Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2010)ILLJ623Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Ms. N. Indumathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.2. The petitioner is a Salesman in the TASMAC shop. He has come forward to challenge the order dated 27.9.2005 passed by the third respondent, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 14.7.2008 and further confirmed by the 1st respondent vide order dated 26.2.2009.3. By the order dated 27.9.2005, the petitioner's service was terminated. There was a Special Squad visited the shop on 19.8.2005. On inspection, they found that the petitioner has adulterated water in the liquor and he was breaking the seal of the bottles and was selling in retail. Therefore, on the basis of the report given by the Special Squad, the petitioner's service was terminated. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. No. 22809 of 2007. This Court directed the petitioner to send further representation on the term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The assessees are aggrieved by the imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, while the Revenue has filed an appeal against reduction of penalties. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that out of the total liability of Rs.2,04,124/- which is the amount to which tax has been reduced, 1,85,657/- stands paid. As noted by the lower appellate authority in para 12.0 of the impugned order, the balance due is Rs.18,657/-. The plea of the assessees that they may be permitted to produce documentary evidence to support their stand that out of the above amount not paid, they are entitled to avail credit of Rs.1,50,029/-, cannot be acceded to as it is a belated plea and further no documents have been filed before the Tribunal to establish their claim of liability to CENVAT credit. I, therefore, hold that the assessees are liable to pay Rs.18,657/-. However, I accept the plea of the assessees that penal action is not warranted for the reason that durin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.19560 of 2003 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.37 of 2009. 2. Affidavit to the application reads that the applicant has approached the Court for setting aside the order of the second respondent passed in his proceedings No.1437164 X/DC/94/NE-7 dated 07.12.2002, in respect of the applicants claim for family pension due to the death of her husband late Sekar erstwhile Naik of the Army No.14371764 NK, who died on 22.12.2000. 3. In the common counter filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents would admit that the applicants late husband Sekar (14371764 NK) was enrolled in the Army on 13.5.1983 and while in service, he was gratned 10 days advance of annual leave from 4th October 2000 to 13th October 2000, which was further extended for 20 days from 14th October 2000 to 2nd November 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard both sides. Shri J.R. Srinivasan, learned consultant appearing for the appellant states that there is actually no shortage as the appellants had followed a faulty practice in accounting the raw material register at the material time. They have shown issue from the raw material register only at the time of final clearance of the finished goods or clearance to the job worker. These details are available in Page No. 45 of the appeal book submitted before the Tribunal. He states that the appellants have been advised subsequently to correctly show the issue of the raw material on the date of actual issue rather than waiting for the finished goods to be manufactured and cleared. He also states that this submission of the appellants that there was no actual shortage but only the books were debited after a time gap and that the semi-finished goods available within the premises contain the raw material alleged to be found shortage have not been properly appreciated and examined by the aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The authorities below have denied the benefit of the amnesty scheme providing for protection against penal action to assessees who are registered whether before or after the commencement of the scheme, provided the tax together with interest stood paid before 30th Oct.-04. The denial is on the ground that the registration by the assessees was obtained prior to the commencement of the amnesty scheme. 2. On hearing both sides and noting the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Union of India Vs Amit Kumar Maheshwari [2009 (233) E.L.T.311 (Raj.)] holding that the scheme is applicable even to assessees registered before the commencement thereof and subject to the condition that the tax with interest stands paid before the cut off date viz. 30.10.2004 (in the present case, the assessees admittedly paid prior to the cut off date). I set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to penalty and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard both sides. This is a case involving a petty amount of Rs.22,880/-. The demand has been made on the appellant proprietary concern on the ground that the appellant has manufactured processed fabrics (sarees). The learned counsel Shri K.A. Vimal Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the appellants are receiving polyester acrylic yarn with bills and on payment of tax. The same has been sent to looms for weaving into fabrics/sarees on job charge basis. Such woven sarees which are unprocessed are received back and then sold to other companies under bills. The appellants are not involving in any processing of the fabrics/sarees nor they have any equipment in their premises to do so. Hence he pleads that the demand of duty, interest and penalty is not justified. 3. Heard Shri C. Dhanasekaran, learned SDR appearing for the Department. On a query from the Bench, he states that though the demand has been raised on the ground that the appellants are processing the fabrics, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard both sides. The appellant, public sector unit, has not obtained necessary COD clearance to pursue this appeal before the Tribunal. As such, the appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance with liberty to the appellant to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining the necessary COD clearance later on....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority both under Section 76 and 78 to Rs.60,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. The assessees are in appeal against the imposition of penalty and the Revenue is in appeal against the reduction thereof. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessees had rendered Technical Testing and Analysis Services and had not discharged service tax liability during the period July, 2003 to June, 2006 although the levy came into force with effect from 01.07.2003. The assessees do not dispute the liability to service tax and have paid the same together with interest. The reason adduced by them for non-payment is that they were not aware that the services rendered by them were liable to tax. They had collected service charges from their customers but they had not collected any service tax from them....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
No one is present on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran. The lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the ground that duty was paid before issue of show-cause notice. He states that it is not a valid ground for setting aside the penalty. He cites the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) in accordance with which the statutory penalty is required to be imposed. 2. In view of the submissions made and also keeping in view that these submissions have not been contraverted by the respondents, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision in the light of the cited case law. He shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties before passing a fresh order. 3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
No one is present on behalf of the appellants. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran, who states that the appellants are a State Government public sector unit. They have not obtained the necessary COD clearance to pursue these appeals before the Tribunal. 2. In view of the fact that the appellant State Govt. unit has not obtained the necessary COD clearance to pursue these appeals, all the four appeals are dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining the COD clearance later on....
Tag this Judgment!