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, Chennai Vs. Arun Smelters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- was imposed upon the assessees herein by the adjudicating authority on the ground of delay in payment of first instalment of duty under the compounded levy scheme the last date for payment of the first instalment was 15.3.2000 while the instalment was paid only on 30.3.2000 resulting in delay of 15 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. Provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) are very clear to the effect that where a manufacturer fails to pay the whole of the amount payable for any month by the 15th day or the last day of such month, as the case may be, he shall be liable to not only pay the outstanding amount of such duty with interest thereon but also to a penalty equal to such outstanding amount of duty or five thousand rupees whichever is greater. 3. Further, in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), the apex...
Dcw Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. It appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the cases. Hence the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Dr. Fredrick John and Another Vs. A. Rajagam @ Velusamy, Sivaganga and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President 1. First and second opposite parties in O.P.10/2000 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivagangai, are the appellants. 2. Tmt.Devarani @ Muthupetchi (herein after called patient) is the wife of the first complainant and mother of minor complainants 2 and 3. She was admitted for ailment of continues bleeding in the uterus in the first opposite partys hospital viz., Johns Medical Centre, on 29.08.1999, in view of the fact, when consulted, she was directed to be admitted as inpatient, on the assurance given by the first opposite party, that upon operation, the bleeding would be arrested. The patient was operated on 02.09.99, not by the first opposite party as assured, whereas, the operation was conducted by the opposite parties 2 to 4 without the consent and knowledge of the complainants and the patient. The opposite parties, before operation have not conducted necessary tests and based upon old scan, the operation was fixed, which s...
Gillette Diversified Operations Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Secondhand Press Flow Degating System, Press flow Robot for moulding machine and Tote Bin Feed Conveyor imported by the appellants herein in March 2002 have been confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.40,000/- together with applicable duty and penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on the importers. The value of the machines was also enhanced. The Additional Commissioner also confiscated all the three machines for absence of valid licence which was required as the machines were over 10 years old. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the importers contention that only one item namely Press Flow Robot was 10 years old and this machine alone required an import licence. However, he upheld the confiscation of the other two machines also in view of the fact that in spite of knowledge that the goods were secondhand, in view of the reduced values, the appellants sought to clear all 3 machines as new ones. The challenge in the present appeal is...
Tamilnadu Machine Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
The appellants challenge the imposition of penalty of Rs.40,000/- in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reason that there was no suppression on their part so as to warrant imposition of penalty. They also challenge the imposition of penalty under Section 77. 2. I have heard both sides. The statement of Sri M.Senthilvelu, proprietor of the appellant is that he was not aware of the liability to service tax on service of maintenance and repair and erection, commissioning and installation and on being made aware of the liability to tax, he paid the entire service tax amount. No knowledge of liability to tax during the period in dispute has been admitted by him. The department has not discharged the burden to show that there was any suppression on their part so as to warrant imposition of penalty under Section 78. I, therefore, set aside the same. 3. As regards the penalty under Section 77, I uphold the same as the ingredient of suppression is not relevant for the purpose ...
M/S. National Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Cce. Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants are using the impugned Cryogenic Tanks mounted on vehicles for transport of Nitrogen and Oxygen in bulk as and when required by their customers. Their claim for capital goods credit has been disallowed on the ground that these are not storage tanks used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final product for which admittedly the appellants have separate Cryogenic storage Tank within the factory. During the argument, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants states that the definition of the capital goods also permits the capital goods credit for storage tank for providing output service. He further states that the appellants, at the request of bulk customers, themselves provide transport service for carrying Nitrogen and Oxygen in Cryogenic tank mounted on vehicles. He also states that on such services they pay service tax and as such they are providing output service. 2. Heard the Ld. JCDR. 3. In view of the submissions made, the matter requires...
itc Freight Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports), C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has directed forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.25,000/- of the CHA/appellant and cautioned him to be more careful in future. According to the appellant, the forfeiture of security deposit cannot exist independently but can exist only along with revocation of the licence and since in this case the licence of the CHA was not revoked, the order of forfeiture is not sustainable. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled in favour of the appellants by Tribunal s decision in V.B.Bhatia and Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai [2006 (200) ELT 150] holding that forfeiture of security goes hand in hand with an order of revocation and hence if revocation of CHA licence is not upheld, the question of upholding only forfeiture of security deposit does not arise. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Peninsula Security Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
In this case, the adjudicating authority dropped proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the service tax liability had been discharged together with interest prior to the issue of the show-cause notice. In revision, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.1,24,607/- in terms of Section 76, together with penalty of Rs.1000/- under Section 77. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. While I do not find any merit in the submission of the appellants that no penalty can be imposed under Section 76 for the reason that have not made out a case that there was reasonable cause for failure to pay tax but I see merit in the submission that penalty cannot exceed the amount of service tax payable, as per the proviso to Section 76 itself. I, therefore, restrict the penalty to Rs.21,079/- which is the admitted service tax liability of the appellants. Regarding penalty under Section 77, it is required to be upheld for the reason...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao. No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice and despite adjournments granted earlier. As such, the grounds of appeal advanced by the department remain uncontraverted. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after giving adequate opportunity for hearing to the respondents. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Samudra Bio-pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao. No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice and despite adjournments granted earlier. As such, the grounds of appeal advanced by the department remain uncontraverted. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after giving adequate opportunity for hearing to the respondents. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »