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.
V. Balakrishnan Vs. M/S.Wing Commander P.K.Thomas (Retd)., Coimbatore
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J. {open Court} 1. The respondent in this Revision Petition as complainant, filed a case against the opposite party/Revision petition, claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs or as per the report of the Commissioner be ordered and for certain other reliefs, accusing the opposite party as if he had committed deficiency in the construction of the building, which was opposed. 2. Admittedly, on the basis of the petition filed by the complainant, a Commissioner was appointed, he has filed a report, for which, objections were also filed, thereafter, enquiry proceeded and when the matter was posted for order by the district Forum, the opposite party moved the District Forum to reopen the case, probably to appoint an another Commissioner, to assess the value of the extra work said to have been done by the opposite party and its value. After hearing, the petition was (to reopen) rejected against which, this Revision Petition is filed. 3. The case came to be filed, complaining deficiency...
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Pkn Bus Service
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), reducing the penalties imposed on the assessees under the provisions of Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. As none appears for the assessees in spite of notice, heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. The Commissioner (A) has given a clear finding based on the statutory provisions viz., the first proviso to Section 78 to reduce the penalty on the ground that the assessees paid the service tax together with interest even prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice, Section 78 states that if the service tax is paid together with interest within 30 days of the receipt of the Order-in-Original, the penalty is to be reduced to 25%. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the finding on reduction of penalty under Section 78. As regards Section 76, there is also no merit in the revenue s appeal for enhancement of penalty as the provisions of Section 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive, however...
Dollar Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
Heard both sides. It is admitted by both sides that for an earlier period involving the same issue, the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal to the original authority for fresh decision vide Final Order No. 49/2008 dated 18.1.2008 in Appeal No. E/955/2005 in the appellant s own case. Hence, with the consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision on the same terms as contained in the cited Final Order No. 49/2008 dated 18.1.2008. 2. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
M/S. AswIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
The duty demand of Rs. 9,53,360/- has been confirmed on the ground that the assessees did not fulfill the export obligation in respect of two licenses issued to them. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessee’s contention is that the export obligation under both the licenses has been partly fulfilled and in this connection they submit that they had submitted the documents evidencing complying with the export obligation; however, the authorities below confirmed the entire demand. The assessees pray that the matter be sent back for verification of their claim that the export obligation has been partially fulfilled so as to enable the duty demand to be re-quantified. 3. I find that there is merit in the submission of the assesses - if they have fulfilled the export obligations even partially, the duty demand has to be re-worked. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the adjudicating authority to verify the do...
M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
Heard both sides. It is a case where the appellants have been compensated towards the value of defective drums received by the supplier of the drums in respect of which credit of central excise duty was taken by the appellants. The amount of credit taken has been demanded from the appellants by the authorities below leading to this appeal. 2. Considering the fact that the appeal involves only a petty amount of duty of Rs.23,184/- and a penalty of Rs.10,000/-, the appeal is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case....
M/S. K.M.B Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Polished granite monuments/slabs/tiles. They were availing the services of Goods Transport Agency for transporting both their inward as well as outward goods and hence liable to service tax as per Rule 2 (1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and since they have failed to pay the service tax on the value of service during the period in dispute, show cause notices were issued proposing recovery of service tax and proposing penal action in appeal No. S/31/09. 2. The notices were adjudicated by confirming demand of service tax in one case and as there was a proposal for penal action, penalty imposed. The orders of adjudication were upheld by the Commissioner (A), hence, these appeals. 3. Heard both sides. It has been consistently contested by the assessees that services were not being provided to them by the Goods Transport Agency but by individual truck owners/lorry owners. Before the lower appellate authority they have also provided...
M/S. Dhandayuthapani Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2010
The assessees only challenge the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that non-payment of service tax during the relevant period was entirely due to ignorance on the part of the assessees to pay service tax on the freight charges incurred. 2. I have heard both sides. The statement of Shri M. Kadirvel, shows that he was ignorant of liability to pay service tax and when called upon to do so, he has paid the entire service tax together with interest. The Revenue has not established that there was suppression on the part of the assessees so as to warrant imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 76 and 78. Therefore, following the ratio of the Tribunal’s order in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Busy Bee 2008 (12) STR 613 (Tri.-Chen.) and R. Sukumar Vs. CCE, Trichy - 2008 (11) STR 118 (Tri.-Chen.), I, set aside the penalty under Section 76 and 78 by granting relief under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. International Bakery Produ ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The department seeks to include depreciation amount towards the cost of machinery which has been supplied free of cost by the customers to the respondents, for manufacture of the impugned goods (biscuits) which has been disallowed by the lower appellate authority leading to the appeal by the department. 2. We find that the issue regarding inclusion of amortized cost of machinery/equipment supplied free of cost by the customers to the job worker is settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2000 (117) ELT 578]. Hence we find that the order of the lower appellate authority is not in conformity with the decision of the Larger Bench cited above. 3. We also find that the details of the supply of machinery free of cost were never disclosed to the department by the appellants. Hence, we are of the view that the longer period of limitation is required to be invoked in this case. The responden...
Ramanujam Chemicals and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the assessees herein who are manufacturers of calcium carbide had purchased M/s.Sangavi Industries, a proprietary concern. In other words, the factory of M/s.Sangavi Industries was taken over by the appellants herein who continued to manufacture goods in the same premises. The department sought to club the value of the clearances of Sangavi Industries and of the appellants in terms of clause (b) of para 2 of the Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993 which was objected to by the appellants on the ground that they were a separate manufacturer and they had cleared goods valued only at about Rs.4 lakhs during the relevant time and therefore value of clearance is well within the ceiling limit of SSI notification No.1/93. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.2,90,193/- in terms of the notification in question and also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but reduced the...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Credit of additional duty of customs has been held to be admissible only to the extent of 75% for the reason that this restriction came in on 1.3.97 which is prior to the date of installation of capital goods in the factory of the appellants. The receipt of the capital goods however was prior to 1.3.97. 2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunal s order in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Raj Cement [ 2000 (159) ELT 302] holding that date of receipt of goods in the factory of the assessees is the material date and since the goods were received prior to 1.3.97, the assessees were entitled to take 100% credit. The above decision has been followed in the case of The India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy vide Final Order No.1615/09 dt. 6.11.09. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned orders denying credit and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, due to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »