Chennai Court May 2009 Judgments

General Precured Treads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Cent ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The service tax demand of Rs.1,49,002/- has been confirmed by the authorities below, on supply of heated thermo fluid for the manufacture of Pre-cured Tread Rubber to other two units located adjacent to the assessees, treating the supply as a procurement of goods or service, which are inputs for the client, and therefore covered by the category of Business Auxiliary Service. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the appellants have a heating machine to heat Hydraulic Oil which is used for heating the hydraulic press used for pressing the design mould at their factory premises. In addition to their own use of the heated hydraulic oil, they also supplied heated fluid to adjacent two companies through pipelines for which they received heating charges on hourly basis which is in no way can be treated as service rendered as it is only a supply of excess heated oil to other units after use thereof in their factory and such supply will not amount to procurement of goods or serv...

M.M.Forgings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

For reasons recorded below, I waived redeposit of service tax of Rs.3,14,839/- together with interest at appropriate rate, and penalty of equal amount and proceed to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides as the issue in dispute stands settled by a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue in dispute namely as to whether credit is admissible to the appellants, who are manufacturers of forgings, on outdoor catering services provided by M/s. SM Catering Service and MRS Catering Service, stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Larger Bench in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs GTC Industries Ltd., 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468(Tri.-LB). Following the decision cited supra, I hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit of the amount in question, set aside the demand together with interest and penalty and allow the appeal. ...

A.M.Ahmed and Co. Vs. Cce Tirunelveli

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The application for condo nation of delay of 25 days in preferring the above appeal is dismissed as the explanation for the delay namely that the General Manager of the partnership firm who is looking after the affairs had suffered an attack of Infective Hepatitis from 21.12.08 to 26.1.09, is not sufficient for the reason that the partnership firm has 20 partners and the fact that all of them are residing at Chennai, where the head office of the firm is located, is not sufficient to hold that none of the other partners could have filed the appeal against the impugned order in time. As the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the stay application is also dismissed and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation....

Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The applications for early hearing of the above appeals are allowed as the issue in dispute lies in a very narrow compass and the appeals can be decided without detailed arguments. 2. After granting the prayer for early hearing, I take up the appeals for disposal today itself with the consent of both sides. The appeals have been filed against communications by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), rejecting the request of the appellants for conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. Although the letters clearly state that the direction for rejection has been issued with the approval of the Commissioner (Export)/has been rejected by the Commissioner (Export), the fact remains that the decision whether to reject or to allow conversion is to be taken by the Commissioner himself and no one else. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases for fresh decision to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Exports) for fresh decision on the claim...

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. Vs. Commissio ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand of service tax of Rs.40,920/- together with interest by holding that the appellants herein were rendering tour operators services for the period from 10.9.2004 to 30.9.2004 and imposing a penalty of amount equal to the tax under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 77 and penalty of Rs.200/- per day from the date on which the service tax for the month of September 04 ought to have been paid until the payment of the tax, under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I find that the issue as to whether the appellants are rendering tour operator services is no longer res in tegra as in the case of the same assessee, for the period subsequent to the period in the present case, the Tribunal has already held that appellants have only provided transport and they have not rendered tour operator service so as to be liable to service tax there under vide Fi...

Supreme Exports and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Claims for refund of export cess paid by the appellants herein have been rejected on the twin grounds of limitation and non-production of original documents. 2. I have heard both sides. The claims have been filed well beyond a period of six months from the date of payment of cess and it is not the case of the appellants that duty has been paid under protest. Therefore, since the claims for refund have not been filed within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, they have been rightly held to be barred by limitation. The plea of the assessees that levy of cess on prawns has been declared as unconstitutional and in the case of unconstitutional levy, the question of limitation does not arise, is not tenable for the reason that there is no order holding levy of cess on prawns to be unconstitutional and what the Tribunal held in its decision reported in 2005 (190) ELT 72 which was upheld by the Honble Madras High Court in its decision repor...

The Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Director of Postal Services and t ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ639Mad

ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The writ petitioners are Postal Department. The first respondent herein was employed as a Sub Post Master in Jafferkhanpet Post Office during August 2002 to November 2003. One Smt. N. Sundaribai was a GDS MP, in the same post office. One Shri. P. Arumugam was appointed by the said Smt. N. Sundaribai in her place during her leave period. The said P. Arumugam issued fictitious money orders by misusing the oblong stamp of the post office that was in the custody of first respondent during August 2002 to November 2003 and thereby caused heavy loss to the Department. 2. A charge sheet dated 31.08.2004 was issued against the first respondent. The crux of the charge was that he was guilty of serious negligence and dereliction of duty as he had given full freedom to have accessibility to the oblong money order stamp to the outsider P.Arumugam and that he entrusted the work of preparing the Register list and High Value Money Order list to the outsider, resulting in ...

Cce, Chennai Vs. Coastal Steels Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram, J. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who while holding that battery boxes, lavatory inlays, door frames, seat frames supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory by the assessees were not semi finished goods but fully excisable goods, held that the demand was barred by limitation as the assessees were under a bonafide belief that the goods were not assessable to duty. The contention of the assessees that they had formed the belief that goods cleared by them were not excisable based upon the purchase order given by the Government Department viz. Indian railways - in the purchase order the railways categorically stated that excise duty is Nil. The Commissioner (A) in his findings stated that in the absence of any proof of malafide, the claim of the assessees that they were under bonafide belief that the purchases by the Indian Railways were not liable to duty, requires to be accepted ...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Goyal Mg Gases Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), holding that cylinder handling charges, rental charges, loading and unloading charges of cylinders containing liquid oxygen and liquid argon are not includible in the assessable value of the goods. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the assessees own case reported in Final Order No. 116-117/99 dated 08.02.99, the Tribunal has held that the activity of filling of hydrogen gas in cylinders does not amount to manufacture. In the case of Ammonia Supply Company Vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (131) ELT 626 (Tri.-Del.), it has been held by the Tribunal that filling of liquid ammonia from tankers into smaller cylinders does not amount to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessees have relied upon the Tribunals decision in Ammonia Supply Company Vs. CCE (supra) in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Sin...

S. Thilagavathi Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Madurai Ch ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ101Mad

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2006 made in W.P.Nos.12028/2000 and 58/2001 whereby and whereunder, the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 353/1991 dated 12.05.1999 was set aside in W.P. No. 12028/2000 and also claim of the appellant was negatived in W.P. No. 58/2001.2.The facts are briefly stated below :- The second Respondent Society by name Madurai Children Aid Society [for short, 'the Society'], represented by its Secretary, is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the appellant was working as an Assistant Matron on a monthly salary of Rs. 27/-. In view of her misconduct and misbehaviour, the management terminated her service by order dated 18.09.1990 and her accounts were settled. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 353/1991 in which a preliminary issue was raised as to whether, the second Respondent is an 'Industry', wherein it was held by the L...