Chennai Court December 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.
Lal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding duty demand of Rs.96,985/- confirmed on Shri B.M.Saravanan, Proprietor of M/s.Lal Industries, invoking extended period of limitation, levying interest and also imposing penalty of an amount equal to duty on Saravanan - case of the department is that M/s.Lal Industries used the brand name of ‘Alpha’ belonging to M/s.Alpha Electronics, a proprietary concern of Shri T.Augustine, on stabilizers manufactured and cleared by them. 2. Heard both sides. The case of the department is based upon a statement of Shri Saravanan who clearly admitted that he had manufactured and sold stabilizers affixed with ‘Alpha’ brand to M/s.Alpha Electronics and that the brand ‘Alpha’ was owned by Shri T.Augustine, proprietor of Alpha Electronics and the corroboration by Shri Augustine that brand ‘Alpha’ was owned by him and he purchased the st...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Trinity Engineering
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs.13,047/- on oil separator, agitator, blower, accumulator, can dump and can trap holding that they were parts and components and therefore were excluded from the coverage of Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 (SSI benefit notification). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that by an order No.10/95 dt. 19.7.95, the Deputy Commissioner had classified the items in dispute under CET sub-heading 8479.10 and held that they were not parts/components of refrigeration/cold storage machinery and that they have individual functions which are not similar to that of the machinery under reference. This order was not taken up in appeal by the Revenue and therefore the finding that the goods in question were neither parts nor components of refrigeration/cold s...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in the present appeal as to whether yarn duty is to be discharged at spindle stage when the yarn is fully manufactured, or whether cost of subsequent processes such as warping and winding are required to be included in the assessable value of the yarn, when processes of warping and winding are exempt from duty in terms of Notification No.5/99-CE dt. 28.2.99 stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Mumbai [2004 (172) ELT 232] relying upon apex court’s decision in Collector Vs Banswara Syntex Ltd. [1996 (88) ELT 645(SC)], and the decision in CCE Mumbai Vs Prakash Cotton Mills [2005 (182) ELT 174]. In the light of the above decisions, which are applicable squarely to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
The Assistant Postmaster (Sb), Head Post Office and Another Vs. Rajara ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The 1st respondent/ 1st complainant, having deposited a sum of Rs.30400/-, with the 1st opposite party/ post office, in Time Deposit Account No.14711 on 25.2.2004, obtained a pass book also, fixing the period one year. On the date of maturity, when the 1st complainant approached the 1st opposite party, they refused to pay the amount, informing that in the account, there is only Rs.400/-. Because of the refusal, the 1st complainant preferred a complaint, resulting enquiry, which revealed, as reported, the agent had prepared a false pass book, suppressing the entire deposit, disclosing only a sum of Rs.400/-, for which the 1st complainant cannot be held responsible. The passbook was issued by the 1st opposite party, signed, attested, and therefore they are liable to pay the amount. Despite request letters, since the opposite parties have failed to pay the amount, they have caused mental agony, for which also, th...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Indian Tropical Agro P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
The respondents are not present. There is also no adjournment request. However, the cross-objection and written submissions filed by the respondents are taken on record. 2. Heard ld. SDR. In this case, the lower appellate authority has observed that the impugned order in original has been passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and hence the principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, the lower authority has annulled the impugned order-in-original and has directed the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order after observing the principles of natural justice. It is accepted by the department that the lower appellate authority has the power under the law to annul an order passed by the original authority if the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The second part of the order directing the original authority to decide the matter afresh instead of straightaway allowing the appeal against the Revenue, ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichirapalli Vs. Krishna Engineering ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has allowed the credit in respect of the impugned capital goods following the precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal and taking into consideration the submissions made by the respondents that the capital goods have been used only in the manufacture of the final products and that the same was installed in the additional premises belonging to the respondents in the same locality at a small distance and further that the additional premises were also earlier registered by the respondents, but the registration was cancelled as the final goods were not produced in the additional premises, only shot blasting was carried out in the additional premises using the capital goods in question. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department is rejected. The CO filed by the respondents also stands disposed of....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
Heard both sides. In this case the lower appellate authority has observed that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the original authority inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given by the original authority before passing the impugned orders in original. Accordingly, the lower appellate authority has directed the original authority to pass fresh orders after following the principles of natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority require no interference as he has the power to remand such cases under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 as held by this Bench order dated 13.12.2010 in Appeal No. ST/462/2010. The appeal filed by the Department is rejected....
Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
The respondents are not present. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao appearing for the Department. In this case the respondent-manufacturer has claimed credit of service tax paid on security services for the job workers premises. As per Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 credit of service tax paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of final product can be taken. In the present case, the input service has been received by the job worker and not by the manufacturer of the final product. As such, a plain reading of the provisions of the rules does not allow credit of service tax paid on security services received by the job worker to be taken by the respondent-manufacturer. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority cannot be sustained. I also find that even though the Department had gone in appeal to the lower appellate authority against non-imposition of penalty and there was no appeal by the respondent-...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. M.M. Forgings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
The respondents are not present. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao. He states that this was not a fit case were the lower appellate authority should have remanded the matter. He also states that the issue is subjudice before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which has stayed the Larger Bench decision in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri. LB). 2. After hearing the learned SDR and perusal of the case records, I agree with the learned SDR’s argument that this is not a fit case that should have been remanded by the lower appellate authority. As such the impugned order is set aside to the extent of the order being appealed against and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for decision by himself. He may, however, await decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on the issue which is subjudice before the said High Court. The appeal of the department is thus allowed by way of remand to ...
M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
Heard both sides. 2. The appellants placed a purchase order with M/s. FAG, a bearing manufacturer of a known brand in Germany for one bearing of No. QJ 1252 MPA (QJ 1252 MA) and two bearings of No. NU 2252 E.M1A (NU 2252 C NA) for a unit price of 2525.77 EURO and 1912.37 EURO respectively totaling 6350.51 EURO for all the three bearings. The price was for CIF, Chennai Seaport, but the consignment came by air because of urgency. The purchase order dated 17.1.2003 is at page 15 of the appeal papers. It is the case of the appellants that the supplier in Germany supplied all the three bearings under a single Invoice No. 0038078598 dated 3.7.2003 which indicates a total price of 6350.51 EURO and which tallies with the price indicated on the purchase order. However, the invoice makes adjustments by deducting the sea freight charges and adding the air freight charges as the consignment was actually shipped not by sea but by air. The total price indicated on the invoice which is at pages 20 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »