Chennai Court January 2010 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Kali Steel and Engi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the classification of pressure pans with lids under CT SH 7323.90 and not as pressure cookers under CT SH 7323.10 and holding that assessees were required to include the value of clearances of pressure pans with, and without lids, in the aggregate value of clearances. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Hence we heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that in the case of the same assessees reported in 2005 (187) ELT 431, the Tribunal has held that pressure pans with lids are pressure cookers and are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.41/94-CE as amended. In the case of CCE Chennai Vs Sivanesan and Co. [2007 (209) ELT 65], the Tribunal has held that pressure pans without lids are classifiable as kitchen articles and eligible to exemption under Notification No.41/94-CE. Since these decisions of the Tribunal were rendered subsequent to the pas...
S.A.ivy Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied an amount of refund of Rs.33,792/- on the ground of not meeting the test of unjust enrichment. It is the contention of the ld. consultant Shri Saravanan that the appellants should be given a second chance to demonstrate by way of producing a Chartered Accountant s certificate and relevant balance sheet that the impugned excess duty amount, which was paid under protest, has not been passed on to their customers and that the amount is indicated as receivables from the department. 2. Heard the ld. SDR. 3. We accept the prayer of the appellants for giving them a second chance to produce relevant documents to satisfy the department that they have not passed on the incidence of excess duty. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision who shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing a fresh order. 4. Appeal...
Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapa ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the adjudication order by which a demand of Rs.66,04,878/- has been confirmed on the ground that the assessees had not paid duty on consignment basis (for defaulted payment of duty on fortnightly basis) by debiting duty in current account, and penalty of Rs.1 lakh. 2. The assessees who are engaged in the manufacture of sodium silicate liquid and soluble glass had defaulted in the payment of duty on fortnightly basis three times in the same financial year ie. during 2000-01 and they cleared the goods by debiting their CENVAT credit account on consignment basis while the department was of the view that the duty was required to be paid by debiting in the current account. We find that it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs UOI [2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.)] that in the absence of any provisions to the contrary, the ass...
Sri Kumaraguru Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Heard both sides on the appeal against the confirmation of demand of service tax of Rs.2,00,452/- on the ground that the appellants were rendering services as CandF Agents and imposition of penalty. 2. We find that the stand of the assessees is that they were only procuring orders for customers and goods were being supplied directly to customers and they were paid brokerage which does not fall within the purview of services by a CandF Agent. This stand has not been rebutted by the Revenue either before the authorities or before us. Hence the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai [2006 (3) STR 321] holding that mere booking of orders for the principal by an agent on a commission basis is not taxable under CandF Agent service squarely applies to the facts of this case. Larger Bench decision has been followed in CCE and ST, Bangalore Vs Transasia Sales Syndicate [2007 (8) STR 467] and other decisions. Following the ratio of the ...
R. Sathiyaseelan Versus the Cda (Pension), O/O. the P.R. CdA. (P), All ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.22364 of 2008 before the Honourable High Court, Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal, and renumbered as T.A.No.30 of 2009. 2. Additional typed set of papers containing the Medical Board Proceedings pertaining to the applicant has been filed by the JAG Officer and a copy of the same has been furnished to the applicants counsel. 3. The affidavit to the application filed by the applicant sans irrelevant particulars would run as follows:- The applicant was recruited as Gunner in the Indian Army on 1.3.1978 and he was posted to the Artillery Unit and he was in service till 7.4.1980 (till the Medical Board invalidated him from service on 7.4.1980). The applicant was discharged from Military Service with remarks that he is not fit for Army employment. A representation was made to the second respondent. As seen from the reply from the second respondent vide...
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Cabot Sanmar Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-2010
Heard both sides. Considering that only a petty amount of Rs.5,255/- is involved in this case, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed without going into the merits of the same....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›