Chennai Court May 2009 Judgments

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we waive predeposit of duty of Rs.85,207 (in Appeal No.E/473/08) and Rs.15,06,635/- (in Appeal No.E/474/08) and proceed to decide the appeals themselves at this stage as the prayer of the appellants is for remand of the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority before whom they undertake to produce the relevant records and registers to support their claim of actuals. 2. The demands arise as a result of holding that the assessees, who are manufacturers of PVC Resin and HCL, had availed incorrect CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules on inputs such as LSHS which was used in the generation of electricity which was then sent outside the factory to the assessees sister units and TNEB power wheeling without reversing/debiting credit in accordance with the standard or accepted norms for short reversal/debit of credit. 3. We find that in the assessees own case vide order reported in 2008 (223) ELT 119 (Tri.-Chennai), the Tribuna...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Sands Power Switchgear Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

P. Karthikeyan This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the order of the original authority confirming a demand of Rs.13,22,608/-, imposing equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) and further penalty of Rs.1,30,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority had also demanded interest of Rs.56,492/- under Section 11AB of the Act. The duty had been voluntarily paid before issue of Show Cause Notice. The demand had been raised towards credit availed by the respondents M/s. SandS Power Switchgear Ltd. on receipt of certain inputs in their Porur unit which they had not reversed at the time of their removal to their Pondicherry unit during the material period. Had they reversed the credit initially availed at the time of removal of the inputs to their sister unit, the sister unit would have instantly availed the credit of duty paid on removal of the inputs....

Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein had re-imported a consignment of 2000 kgs. of Ibuprofen from Canada under Bill of Entry dated. 19.10.92. They sought clearance of the re-imported goods under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also claimed duty-free clearance under Notification No. 132/61-Cus. dated. 9.12.61. The benefit of the notification was disallowed by the Asst. Commissioner; an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated. 26.7.93 upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal of the importers; the Tribunal vide its order No. 2809/99 dated. 5.11.99 remanded the case to the original authority. The importers filed refund claim on 14.12.99 which was rejected by the original authority on 29.9.2000 on the ground of time-bar as well as on the ground that the importers had not substantiated the claim with reference to relevant documents. The importers challenged this order before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated. 11.1.01 agai...

Curekraft Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chen ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein are manufacturers of bulk drugs and leather chemicals and binders and are availing the benefit of exemption in terms of SSI Notification No.9/2000-CE dated. 1.3.2000. Apart from their own production, they are also doing job work for M/s.Bush Boake Allen (I) Ltd., Chennai. They had cleared the goods worth Rs.8,55,497/- vide their invoice dated. 13.7.2000 on payment of duty at the applicable rate of 12.8% (being within the exemption limit), which works out to Rs.83,904/-. The department was of the view that SSI benefit can be availed by the assessees only in respect of their own clearances and not in respect of clearances on behalf of their raw material suppliers and, therefore, their discharging of duty at concessional rate in respect of the above transaction was incorrect. On this basis, a show-cause notice dated. 8.8.2001 was issued proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.20,976/- being the balance duty and proposing imposition of penalty...

Dipti Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The plea of the appellants is restricted to reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for rendering imported secondhand machines liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reason that although payment for the goods was made much earlier, when the goods were actually imported and Bill of Entry filed for their clearance, there was a restriction in the EXIM Policy regarding import of secondhand machine namely that a licence was required which the importer did not possess. 2. We have heard both sides. Machinery valued at Rs.5,41,880/- has been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.55,000/- together with direction for payment of applicable duty on enhanced value. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we note it is only by operation of law that the goods became liable to confiscation, and hence we accept the prayer by reducing...

SonA. Krishnamoorthy S/O. Narayana Iyer, Secretary, Sri Subramaniya Sw ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ833

ORDERR.S. Ramanathan, J.1. The petitioner, who is one of the Thirusuthanthirar and as Secretary of the Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Kaingaryam Thirusuthanthirarkal Saba, Thiruchendhur, filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 to 7 from conducting the Yagasalai for Shanmugar outside the temple compound against the Aahama Vithigal.2. It is stated by the petitioner that Ashtha Bandhana Kumbabisegam for the Thiruchendhur Subramaniya Swamy temple is to be conducted on 02.07.2009 and for that purpose two Yagasalai are to be established and so far as the Moolavar deity of Lord Subramaniya Swamy, Yagasalai is to be kept inside the temple and for the Urchava Moorthy Shanmugar, the respondents 2 to 7 are going to have the Yagasalai outside the temple and it is against the prescription of 'Aahama Vithigal' and therefore, the respondents 2 to 7 must be restrained from having the Yagasalai outside the temple for the Urchava Moorthy Shanmugar.3. It i...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Sterlite Industries (i) Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in these appeals relates to admissibility of the following goods to capital goods credit in the factory of the respondents who are manufacturers of copper anode falling under Heading 74 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 :- 1) PLC Hardware 2) CCTV System 3) Radio Remote Control 4) Memory Modules 5) Camera Mount and Monitor Mount and 6) Furosplit FN syrup and Furosplit FN activator 2. We have heard both sides. We find that PLC Hardware, CCTV System and Radio Remote Control are instrumentation materials used in the control system of the plant for monitoring the manufacturing activity; that all the high speed rotating systems are controlled by the PLC Hardware. CCTV system is a remote eye which controls the fuel process. The Radio Remote Control is also used to monitor the manufacturing activity. Memory Module accessories are instrumentation spares used in direct control system. All these items are, therefore, in the natur...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Meenambal Fireworks

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram Although the respondents have sought for adjournment, we find that there is no necessity to accede to this request as the issue in dispute stands squarely covered against the Revenue by the apex courts decision in Collector Vs Sri Chakra Tires Ltd., 2002 (142) ELT A279 (SC), upholding the Tribunals decision reported in 1999 (108) ELT 361 that the price is to be treated as cum duty price. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue has stated that the Tribunals order has been challenged before the apex court. Since the apex court has decided the issue by upholding the Tribunals order, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise holding that the price is cum duty price, and hence uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai and Another Vs. Tvs Srichakra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that rubberized tire cord warp sheet of high tenacity yarn manufactured by the assessees falls for classification under Chapter Heading 59.02 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and has set aside the adjudication order passed by the Asst. Commissioner insofar as it relates to classification under Chapter Heading 59.06. He has also held that no Additional Excise Duty as demanded in the show-cause notices is payable by the assesses since he has extended the benefit of captive consumption in terms of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated. 16.3.95. He has, therefore, partly allowed the Revenues appeal and the assesses appeal. 2. Both Revenue and the assesses are in appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue is in appeal against the extension of the benefit of captive consumption, while the assesse is in appeal against the classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 59.02. 3...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Venkatesa Paper and Boards ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 23/98 dated. 1.8.98 to the respondents herein who are producers of newsprint. According to the Revenue, the exemption will be available only to Unit I of the respondent mill and not to Unit II which has availed the exemption. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard ld. JCDR and perused the records. Notification No. 23/98 reads as under :- In exercise of the power conferred by Note 3 to Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), the Central Government, hereby defines newsprint for the purposes of the said Chapter 48, as paper of a kind, - (a) Intended for the printing of newspapers; and (b) Manufactured by a manufacturer of newsprint specified under Schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, and supplied against a purchase order placed upon such manufacturer by...