Chennai Court May 2009 Judgments

Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confirmation of duty demand of Rs.36,51,063/- for clearances of chassis effected during the period October 96 to December 98 and duty of Rs.5,37,733/- for clearances during the period January to May 1999. The demands have been confirmed by inclusion of overriding commission received from government bodies/government departments in the assessable value of the chassis cleared from Regional Sales Office. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integral as it stands settled against the appellants by Tribunals Final Order No. 524/09 dated. 11.5.09 in the assesses own case, holding that overriding commission is required to be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal has relied upon the apex courts decision in Collector Vs Ashok Leyland, 1997 (92) ELT A129. The Tribunal, however, extended the benefit of cum duty price to the appellants. Following the ratio of th...

Classic Tyres Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram None appears for the appellants despite notice. Hence we heard ld. JCDR and perused the records. We find that the present appeal is not maintainable for the reason that it has been filed against Stay Order No. /2008 dated. 10.08.assed by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing predeposit of the entire amount of differential anti-dumping duty of Rs.3,65,800/-.No appeal lies before the Tribunal against an interim order. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. The stay application is also accordingly dismissed. ...

Piotr Gimik Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we dispensed with predeposit of penalty of Rs.4,50,000/-imposed on the appellant herein, who is a Polish national, under the proviso to Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proceeded to hear and decide the appeal itself today as the prayer of the appellant is only for reduction in the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of assorted foreign currency and reduction in penalty. 2. The assorted foreign currency in the form of Euros, US Dollars, British Pound Sterling and Indian Currency totally equivalent to Indian Rs.40,72,878/- seized from the suitcase carried by the appellant herein who was bound for Singapore by Air India Flight IC 557 on 7.9.2008 has been confiscated as the passenger was not in possession of any document for legal export of the same, with the option to redeem the currency on payment of a fine of Rs.14 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act and penalty as mentioned above has been imposed. 3. Keeping in vie...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Sundaram Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein, who are manufacturers of various rubber products, were also undertaking job work under Notification No. 214/86 and also doing job work of re-rubberisation of used old rollers. The department was of the view that as re-rubberisation of used rollers does not amount to manufacture, captive consumption exemption for the quantity of compounded rubber used for re-rubberisation of rollers was not available and duty had to be paid on compounded rubber before its clearance for captive use and reversal of credit taken on the inputs did not satisfy the requirement of the statute. On that basis, show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of duty during the relevant period which were adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalty on the respondents. Appeals were preferred by the assesses to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demands and penalty in the light of the apex courts decision in Lathia Industrial ...

Dcp Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of redeposit of duty of Rs.19,02,283/- confirmed by way of differential duty against the assesses herein, on goods imported under 11 Bills of Entry, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so after waiving redeposit. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the lower appellate authority has based his finding to uphold the demand on the appellants herein on the statement of one Shri Raj Kumar Anand. The contention of the appellants that Shri Raj Kumar Anand is in no way connected with them is not controverter by the Revenue. Hence ld. counsel is correct in his submission that the entire order proceeds to rely upon the statement of unconnected person. Interest of justice requires that the matter be decided afresh on the basis of material against the appellants herein. 3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for de...

Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein took credit of differential duty on the basis of a certificate issued by the Customs Appraiser. The taking of credit was objected to on the ground that the certificate was not specifically prescribed as an eligible document for the purpose of availing credit. The demand was, therefore, confirmed by disallowing the credit taken and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed, by the Asst. Commissioner whose order was entirely upheld by the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides and hold that the assesses are eligible to take credit on the strength of the certificate issued by the Customs Appraiser, in the light of the orders of the Tribunal in Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs and C.Ex., 2003 (153) ELT 333 which was followed in Shriram Foundry Ltd. Vs CCE Pane, 2004 (175) ELT 661 holding that in the absence of any other dispute relating to the duty paid nature of the inputs, receipt of the inputs in the fact...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. G.K.Steels and Allied Indu ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise determined the liability of the assesses to duty under the compounded levy scheme, confirmed demands raised in different show-cause notices and also imposed a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs upon the assesses. The adjudication order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the contention of the assesses that the Asst. Commissioner did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate notices for the reason that no question of valuation or classification was involved and the monetary limit prescribed for adjudication by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner was Rs.2 lakhs and monetary limits for adjudication by Addl. Commissioner in such cases was Rs.10 lakhs in terms of Circular No. 299/15/97-CX dated. 27.2.97, and hence he set aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner and remitted the case for fresh decision by the competent authority. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sid...

Precot Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the adjudication order dated. 18.7.97 in the case of M/s. Precut Mills Ltd. and order dated. 25.7.97 in the case of Super Spinning Mills, holding that the benefit of Notification No. 160/92- Cus. dated. 20.4.92 as amended is not admissible to the importers for the reason that on the date of import, they were not in possession of a valid licence. 2. The contention of the appellants is that the EPCG Committee had decided on 27.1.95 and 13.2.95 in the case of Precut Mills that licence was to be issued to the mills and in the case of Super Spinning Mills, the Committee decided on 13.2.95 that licence was to be issued to them and therefore the issuance of licence dated. 17.5.95 and 26.5.95 to M/s. Precot Mills and licence dated. 17.5.95 to M/s.Super Spinning Mills should relate back to the dates of the decision of the EPCG Committee. It is the contention that the delay on th...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Best Cotton Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, cleared their entire production during the period October 1996 to June 2000 on stock transfer basis to depot at Tiruppur and to their consignment agents for sales and for other disposal. The final sale of yarn was effected from the depot at Tiruppur. Cotton yarn was consumed for the manufacture of hosiery fabrics on their own account besides effecting sales to other customers. While effecting clearances to job workers, the respondents had not adopted the same value for the same kind of yarn and adopted much lesser value when compared to the value adopted for the sales made from depot to other customers. Hence a show-cause notice dated. 15.3.01 was issued proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.13,88,269/- together with interest, under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with relevant Rules. The notice was a...

The Ac Zone Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Mr. Rizwan Vs. the Superint ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1154

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 31.12.2004 confirming the assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 17.07.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is carrying on the business of sales and service of Air Conditioners. The petitioner has stated that they occupied the premises comprising ground and first floors situated at No. 2, Mahalinga Chetty Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034, as a lessee in August 2003; the premises is owned by Mrs.Hadhiz Faliha and the electricity connection stands in the name of the previous owner, Mrs.G.Lalitha. According to the petitioner, they have been prompt in paying the electricity bills. The impugned demand is made on the said Mrs.G.Lalitha and on the petitioner in their capacity as Enjoyer and according to the petitioner, it is with respect to the electricity service connection for the first floor and that the consumption char...