09 dated 13.02.2009, the Tribunal accepted the prayer for an open remand. W...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.S.F. Patel and Sons (i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in the present appeal is classification of perfume sprays containing alcohol manufactured by the respondents herein, who are a unit situate in MEPZ, Tambaram according to the Revenue, perfumes falls for classification under Heading 96.16, while according to the assessees whose claim has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), perfumes do not fall within the ambit of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955. 2. We have heard both sides. We see no merit in the contention of the Revenue for the reason that Heading 96.16 covers scent sprays and similar toilet sprays and mounts and heads therefor. According to the HSN, this heading covers scent brilliantine and similar toilet sprays, whether of the table or pocket type, and whether for professional or personal use. They consist of a reservoir generally in the form of bottle to which is fixed the mount, which incorporates the head and a pneumatic pressure bulb or a piston device. The...
M/S.Elgi Equipments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbator ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in determination in the present appeal is the classification of air horns fitted with solenoid valves manufactured by the assessees herein whether it falls for classification under Heading 87.08 relating to motor vehicles or under Heading 85.12 relating to electrical lighting or signal equipment, windscreen wipers, defrosters and demisters, of a kind used for cycles or motor vehicles. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue stands settled by the Tribunal s decision in Addon Vs Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [1997 (96) E.L.T.592 (Tribunal)] holding that such horns are classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.12 and not under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in view of specific Section Note 2(f) of Section XVII and HSN Explanatory Notes. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Arun Spinning Mills (P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2009
Heard both sides. The dispute in this case is whether the appellants can utilize the credit of service tax paid on GTA services for payment of the service tax on GTA services. I find that this issue has already been settled in the case of Paharpur Colling Towers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata 2009 (15) STR 476 in favour of the respondents. In this case also, the impugned period is prior to 18.4.06 when the Explanation to Rule 2 (p) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was deleted. Hence, the department s appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Chamundi Foods (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2009
Heard ld. JCDR Shri V.V.Hariharan appearing for the department. Written submissions filed by the respondents are also taken into account. While passing the impugned order, the lower appellate authority did not have the benefit of the subsequent Larger Bench decision on the issue in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Raigad 2008 (232) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB) and he has followed the earlier decision of the Tribunal which is no longer good law in the light of the subsequent Larger Bench decision cited supra. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision in the light of the Larger Bench decision cited supra. The department’s appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Alamelu Tex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2009
Heard ld. SDR Shri C.Dhanasekaran appearing on behalf of the department. Also perused the written submissions filed by the respondents. In this case, the lower appellate authority has taken into account the submissions by the respondents and has come to a conclusion that non-inclusion of the packing charges in the assessable value of the goods was on account of inadequate knowledge of excise law and not due to any intention to evade duty. As such, he has set aside the penalty and interest for the impugned period. Ld.SDR confirms that at the material time, penalty and interest was levied only if charge of suppression etc. was proved. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding of the lower appellate authority, I am of the view that this is not a fit case which requires interference with the order passed by the lower appellate authority . As such, the appeal is rejected....
V. Subramanian Versus Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Pres ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2009
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application has filed W.P.No.38798 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.19 of 2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also the learned the Government Advocate for the respondent. As per the directions of this Tribunal, Major K.Sukumar, Senior Record Officer, MEGCentre, Bangalore, has produced Sangaram Medal, Poorvi Star and 25th Independence Anniversary Medal and the same were handed over to the applicant. According to the applicant, he is entitled to TA Medal (12 years service medal) and also the cash incentive of Rs.2,500/- for the year 1982 and Rs.1,500/- for the year 1978. This Tribunal directs the Senior Record Officer to disburse the required amount to the applicant through DD within four weeks from today from the non public fund for the Army / MEG Centre. As regards the discharg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »