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.
A.Sekar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Service Tax demand has been confirmed against the appellant herein and penalty imposed, holding that the activity of laying of pipelines amounts to Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service liable to tax. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute has been considered in detail in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs CCE - 2008 (12) STR 363 wherein the Tribunal has held that laying of pipelines is not covered under the above mentioned service so as to attract service tax. This decision was cited by the assessee before the adjudicating authority who, however, chose not to follow on the ground that an appeal against the said decision has been filed. We are informed that the appeal filed by Revenue against the Tribunal s decision in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) is pending before the apex court and operation of the Tribunal’s order has not been stayed. Since the issue stands covered by the earlier decision cited supra, following the same, w...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and Another Vs. Sri Rama Perfu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Both the appeals involve a common issue and hence both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 2. The adjudicating Commissioner has allowed the benefit of cum duty price assessment in both the cases. The appeals filed by the department are on the ground that the department had filed review petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The ld. Advocate Mr.Kannan appearing for the respondents states that the said review petition has since been dismissed vide Commissioner Vs Maruti Udyog - 2005 (179) ELT A102 (SC). 3. In view of the foregoing and the fact that it is now settled law that cum duty assessment has to be allowed when the price obtained by the assessee does not show excise duty separately, both the appeals filed by the department are dismissed....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. General Optics Asia Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The respondents are a 100% EOU. They procured the impugned goods duty free under Notification No.1/95 dated 04.01.95, against CT-3 certificate issued by the jurisdictional Range Officer. However, subsequently, they were asked to pay back the duty of an amount of Rs. 80,081/-. The respondents paid the amount and subsequently filed the refund claim, claiming exemption under the said Notification No. 1/95. The refund claim has been rejected by the original authority holding that they are not entitled to the said exemption. The lower appellate authority has allowed the refund leading to this appeal by the department. 2. The impugned notification allowed exemption to Anti Static carpet and also to consumables there for. After taking into account the fact that the respondents have obtained Epoxy Primer and Shalideck are Anti Static materials and that using the same they have built insitu Anti-static carpet in their premises, the lower appell...
K.Elumalai Versus Union of India, Rep by Secretary, Ministry of Defenc ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Lt Gen (Retd) S.Pattabhiraman The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.46438 of 2002 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.8 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the application reads as follows:- The applicant was serving in the corps of signals in the Indian Army. Prior to his enrolment, he had passed the medical test and enrolled in the Indian Army on 30.11.1965. During the course of the petitioners service, he served in various areas including high altitude. From July 1974 to December 1974, he was admitted in various military hospitals and he was given treatment. He was discharged on 20.03.1975 being the case of nervous disorder. 2(a) On 28.01.1980 the applicant received a communication, which was addressed to the third respondent and a copy was marked to the applicant, asking whether any communication was received from the applicant within six mon...
Goodwill Engineering Works and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram M/s.Goodwill Engineering Works, (hereinafter referred to as GEW) were issued a private bonded warehouse licence and granted permission to manufacture boats/launches in bond under Customs supervision, using imported parts or raw materials under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. GEW imported 11 items and after re-warehousing, they cleared the same without payment of duty by availing exemption under Notification No.23/98-Cus. dt. 2.6.98. Show-cause notice was issued proposing to disallow the benefit under the notification and proposing recovery of Rs.34,98,749/-. Duty exemption was extended to 5 items and disallowed in respect of 6 items, by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Cuddalore. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended benefit to three more items; his order was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Importers also filed an appeal before the Tribunal against rejection of exemption benefit to the remaining items. Vide Final Order No.2012-2014/2001 dt. 10...
M/S. Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
Heard both sides. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellant s states that the appellant is a principal manufacturer, who sent materials for job work to the job workers, which was processed and sent back to them. But the scrap was retained by the job workers and the duty was paid on the same at the job workers premises. The appellants have also paid the duty on the quantity of scrap which was not returned without knowing that the same have suffered duty at the hand of the job workers. Hence, the impugned refund claims have been filed by the appellants. 2. I find that the lower appellate authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that only the sample copies of the invoices were produced before him and not all the copies. Hence, he has come to the conclusion that the sample copies do not show that duty has been paid twice on the entire quantity of scrap. As such, with the consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded t...
M/S. Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
Heard both sides. 2. Shri M. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed by the lower appellate authority exparte without hearing the appellants. He prays that another opportunity should be given to the appellants to explain the case on merits before the lower appellate authority, as some of the consignments were not removed as capital goods as such but as scrap material. 3. Considering the submissions, I am of the view that the appellants should be given another chance to explain their case before the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision. He shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing a fresh order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
M/S. Tamilnadu Asbestos Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
Heard both sides. 2. Smt. Prameela Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant is a State Govt. unit and the necessary COD clearance required as per the apex Court’s decision has not yet been obtained by the appellant-assessee. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao appearing for the Department. 4. In the absence of required COD clearance, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the appellants to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining necessary COD clearance later on....
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Deepak Mehta
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of used Hyundai Terracan Motor Car imported by the respondent herein under Transfer of Residence Rules, under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 on the ground that the car was not in the possession of the importer i.e. the vehicle was not registered in the name of the individual respondent but in the name of the company of which he was the Chairman and Managing Director with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.3 lakhs, and setting aside the penalty of Rs.70,000/- imposed upon the importer. 2. I have heard both sides. I note that M/s.Moving Star Ltd., the company of which the respondent was the Chairman in Sri Lanka, have affirmed that the car was in the possession of the respondent for 4 years. This has not been challenged. Further, even the adjudicating authority has admitted that there is ...
Cce, Pondicherry and Another Vs. the Supreme Industries Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has allowed credit of service tax paid in respect of rent-a-cab service and tour operator s service , leading to these appeals by the department. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the respondents, (Appeal No. E/471 and 472/08), Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, states that the issue involved in this case is settled by a number of Tribunal s decisions listed below:- a. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2009 (14) STR 316 (Tri.-Bang.) b. CCE, Nasik Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 598 (Tri.-Mum.) c. CCE, Vadodara Vs. Haldyn Glass Gujarat Ltd. 2008 (14) STR 819 (Tri.- Ahmd.) d. CCE, Jaipur Vs. J.K. Cememt works 2009 (92) RLT 929 (Cestat-Del.) e. CC and CE, Raipur Vs. HEG Ltd. 2009 (95) RLT 317 (Cestat-Del.) f. CCE, Chennai Vs. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. 2009-TIOL-1739-CESTAT-MAD g. CCE, Raipur Vs. Beekay Engg. and Castings Ltd. 2009 (95) RLT 97 (Cestat- Del.) h. Tata Auto Comp. Systems Ltd. Vs. CC...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »