Chennai Court December 2009 Judgments

M/S. Marshal Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellants availed the exemption under the Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.04, with effect from 12.07.04. It is admitted by them that as a condition of the notification, they were required to reverse the credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock on 12.07.04. However, the appellants reversed the credit of Rs. 3,81,319/- only in May 05 that too utilizing the credit during March and April 05 after they had opted out of the Notification No.30/04-CE. The authorities below have confirmed a demand of Rs.3,81,319/- on the ground that the said amount should have been reversed in July 04 and should not have been paid utilizing the credit earned during March and April 05. Interest ad penalty have also been levied. The lower appellate authority has reduced the penalty from Rs.3,81,319/- to Rs.30,000/. 2. Smt. Nisha Bineesh, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that due to inadvertence and ignorance, the appellants did ...

M/S. the India Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. 2. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants namely M/s. The India Cements Ltd. have two cement factories at Sankari and Sankarnagar and they also have mines at both the places. He states that both the mines supply limestone to the nearest factory but sometimes part of the supply is also made to the other factory belonging to the appellants. The authorities below have held that these mines are found to be captive mines because sometimes part of the limestone is supplied to another unit of the same assessee. He states that this view is not permissible since Hon ble Supreme Court’s order in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore - 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC) only disallows credit when supplies were made to other cement factories of different assessees. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Eid Parry (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Considering the petty amount involved in this case, the Departments appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case and the issue would be dealt with in future in an appropriate case....

Babulal B. Tater Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding penalty of Rs.1 lakh upon the appellant herein who is a licence broker. The case of the department is that the appellant played a very major role in manipulation of DEEC licences which he sold to M/s.S.R. Agencies and helped M/s.S.R. Agencies to clear excess quantities of leather chemicals. The appellant has admitted his role in the manipulation. Therefore, he is liable to penalty as an a better of the offence of clearance of excess quantities resulting in violation of the provisions of Section 111 (m) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, having regard to the fact that the duty demand on the importer is only to the extent of approximately Rs.1.90 lakhs, I reduce the penalty to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). 2. The appeal is appeal party allowed as above....

M/S.Wood Bridge Tea Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The appellants herein paid service tax and education cess on the amount of freight charges paid to transporters from 01.01.2005. The filed a claim of refund of Rs.71,543/- covering the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2005 on the ground that they were eligible to abatement of 75% in terms of Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and were therefore, entitled to refund of excess paid. They also filed consolidated declaration in terms of the notification, from the transport agencies month-wise, stating that they had neither taken credit on inputs or capital goods nor availed the benefits under Notification No.12/03-ST dated 20.06.2003, which was the requirement of Notification No.32/04. The claim was rejected on the ground that declarations by the Goods Transport Agencies providing transport service was not made by the appellants as required under Board s Circular dated 27.07.2005 and further on the ground that there was no mention of the name of the agencies except lorry numbers and...

P.M. Vinayagam Retd Versus Controller of Defence Accounts, Chennai and ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

ACA Adityan The petitioner has approached the Honourable High Court with a petition for giving a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the pension as per sanction order No.1313237/Pon(2)/20 dated 15.11.1993 and also for a direction to pay the arrears of pension due to him as on 26.07.2003 with other equitable reliefs. 2.The affidavit to the petition sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- 2(a) The petitioner retired from Military service on 01.10.1978. According to the petitioner, the respondents have fixed his pension at Rs.171/-, the rank pension was fixed at Rs.45/- for all pensioners in the category of Nib Subedhar, whether they retired prior to 1986 or after 1986, as per Circular No.306 issued by the first respondent in G.T.S/TECH 0.148 XXXIII Office of the Pr. C. D. A (P), Allahabad, dated 23.07.2002. The rank pension prior to 1.10.1981 was increased from Rs.45/- pm to Rs.100/- pm with effect from 1.10.1981. So, as per the said Circular, the rank pension from 01.10.1978 t...

Apan Knitwears Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The appellants herein filed ex-bond Bill of Entry on 28.5.90 for clearance of Nylon Zippers in coils, seeking payment of duty @ 100% + 50%. The duty @ 150% + 45% was levied on the goods; the importer moved the Hon ble High Court, Chennai by filing W.P.No.6829/90; by interim order, the differential duty was directed to be paid and the differential duty of Rs.45,686/- was paid on 25.4.91. Writ Petition Nos.6829 and 6830/90 were disposed of by the Hon ble High Court on 16.9.1998 setting aside the assessment order dt. 12.6.90 charging the goods to higher rate of duty. The Court directed the Customs authorities to refund the total amount if any paid by the petitioner to the credit of the respondent within 60 days from the date of receipt of its order with 12% interest per annum from the date of remitting the amount to the credit of the respondent until payment of the amount to the writ petitioner. Since no refund forthcoming, the importers sent a reminder to the department on 6.6.05. The cl...

M/S. Aml Steels Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. Considering the fact that the entire amount of duty of Rs.54,755/- has been paid by the appellants before issue of the show-cause notice and promptly after detection of the case, the requirement of predeposit of the balance amounts are waived and with the consent of both sides all these four appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 2. Smt. Prameela Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that she is not disputing the duty demand which already stands discharged and the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant-company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, she states that the total fine and penalty imposed in this case amounts to about Rs.5,45,000/- which is more than ten times the duty amount involved in the case. Hence, she prays that a lenient view may be taken and fine and penalty may be reduced. 3. Heard Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR appearing for the Department. 4. After hearing both sides, I find ...

M/S. Ttk Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The above appeals were initially listed for hearing and disposed off on 12.09.05, vide Final Order No. 1227 and 1228/2005, setting aside the impugned order confirming a demand on waste and scrap of paper arising in the course of manufacturing of paper tubes and cones, in the light of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Wimco Ltd. Vs. CCE 2002 (147) ELT 920 (Tri.-Del.). The Tribunal s order was taken up in appeal by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its order dated 13.07.2009, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for better adjudication of the factual aspects. Tribunal s order in Wimco Ltd.(supra) was also taken up by the Revenue before the apex Court and apex Court vide its order reported in 2007 (217) ELT 3 (S.C.), remitted the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as the Tribunal had not dealt with the factual scenario in detail. Post remand, the Wimco case was decided afresh by the Tribunal as seen from...

C.L. Muthiah Vs. Power Soaps P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas137(Mad)

C.T. Selvam, J.1. This petition seeks to quash the proceedings pending for offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C. No. 516 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Pondicherry.2. Heard M/s. V.M.G. Ramakannan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Ramasubramanian for Mr. G.R. Hari for Ram & Ram, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Primarily there are two contentions which arise in support of the petition. The first is that the cheques were drawn on March 15, 2008, in the name of M/s. Narmada Chemicals P. Ltd., and on the date of cheque, such company was not in existence as the company had undergone a change of name to M/s. Power Soaps P. Ltd., with effect form February 1, 2008 and was again converted to M/s. Power Soaps Ltd., with effect from March 4, 2008, as notified by the Registrar of Companies. The contention is that the cheques have been drawn in the name of a non-entity and therefore, they were not...