Chennai Court December 2009 Judgments

Mavis Satcom Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]320ITR46(Mad)

T. Raja, J.1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the notices issued to M/s. Mavis Satcom Ltd., represented by its managing director, Mrs. Prabha Sivakumar, 48, NP, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600032 seeking certiorari and other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records in PAN : AACCM2127K dated November 6, 2009, and November 4, 2009, on the file of the respondent pursuant to the notice dated December 19, 2008, and December 5, 2008, relating to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and quash the same.2. The petitioner is a registered company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and carrying on the business of operating a television network. Being an assessee on the file of the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, the petitioner has been maintaining the regular books of account by filing returns of income regularly. In respect of the year 2003-04, the return was filed by the petitioner declaring an...

M/S. Zenath Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry dated 28.05.09 through the CHA for clearance of goods declared as 100 pieces of Used Pipes @ US$ 200 per piece. Since, no licence was produced for the import of the item which was spares other than reconditioned/refurbished, the goods were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,40,000/- and a penalty of equal amount imposed on the appellants. The declared value was loaded to US$ 235 per piece under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Commissioner (A) upheld the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner, hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. Although in the appeal the assessees have challenged the enhanced value, they do not press the challenge during the course of the argument before us. The only submission raised before us is that the confiscation is not warranted, for the reason that even pipes other than reconditioned/refurbished pipes a...

Cce, Chennai - Iv and Another Vs. M/S. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy These six appeals filed by the Department are taken up together for hearing and disposal as the issue is the same in all these appeals. 2. Heard both sides. Shri V.V. Hariharan the learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Department states that the respondents are manufacturing H-beams. The Department is seeking classification under Heading 4405.90 whereas the respondents are claiming classification of the same under Heading 4410.90. He explains the reasons for which the original authorities have classified the impugned goods as wood, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. He also states that one of the adjudicating authorities had also visited the factory and seen the manufacture of the impugned goods. He states that Heading 44.10 of the Central Excise Tariff corresponds to Heading 44.18 to the Customs Tariff and that the adjudicating officers have held that the impugned goods cannot be classified under the Heading 44.10 as articles of wood not elsew...

M/S. Ttk- Lig Ltd. Vs. Cc, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, At the outset, the Ld. Counsel, Shri Savith V. Gopal, reports no instructions. We find that notice for todays hearing was issued to the appellants address as given in the appeal memorandum and yet none represents them. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as it is clear that the assessees are not interested in pursuing their appeal....

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Lucas Tvs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the liability to interest of an amount of Rs.40,21,272/- covering the period 26.8.1995 to 31.3.2001. 2. We have heard both sides. Vide orders dated 9.1.1995 and 10.2.1995 demand of over Rs.34 lakhs was determined against the assessees. The demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.6.1995. The Order-in-Appeal was set aside by the Tribunal and the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) by Tribunal s Final Order dated 24.1.1997. The demand was re-confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000. It is the contention of the Revenue that since the demand of Rs.34 lakhs earlier confirmed vide order dated 9.1.1995 and 10.2.1995, although set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.6.1995, was restored by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000, the determination of duty has taken effect in J...

M/S. Kone Elevators (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as none appears in spite of notice issued to the address for service shown in the appeal memorandum and there was no representation even on the earlier occasion when the case was listed and adjourned....

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Enmass Process Technologies ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein filed a Bill of Entry in March 2003 for dosing pump with motor, agitator motor and pressure relief valves. There was a variation in the technical specification relating to kilo watt and rpm in the first two items and these two items were confiscated by the adjudicating authority on the ground of misdeclaration with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.1,90,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.95,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the confiscation and penalty and allowed the appeal; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the amendment was carried out by the DGFT in the DEEC licence granted to the importers so as to merit description of the consignment imported. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority that the difference in ratings as declared and ratings available on the imported goods are not to be considered as misdeclaration with the in...

M/S. Sun Superior Electronic Capacitor (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Notice issued for today’s hearing to the address given for service in the appeal memorandum has been returned undelivered with the postal remark ‘left’. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for the above reason....

Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Loyal Super Fabrics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeals namely as to whether goods cleared under bond without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 49/94-CE dated 22.9.1994 issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are exempted from duty or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty so as to be disentitled to the benefit of MODVAT credit stands settled against the Revenue by the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Commissioner Vs. Alpha Drugs (India) Ltd.- 2002 (140) ELT 43 (PandH) upholding the Tribunal’s order relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned orders. 2. Following the ratio of the High Court decision we uphold the impugned orders and extend the benefit of MODVAT credit and reject the appeals. 3. Cross-objections are only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s appeals and hence they are dismissed....

V. Sreenivasan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as none appears in spite of notice and we also note that even on the earlier date of hearing none had appeared for the appellants and it is therefore clear that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the case....