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.
Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. R.K. Extrusion and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Heard both sides. The respondents manufactured excisable goods and cleared the same without accounting for the same and without paying the duty. The lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand as well as the penalty imposed on the respondents. However, he has set aside the confiscation of the goods found in excess within the factory premises and also part of the clandestinely cleared goods seized from the premises of M/s.R.K. Extrusions, leading to this appeal by the department. 2. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR, appearing for the department states that the lower appellate authority has erred in not confiscating the impugned goods. As regards the excess goods found unaccounted within the factory premises, the same is required to be confiscated in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. UOI and Others - 1988 (34) ELT 30 (Bom.). As regards the goods seized from M/s. R.K. Extrusions, he states that though no separ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. N.M.Hasim and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether import of service attracted levy of service tax prior to the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.4.06, stands answered against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble apex court reported in 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST in the case of Union of India and Others Vs Indian National Ship Owners Association, upholding the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.)] that import of service became liable to tax only w.e.f. 18.4.06. Since the period in dispute in the present appeal is prior to that date, I see no legal infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand, and accordingly dismiss this appeal....
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Overnite Express Ltd.and Anot ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
The Revenue is in appeal against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demands of service tax on courier services during the period 1.4.2005 to 15.6.05 (in the case of M/s.Overnight Express Ltd.) and 15.3.2005 to 15.6.2005 (in the case of M/s.Aramex India (Pvt.) Ltd.). 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the lower appellate authority has followed the decisions of the Tribunal in M/s.TNT India Private Ltd. Vs CST Bangalore [2007 (7) STR 412] which has been subsequently followed in M/s.Professional Couriers Vs CST Chennai [2008 (10) STR 125] holding that the service tax liability did not arise during the relevant period on international courier services partly performed in India and partly performed outside India. Revenue has not been able to show that these decisions have been either overruled or that the operation of these decisions has been stayed by the superior forum. Therefore, I see no legal infirmity in the impugned orders which I accordingly uphold. 3. T...
Major General B.Sitaraman Versus the Union of India Rep by the Chief C ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Lt Gen (Retd) S.Pattabhiraman) The applicant in this application has filed W.P.No.23294 of 2004 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.42 of 2009. 2. The petitioner Major General B.Sitaraman, who retired from the Army Medical Corps on 30.4.1991 after 33 years of service, has filed this application challenging the order issued under Corrigendum P.P.O.No.M/MODP/15660/2001 DATED 4.2.2002 by the Chief C.D.A. (Pensions) Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Allahabad, the first respondent. While in service he was in receipt of total pay in the scale of Rs.5,900-200-6,700 + Rank Pay + Non-practicing allowance. On receipt of the Corrigendum, his monthly entitled authorised pension of Rs.11,938/- to Rs.9,550/- with important notes subscribed therein reading Payment already made beyond 11.9.2001 on the authority of this Office PPO No.M/MODP/035014/1999 may plea...
Col. M.B.Ali Versus the Unionof India Rep by the Chief C.D.a (Pension) ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2010
Lt Gen (Retd) S.Pattabhiraman) The applicant in this application has filed W.P.No.23295 of 2004 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.43 of 2009. 2. The petitioner Col. M.B.Ali, who retired from the Army Medical Corps on 30.9.1987 after 28 years of service, has filed this application challenging the order issued under Corrigendum P.P.O.No.M/MODP/15907/2001 DATED 30.01.2002 by the Chief C.D.A. (Pensions) Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Allahabad, the first respondent. While in service he was in receipt of total pay in the scale of Rs.2,300-100-3,900 + Rank Pay + Non-practicing allowance. On receipt of the Corrigendum, his monthly entitled authorised pension of Rs.10,688/- to Rs.8,550/- with important notes subscribed therein reading Payment already made beyond 11.9.2001 on the authority of this Office PPO No.M/MODP/035014/1999 may please be re-ad...
M/S. Shahul Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
Heard both sides. This is a case which relates to the period 1996 97. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed in the month of January 2004 whereas the present appeal has been filed in the month January 2009. As such, the appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay. The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory. There is also no explanation forthcoming as to why the appellant did not give his new address with the Department. Hence the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is dismissed along with stay petition and the appeal....
Sara Leathers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
The appellants herein filed a Shipping Bill No.2390008 dt. 10.7.06 declaring the goods covered thereunder as ‘Gents Booty Uppers with socks made out of cow leather’. Based on intelligence to the effect that the appellants were misdeclaring the quantity in the invoice for the above shipping bill so as to avail excessive ineligible duty drawback, the consignment meant for export was intercepted by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Customs, Chennai and, on examination, it was found that the goods were booty uppers and shoe uppers and socks. In the follow up action, copies of invoices and packing lists pertaining to exports made during the financial year 2006-07 etc. were recovered from the exporter s premises and it was noticed that two sets of invoices were prepared, one set for customs purpose showing higher quantity and another set showing actual quantity being exported to M/s.Calzathrificio Universo S.R.L., Italy. It was also noticed that six past c...
M/S. Cotonex Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
After hearing both sides the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed and the requirement of predeposit is waived. 2. Both sides admit that the appeal filed before the lower appellate authority was filed after a delay of 330 days which was beyond the condonable time limit prescribed under the law. As such, the lower appellate authority had no option but to dismiss the appeal. Hence his order requires no interference. Consequently the appeal filed before the Tribunal is dismissed....
M/S. Kave Textile Mills Salem (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
Heard both sides. During the impugned period the appellants could avail the exemption only if they did not take credit on the input. It is admitted by both sides that the appellants have not availed exemption in the sense that they have paid the duty amount later on. They also appear to have reversed the credit at the insistence of the department which was not necessary in view of the fact that they have given up their claim for exemption. Hence, the department questioning reversal of the credit by utilizing the credit earned at a later point of time is of no relevance. Accordingly, taking into account the fact that the appellants have not availed the exemption and have paid the duty amount, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Sri Rathinagiri Spinners P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce, Trichy and Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
Heard both sides. As all the five appeals involve a similar issue, after declining the request for adjournment in respect of appeal No. E/358/2009, these are taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. As these appeals can be decided today itself, the requirement of predeposit in all the five cases is waived. 3. The learned consultants appearing for the assessees pray for a remand of the cases on the ground that subsequent to passing of the similar orders, Tribunal has decided a similar issue vide CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd. 2009 (242) ELT 124 allowing depreciation @ 2.5% per quarter in respect of old and used capital goods while determining the amount to be paid when such old and used capital goods are removed as such from factory premises. 4. Heard the learned SDR. 5. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. All the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original authority for fresh orders in the light of the cited deci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »