Chennai Court January 2010 Judgments

M/S. Wardex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

On taking up the application for early hearing of the above appeal, I note that the issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem, vide F.O. No. 2 to 4/10 dated 18.12.2009. Therefore, I take up the appeal itself at this stage after granting early hearing. 2. Service tax credit in respect of certain services has been disallowed on the ground that the credit was availed by them on the basis of ineligible documents namely debit notes issued by their service providers. I find that in M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. decision cited supra, the Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for examining the validity of the impugned debit notes and also for examining as to whether the services can be considered to be eligible input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules read with enabling powers contained under Section 37 (2) of the Act. Following the ratio of the above order, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case to t...

M. Natarajan and Another Vs. Cc, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The appellants herein challenge the imposition of penalty of Rs.Four lakhs each under the provisions of Section 114 (i) of the Act. 2. The penalty has been imposed on Shri M. Natarajan, Partner of M/s. Sri Olima International, Tuticorin, exporter, for having given his IE code to one Shri C.T.R. Ramasamy of M/s. M.R. Trading Company, for utilization it by a third person for the export of ‘Aluminum Sulphate’ instead of which ‘Red Sander logs’ were attempted to be exported. Penalty has been imposed on the first appellant for lending the IE code to be used by one Shri C.T.R. Ramasamy for export of Aluminum Sulphate but, red sanders was attempted to be exported and Shri C.T.R. Ramasamy failed to take sufficient care to ascertain the bonafides of the person who was supposed to utilize the IE code of M/s. Sri Olima International. 3. I have heard both sides. I find that there is no material on record to show that either of the appellants, in relation to any goods, did o...

M/S. Anghinghu Nice Tobacco and Others Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The above appeals have been coming up for regular hearing since 3rd February, 2009. On 21/8/2009, English translation of statements and impugned orders were directed to be filed and the appeals were listed for hearing on 22.01.2010 and further adjourned to today. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant nor have the directions of the Bench been carried out. As such it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeals, which are accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution....

Ltu, Chennai Vs. M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The application for condonation of delay of one day in preferring the above appeal is allowed as I am satisfied with the reason given by the revenue in the application. 2. As the issue in dispute stands settled by the precedent decision of the Tribunal, I take up the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both sides. The issue in this appeal is as to whether credit is available on service tax paid on rent a cab service. I find that this issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Jaipur Vs. M/s. J.K. Cement Works - 2009-TIOL-411-CESTAT-Del. This order has been followed in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd and others vide Tribunal s Final Order No. 670 to 681/09 dated 05.06.2009. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is in accordance with law; I uphold the same and reject the appeal of the revenue....

G. Dhanapal and ors. Vs. the Secretary, All India Council for Technica ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the 7th respondent dated 01.08.2009, in so far as it relates to paragraph-2 therein and for a further direction to select the petitioners for further promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the services of the Tamil nadu Electricity Board.2. The impugned letter dated 01.08.2009 is a communication emanating from the office of the 7th respondent forwarded to all the Chief Engineers of TNEB, in the said letter certain guidelines have been fixed for filling up of vacancies of Assistant Engineer/Mechanical by Internal Selection. It has been stated that it is proposed to call for application from the qualified employees of the board, who have passed B.E. (Mechanical) either part time or regular or equivalent or Section A & B of AMIE examination as referred to in Regulation 1994, Annexure 3, for consideration and appoi...

Vsl India Private Limited Represented by Its Authorised Signatory P. S ...

Court: Chennai

M. Chockalilngam, J.1. This intracourt appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition for winding up of the respondent company in C.P. No. 78 of 2009.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also for the respondent.3. The case of the appellant before the Company Court and equally here also is that the appellant was entrusted with the work by the respondent; that the same was accordingly done; that notices were sent calling for the balance amounts; that the earliest notice was sent on 31.1.2006; that thereafter, though part payments were made, the balance amounts were not settled; that under such circumstances, a notice was issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act which brought forth a reply; that the appellant approached the Company Court since the admitted liability was not met, and hence the circumstances warrant for winding up of the respondent company.4. The petition was resisted by the respondent stating that the...

R.N. Veerappan and ors. Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]322ITR662(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.1. In all these tax case revisions, the petitioners/asses-sees have questioned the order of the Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax, dated March 26, 1997 suo motu revising the earlier order of the assessing authority passed under Section 65 of the Act, by invoking the provision of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). In these tax case revisions, the petitioners have raised the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax has discharged his initial burden of establishing the existence of essential ingredients to constitute 'association of persons', among the petitioner and two others, before initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 3...

M/S. Sel Jegat Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticor ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The appellants herein imported paper which was assessed to normal rate of duty and cleared on payment of duty. After import and clearance, they noticed that there was a clerical error in the calculation of the value for the reason that, in the invoice the value was shown as USD 125.73 for 100 pieces instead of USD 125.73 for 1000 pieces as per the proforma invoice. They filed a claim for refund for excess duty paid. Since the assessees have not challenged and since the assessees had not produced any evidence to establish the non-passing of the incidence of duty to their customers, a show-cause notice dated 26.9.2006 was issued for rejection of the claim for refund. On 29.6.2006, the assessee filed an application for correction of clerical/arithmetical error in the assessment order, as per the terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim for refund was rejected vide order dated 11.4.2007 and the application for rectification was rejected vide order dated 2.8.2007. Against bo...

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shree Mookambika Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, vide Order-in-Original No.21/2003 dated 18.11.2003 service tax together with interest was demanded and a penalty of Rs.57,200/- was imposed under the provision of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended for belated payment of tax during the period 1.9.1999 to 30.9.2002. Show-cause notice dated 22.6.2004 under Section 74 was issued proposing modification of the Order-in-Original by revising the penalty imposed under Section 76 which was calculated at the rate of Rs.100/- to Rs. 200/- per week instead of Rs.100/- per day. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty under Section 78. A fresh adjudication order was passed on 25.10.2005 enhancing the penalty to Rs.6,12,894/- @ Rs.100/- for every day during the period of delay in payment of tax and dropping proceeding for imposition of penalty under Section 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement of penalty on the ground that it cannot be said that the imposition of penalty of Rs.57,200/- was an error...

M/S. Rajarani Exports and Another Vs. Cce, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The assessees are aggrieved by the imposition of penalties imposed under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax within time - they do not challenge the levy of tax which they have paid together with interest. 2. I have heard both sides. Nothing comes out in the statement of Shri K.L. Rajasekhar, Managing Partner of the assessee-company that the assessee was aware of the liability to tax and yet did not pay service tax. The burden on the Revenue to establish suppression on the part of the assessee with intention to evade payment of tax has not been discharged. I, therefore, set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 - the assessee do not challenge the penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Act - and allow the appeal....