Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. For the reasons recorded below, we waive predeposit of penalty imposed upon the appellants herein and proceed to decide the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides. 2. The brief facts are that on 02.08.03, DRI officers intercepted the appellant who was bound for Singapore by Singapore Airlines, at the Aerobridge of the International airport, Chennai. Nothing was recovered from his hand baggage. However, from his checked in baggage US$ 1,92,150 (equivalent to Indian Rs. 89,73,405/-) and 97 Singapore dollars were seized by the department. In his initial statement dated 03.08.03, he admitted that he was carrying foreign currency found in his checked in baggage to smuggle out of India, although he has retracted from the statement subsequently. Follow up action resulted in recovery of the foreign currencies equal to Rs. 35,09,140/- from the flush tank of the toilet attached to his hotel room in Hotel Karpagam International. In his statement dated 05.08.03,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Sessions Division, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, made in S.C.No.47 of 2008 whereby the appellants, three in number, stood charged under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.Ws.1 and 6 are the sisters of the deceased Raju. P.W.1 was living with Raju at Batlada, and they were unmarried. Raju purchased a piece of land from A-1 measuring 3.5 acres, and the sale consideration was partly paid. But, the remainder remained unpaid. A-1 was demanding the money through P.W.13. But, the deceased gave a reply that he had no funds, and he would pay in future. Thus A-1 and the deceased were on inimical terms. A-2 and A-3 were close associates of A-1.(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 16.4.2008, at about 4.30 P.M., A-1 armed with a vettukathi, A-2 with a vettukat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appeal of the assessees against the confirmation of demand of over Rs. 16 lakhs on petroleum products viz. motor spirit and high speed diesel cleared to their company owned company operated outlets during the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2002 has been disposed of by the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) [against which the Revenue is in appeal] by directing the assessees to file a comprehensive representation before the Commissioner of Central Excise seeking appropriate relief in terms of Board’s circular dated 30.6.2000. The circular itself casts a duty upon the Commissioner to examine the assessable value/assessment. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order containing such direction which is in accordance with the circular cited supra. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. In this view of the matter, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants imported the impugned goods namely “Rovimix Stay - C 35” claiming the same to be “Ascorbyl Polyphosphate” claiming the concessional duty under Notification No. 23/98 (Sl. No. 18 - List I - Item 3). The impugned goods were assessed provisionally and the samples were sent to the Customs laboratory for test. The Chemical Examiner reported that the sample was in the form of green coloured powder and that it was composed of phosphorous containing organic compounds. As such, his report was inconclusive on the basis of test conducted by him. However, he subsequently called for the product literature given by the appellants and on the basis of the same he has given an opinion that the product is a mixture of Sodium / Calcium salt of Ascorbyl Phosphate and that the Ascorbyl Phosphate is different from its Calcium and Sodium salt. 3. On the basis of such opinion given by the Chemical Examiner, the conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. This appeal has been coming up for hearing from March 2010 onwards. None was present for the appellants on 11.5.2010 when the case was listed. Even today none appears on behalf of the appellants. Further, the impugned order has not been filed by the appellants, inspite of notice from the Registry. Hence the appeal is dismissed both for non-prosecution as well as under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-filing of the requisite documents....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. On hearing learned SDR (none appears for the respondents inspite of notice) and perusing the records, we note that the duty demand which has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) is only Rs.7,271/- on shampoos and the penalty imposed is only Rs.2,500/-. In view of the smallness of the amount involved, we do not entertain the appeal on merits and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue seeks denial of the benefit of Notification No. 167/71-CE dated 11.9.1971 to computers assembled in Raja College of Engineering and Technology on the ground that the computers were assembled only by technicians (college lecturers) and not at the time of imparting training while the benefit of the Notification is available only if the excisable goods are produced in an educational institution either during the course of imparting technical training of an academic or vocational nature or carrying out experiments or research. 2. None appears for the respondents, in spite of notice. Hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records. 3. There is no evidence on record that the assembling of the computers did not take place during the course of imparting training to the college students. On the other hand, Shri K.R. Uthayan, a member of the teaching staff of the college has stated that the computers were assembled along with the assistance of stud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For the reasons recorded below, we waive predeposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof and proceed to take up the appeal itself for final disposal at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. Against the adjudication order dated 11.6.2003 stated to have been received by the appellants on 26.6.2003, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.8.2003, which appeal was dismissed on the ground of one day’s delay in filing and in the absence of any application for condonation of the delay. 3. Although learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no requirement of filing an application for condonation, as the date of receipt 26.6.2003 is required to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Since the delay, if any, is only one day, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision, first on the application for condonation, if any filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. In this case, the assessees had supplied their goods (metal containers) to their customers in corrugated boxes supplied by the latter and did not include the value of such boxes in the assessable value. Demand of Rs. 2,98,269/- on the cost of packing materials supplied free by the customer was demanded and the demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, who also imposed equal amount of penalty upon the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Polymers Vs. CCE - 1989 (48) ELT 165 (S.C.) and the Tribunal’s decision in Superior Products Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (144) ELT 187 (T) (which has been upheld by the Apex Court in 2008 (230) ELT 3 (S.C.)) to set aside the demand and penalty. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order for the reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The demand of duty in this case is on wet starch which according to the assessees is not liable to duty in the absence of evidence on record that it comes into existence during the process of manufacture of sago. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of Sri Sakthi Sago Factory Vs. CCE, Salem, Final Order No. 776/2010 dated 16.6.2010, the demand was set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Tribunal’s order in Shri Varalakshmi Vs. CCE, Salem - 2009 (235) ELT 155 and apex Court’s decision in CCE, New Delhi Vs. Universal Electrical Industries - 2003 (153) ELT 266 (SC). Following the same route in this case also, we set aside the impugned order upholding the duty demand and penalty and remit the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority in the light of the Tribunal’s order cited supra. Fresh orders are to be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity to t...
Tag this Judgment!