Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

Tube Investments of India Limited Represented by Its Vice President, T ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Mad)313; [2009]185TAXMAN438(Mad)

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 10750 of 2009, seek for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first and the second respondent to forbear from relying upon the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and to disallow the revenue expenditure of the petitioners incurred on the purchases of the printed stationery and packing materials for non-compliance of Section 194C of the Act.2. In W.P. No. 10751 of 2009, the very same petitioners seek for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as beyond the legislative competence of the Union of India under Serial No. 82 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India besides being void as infringing Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution and consequently unenforceable in law.3. In all these writ petitions, the common challenge is to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to declare as ultra v...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Poly Resins

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case a show cause notice dated 29.10.98 was issued to the respondents herein proposing clubbing of the value of its clearances with that of M/s. Reliable Corporation, as it was alleged that though they had been constituted as independent units, there was financial flow-back between the two and proposing the clubbing of the value of their with that of M/s. Abbas and Co. Notice also proposed imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dated 31.12.2000 upholding the proposal for clubbing and confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalties. 2. On 26.7.2001 allegation of under valuation was raised in a show cause notice demanding differential duty of Rs.19,860/- from M/s. Poly Resins by invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the fact of sale of goods with depressed the value to related person was not divulged to the department. Such notice was adjudicated by the ...

M/S. Kores India Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of interest of Rs.19,62,887/- confirmed for the period 25.8.95 to 29.11.97 under Section 11AA read with Section 11AB which was brought into after expiry of 3 months from 25.8.95. The interest period ends with the date on which the assesses made the payment. In other words, interest has been directed to be recovered for the delay in payment of duty. 2. We find that when the case came up for hearing earlier, predeposit of Rs.50 lakhs was directed, which order was complied with. Both sides confirm that the predeposit amount has not been refunded to the assessee. In this view of the matter we waive the predeposit of the interest amount above mentioned and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal....

Shri Senghiskhan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant seeks leave to withdraw the stay application and appeal. Leave granted. The stay application and the appeal are dismissed as withdrawn....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-iv Vs. M/S. Prax Air India Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this appeal demand of Rs.2,65,501/- together with interest was confirmed against the assessees who had taken wrong Cenvat credit and penalty of equal amount was imposed. The assessees challenged only the imposition of penalty before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held that the penalty could not be sustained as the duty had been paid prior to issuance of show cause notice. Revenue is in appeal against the setting aside of the penalty. 2. We have heard ld. JCDR and perused the records none appeared for the respondents in spite of notice. We find that Cenvat Credit was taken by the assessees but not utilized. However, on the other hand, the demand confirmed applying extended period of limitation does not appear to have been challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority has only dealt with the defence of the assessee that since the duty was paid prior to the issuance of show cause notice penalty...

M/S. Cico Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per JYOTI BALASUNDARAM The application for waiver of predeposit is dismissed as premature as the duty demand has not been re-quantified after benefit extended by the lower appellate authority. The assesses are at liberty to file fresh stay application as and when the duty amount is redetermined....

M/S. City Art Printers Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In both appeals the challenge is to the quantum of fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of imported used colour offset printing machine and the quantum of penalty imposed. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the year of manufacture was misdeclared for the purpose of bypassing the provision relating to the requirement of licence for import of used items over 10 years old. The decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CC, Tuticorin Vs. Sai Copiers [2008 (226) ELT 486 (Mad) relied upon by the ld. Counsel for pleading for reduction of fine to 15% and penalty to 5% is not applicable for the reason that, in the Sai Copier case (supra) there is no misdeclaration of the imports. We, therefore, do not accept the contention for such a drastic reduction in fine and penalty. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the value of the imported machines, we reduce the redemption fine in appeal C/271/03 to Rs.1,50,000/-...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shriram Metals and Al ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessees for delay in payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme on the ground that penal provision namely Rule 96ZP3(ii) was inserted in the statute only with effect from 7.5.98 while the delay in payment was for duty due in the month of April 1998. 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is correct in law and in the light of the Apex Court judgment in CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd [2001 128 ELT 52 (SC)] holding that an illegality committed prior to insertion of Section providing for penalty (Section 11AC in the Act) cannot be the subject matter of penalty under the said provision as the Section 11AC is prospective in operation. The Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition of the Revenue against the Tribunal s order. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision we uphold the impugned order and reject th...

M/S. Bharat Heavy Eelectricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per JYOTI BALASUNDARAM We have heard both sides on the application for rectification of mistake apparent from the record of the Tribunal s Final Order No.377/09 dated 31.3.09 disposing of Appeal No.E/346/05 . 2. We find that the Tribunal relied upon its decision in Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd [2005 (182) ELT 336 (T)]. The Tribunal further held in para 6 of the final order that the Tribunal s decision was upheld by the apex Court. The issue of classification in the present case was identical to that in the case of Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Ltd and that order of the Tribunal on the classification aspect has become final as a result of no appeal having been filed against the Revenue. Reference to the apex Court’s decision is not required in the present case as the Revenue has gone up in appeal on the inclusion of the value of bought out item which is not an issue arising in the present appeal. We therefore substitute the following sentence in para 6 of the final order:- “...

Indian Bank Rep. by the Managing Director, Chennai and Others Vs. R. C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent herein as complainant approached the lower forum for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- representing the cheque misplaced or lost, the cheque dishonored, and for compensation etc. 3. The grounds alleged are that on 26.8.99 the complainant did not withdraw any amount on the lose cheque bearing No.588684, that under the hope he is having sufficient amounts in his account issued a cheque on 11.11.99 in favour of Fist Leasing Company of India Ltd., that the same was returned or dishonored as if the account holder has no sufficient funds in his account, that if the non-withdrawal of amount of Rs.10000/- by somebody was available, the cheque issued by him in favour of the First Leasing Company of India Ltd., would not have been dishonored and therefore for the deficiency in service committed by the bank/appellants, the complainant/respondent is entitled to the cheque amounts as well as compensatio...