Chennai Court February 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.
Tidel Park Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2010
The authorities below have held that the assessee herein who is providing taxable services such as Mandap Keeper and Health club and Fitness centre as well as non-taxable service of leasing out immovable property is entitled to avail credit only upto the extent of 35% upto 10.9.2004 and 20% thereafter in terms of Rule 6 (3) (c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the assessees that they are entitled to the whole of the credit of the service tax paid on taxable service as specified in 17 specified categories covered by Rule 6(5) as such service is not used exclusively in or in relation to the providing of exempted services. Rule 6(5) is a non-obstante clause and therefore completely widens the restriction contained in Rule 6 (3) (c). It is not the case of the Revenue that the taxable service on which service tax has been paid is not one of 17 categories specified in Rule 6 (5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. I, therefore, set aside ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Lumiere Coolants Ltd. and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2010
The issue in the present appeal namely as to whether CENVAT credit of service tax is available on outdoor catering service in canteen of the manufacturers/assessees stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs GTC Industries Ltd. [2008 (12) STR 468]. The Bench has held that credit of service tax on outdoor catering service is admissible and following the Larger Bench decision cited supra, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. TuticorIn Port Trust
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2010
The appeal is dismissed in the absence of any clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue the same, with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is obtained....
A.Selvaraji Versus the Union of India â Rep by Its Secretary. Min ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2010
ACA Adityan) The petitioner, who after putting up 4 years and 4 months of service in the Army, who was discharged on medical grounds on 21.07.1984, had approached the Honourable High Court of Madras for reinstatement in the Army Service with backwages or in the alternative directing the respondents to award 40% disability pension from the date of discharge with future interest at 18% per annum by way of a writ. After the constitution of this Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the said writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.45 of 2009. 2. The averments in the affidavit to the petition in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this application reads as follows:- 2(a)The petitioner was enrolled as an Infantry Soldier in the service of Indian Army on 20th March 1980. The petitioner has passed the Army Certificate of Education on 01.10.1980 and Map Reading Examination on 15.10.1980, during the vigorous period of one year trai...
S.Natarajan Versus the Secretary Ministry of Defence Government of Ind ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2010
Lt Gen (RETD) S. Pattabhiraman The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No. 21156 of 2004 before the Honourable High Court at Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal under Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.55 of 2009. 2. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present today. Heard the learned JAG officer for the respondents. 3. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Discharge Certificate and relief of pension reads as follows:- 3(a) The petitioner an Ex Service Man, served as SIGNAL MAN in the Army from 24.09.1941 to 24.10.1946. In the war between Japanese and British, the petitioner was also wounded and treated in a Millitary Hospital in Assam. On discharge from duty the petitioner came to Madras (now Chennai). Unfortunately no discharge certificate was issued to the petitioner. Despite repeated requests made for the issuance of discharge certifica...
Sarguroh Azam Gulzar Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-import) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has ordered absolute confiscation of brand new Hummer H2 motor car valued at approx. Rs.26.39 lakhs imported by the appellant herein under Bill of Entry dt. 25.8.08, under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Confiscation has been ordered for the reason that the appellant violated Licensing Note 2(II)(a)(iv) to Chapter 87 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import which stipulates that new vehicle should be imported from the country of manufacture the car in question was not imported from USA where it was manufactured, but from Thailand, and also for the reason that the importer had not complied with the conditions stipulated in Licensing Note 2(ii) (C) relating to the testing and certification of the new vehicles at the time of importation into India nor did he produce any Type App...
Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Heard both sides. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they had taken the impugned credit on the basis of gate passes issued prior to 1.4.1994 after seeking permission of the Department. There was a change made through Notification No. 16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.1994 switching over from the invoice system of taking credit on gate passes to the system of taking credit through invoices and a transition period upto 30.6.1994 was provided. The appellants claim that they had requested the Department for permission to take credit on the impugned gate passes which were issued prior to 1.4.1994. However, when the appeal was heard on 6.11.2009, the learned consultant for the appellants was directed to produce relevant gate passes and also the declaration made to the Department. After several adjournments granted in between, the appellants have not been able to produce the relevant gate passes or the letter under which they sought permission to take credit. As such, it is not possible to estab...
Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Heard both sides. The issue involved in this case is whether interest can be demanded in respect of additional amounts received through supplementary invoices. The issue stands settled against the appellants vide Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. S.K.F. Industries Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). As such, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed....
M/S. Paranthaman Exporters Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Heard both sides. Considering the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal, the order of dismissal dated 10.12.2009 is recalled and the miscellaneous application is allowed restoring the appeal to its original number. 2. With the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for decision on merit. I find that the appellants have received the impugned goods from the depot of a reputed manufacturer namely M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and have used the same in the export product which has been exported. Initially, the original authority had considered the case of the appellants and through a detailed speaking order allowed the refund of the credit on inputs used in the exported goods. The present proceedings have been initiated without filing an appeal against the said order on the ground that the refund has been given erroneously, as the credit could not have been allowed on an invoice from the depot. 3. Shri S. Kandasamy, learned consultant appearing for ...
A. Vijayakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
ACA Adityan This application was originally filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Judicature, Madras, as W.P.No.28570 of 2005 for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus. After the constitution of this Tribunal, as per the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.22 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the petitioner in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this case runs as follows:- 2(a) The petitioner joined in the military service in the year 1978 and after gradual promotion, on 01.07.2002 the petitioner reached the rank of Naib Subdehar, which is a Junior Commissioned Officer post (JCO). The petitioner has completed 26 years and 10 months of service in the Army. When the petitioner came to his village in the year 1980 on casual leave, his marriage was arranged by his parents and hence, he applied for extension of leave. The petitioners application for extension of leave was rejected, but the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »