Chennai Court May 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.
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Janaki Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2009
Jyoti Balasundaram, Duty demand of Rs. 44,162/- confirmed by the Additional Commissioner on packing material (corrugated boxes) supplied free by M/s. Metal Powder Co. Ltd., to the respondents herein without inclusion of such goods in the assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared using such material has been upheld by the Commissioner (A), who however has dropped the penalty imposed upon the assessees under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground that there was no willful suppression on the part of the assessees with an intent to evade payment of duty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that it is accepted that the receipt of free packing material received from the buyers was made known to the department voluntarily by the appellants, who had produced all the documents relating to the supply of corrugated boxes before the internal audit officers. Therefore, the charge of suppression cannot be sustained and although the assessees have not challenged the co...
National Test House Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (St). Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2009
The appeal along with stay application is dismissed for want of CoD clearance with liberty to apply for restoration as and when the clearance is granted....
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2009
The appellants herein who are manufacturers of cement obtained a licence from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) for licensing standard mark popularly known as ISI mark on bags etc. containing cement, on payment of applicable fee and annual licence fee to BIS. They filed claims for refund of service tax on the ground that service tax was not applicable to marking fees under the category of Technical Testing and Analysis services. Claim for refund was rejected by holding that marking fee is liable to service tax under the head technical inspection and certification services. The lower appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claims. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. Section 65 (105) of Chapter 5 of Finance Act, 1994 defines the expression technical inspection and certification services as under :-Technical inspection and certification means inspection or examination of goods or process of material or any immovable property to certify that such goods or process ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Silpa Agencies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2009
The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether the activity of the respondents purchasing pre-paid and post-paid SIM cards from BSNL and selling the cards to customers amounts to rendering of Business Auxiliary Services for the purpose of levy of service tax. 2. On hearing both sides, I note that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunals decision in South East Corporation Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vide Final Order No. 610/07 dated. 25.5.07 in Appeal No. ST/11/2007 holding that the same activity as carried out by the respondents herein does not amount to Business Auxiliary Services, that the assessees have not carried out any service but they have only purchased and sold the cards which comes within the purview of sale of goods attracting sales tax. Following the ratio of the above order, I uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping demand and penalty and reject the appeal. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›