Chennai Court October 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, Salem Vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04.01.95, as amended is sought to be denied to fresh mushrooms cleared by the respondents herein for home consumption, on the ground that the processed mushrooms which were exported were not similar to the goods cleared for home consumption as they fell for classification under separate chapter headings, for the reason that the concessional rate of duty is available only if the goods were similar to the goods exported outside India. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 04.01.95 uses the expression “similar”. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding, after noting that the fresh mushrooms and processed mushrooms even though classifiable under separate chapter headings, belong to the same class of goods and therefore both are similar. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, uphold ...
M/S. Karnataka Chemicals Industries Corporation Ltd Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in these appeals relates to leviability of countervailing duty of copper wires scrap “Birch” imported during the period 1979 to 1980. The adjudicating authority held that these goods fell for classification under TI 26A (1); the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under TI 68 of the erstwhile tariff; the assessees are in appeal on the ground that there is no process of manufacture involved and therefore not liable to any duty while the Revenue is in appeal against classification of the goods under IT 68 as it seeks the classification as confirmed under TI 26A (1). 2. We have heard both sides. We find in the case of the same assessees vide order reported in 2005 (183) ELT 207 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal has held that there was no process of manufacture involved in the production of copper wires scrap and cannot be charged to countervailing duty since they are not excisable. The Tribunal has relied upon several decisions of the Ape...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The department seeks assessment of Lux soaps manufactured by the respondents and sold in a multi-piece pack of four pieces with the package strip bearing the caption “Buy 3 get 1 free”, on the basis of the price of the individual soaps marked with an MRP of Rs. 14. 2. There is no dispute that the multi-piece pack and the individual wrapper bore markings such as “Buy 3 get 1 free” and the MRP of the multi-piece pack was marked as Rs. 42/- and each of the individual soap cake was marked with an MRP of Rs. 14/- marked on it. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue stands settled by the Tribunal’s decision in CCE, Trichy Vs. Henkel Spic India Ltd. - 2010 (251) ELT 287 (Tri.-Chen.), holding in similar situation that there is no substance in the department’s appeal wanting to assess the soap cakes on the basis of price of individual soap cakes. The Revenue seeks to rely upon the Board’s Circular dt.28.10.02. Ho...
Cce, Chennai Vs. Shri Krishna Ultramarine and Chemicals Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. M/s. Shri Krishna Ultramarine and Chemicals Ltd., the respondents herein have their main manufacturing unit at Sriperumbudur and they have another repacking unit at Chennai. The respondents contended before the lower appellate authority that the value of clearances of the two units should not have been clubbed. However, the lower appellate authority has allowed the appeal without going into the merits of the case on the ground that the show-cause notice has not been issued separately to both the units of the respondents. The Department has come in appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority. 3. Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR appearing for the Department submits as follows:- 1. The crux of the issue is whether non issue of SCN to Unit II of the Respondent herein vitiates the proceedings and whether the case laws cited by the lower Appellate Authority while setting aside the OIO is distinguishable. 2. As correctly contende...
M/S. Suj Impex Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. In this case, the Additional Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared value of secondary/defective CRGO steel imported under three Bills of Entry dated 14.06.01 and 15.06.01, ordered adoption of a value of US$ 485 PMT (CandF) and directed finalization of the assessment accordingly, confiscated the goods imported with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs.3,00,000/- on the importer and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the importer. As against this order, the importer went in appeal before the Commissioner (A) by filing an appeal along with an application for waiver of predeposit. Notice dated 01.10.03 was issued to the importers for personal hearing of the stay petition. On 23.10.03, the Counsel for the importers wrote to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), stating that duty demand, fine was paid and penalty was secured by a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,75,304/- executed by the importer, which is still valid. They sought leave to refer to refer ...
M/S. A. Suthanthar Asumitha Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Service tax demand of Rs.64,34,753/- covering the period April 2001 to March 2008 confirmed against M/s. Ajith Travels and M/s. Ajith Transports under the proviso to Sections 73(1) and 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, together with interest under Section 75 ibid and penalties of Rs.65 lakhs and Rs.1,000/- under Sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively stand challenged in the above appeals. The demand is on the ground that the assessees were rendering tour operators service by using contract carriages as tourist vehicles. 2. We have heard both sides. The stand of the appellant is that they possess a permit only under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act for contract carriage operators and do not possess a permit under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act for tourist vehicles. We note that in the case of Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators- Association of Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India - 2001 (134) ELT 618 (Mad.) the Hon’ble Madras Hig...
M/S. A.R. Metallurgicals P. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely, is as to whether, on forfeiture of the facility of monthly payment of duty, an assessee was entitled to utilize CENVAT credit for payment of central excise duty on clearances of final product, stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.). The period in dispute in the present case is April to November 2005 viz. prior to the amendment to the relevant rule in 2006 by which an assessee could not utilize CENVAT credit in such a situation. Following the ratio of the decision cited supra, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
F.Arokiamary. Vs. District Educational Officer (North Chennai), and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
1. This Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.1703 of 2009 dated 16.9.2009. The appellant is the Writ Petitioner and the challenge in the Writ Petition was to an order passed by the second respondent Management dated 10.8.2009, in and by which the Management denied subsistence allowance to the appellant during the period of her suspension. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent School during 1983. The Management by an order dated 16.3.2009 placed the appellant under suspension based on certain allegations. Subsequently charge memo dated 18.6.2009 was served on the appellant containing seven articles of charges and the third respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. While the domestic enquiry was in progress, the appellant submitted a representation on 6.7.2009 requesting for payment of subsistence allowance, apart from s...
M/S. Shree Nidhi Secure Print Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. The appellants have imported the impugned “Nipson 8000/200/SED Graphic Printer” and the dispute in this case is whether the said goods are classifiable under sub-Heading 8471.60 as claimed by the appellants or under 8479.89 as held by both the authorities below. 2. The original authority has described the goods as follows:- “The imported Machine is Nipson 8000 high quality Black and White Production Press. It uses a unique non-impact printing technology called magnetography to produce the printed output. The magnetography print engine consists of an array of tiny electromagnets - the print head- arranged across and above a hard metal cylinder-the drum. By selectively energizing the print head elements, a magnetic image is formed on the surface of the drum. As the drum turns, the surface is exposed to an advanced polyester-based mono-component dry toner, which is attracted to the magnetized areas, thus developing the...
P.Pugalenthi, Co-ordination Secretary, Tamil Nadu People Rights Forum. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent namely., the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short the Act)3. It appears that the first respondent Union of India issued a notification dated 17th May, 2010 under Section 3(1) and proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (in short LTTE) as an unlawful association. The petitioner-Forum said to have filed a petition claiming itself as the sympathizer of LTTE and have a right to appear before the Tribunal. It was contended that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »