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.
M/S. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants herein are the manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 26, 40, 72, 76, 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1995 and are clearing the same on payment of duty to their OE customers directly from the factory gate. In addition to that, they also cleared spares on stock transfer basis to their duty paid godown/ depot located at Pune from Chennai depot. At Pune depot an extra amount of 4% of value of goods was collected as warehousing charges over and above the duty on the goods sold. The department was of the view that duty should have been paid on the price after inclusion of 4% warehousing charges and since that had not been done, show cause notice proposing differential duty of Rs. 73,480/- for the period from November, 2000 to January-01, was issued on 05.10.2001. The notice also proposed penal action against the assesses. The notice was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner who confirmed the demand as raised in the show ca...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Fine Cables Industries and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue involved in both the appeals is common and hence taken up together and disposed by a common order 2. The assessees herein had imported Glass Fibre Roving (in short FGR) by paying customs duty at concessional rate of 5% as available under Sl. No. 231(C) of Notifications No. 23/98 dated 02.06.98 and No. 20/99 dated 28.02.99 and used the same in the manufacture of Self Supportive Drop wire (herein after referred to as SSDW). The benefit was sought to be denied on the ground that SSDW manufactured by the assessees was used by the Department of Telecommunications only as a connecting wire from the telephone poles to the premises of the consumers while telecommunication cables are either optical fibres or copper-wire signal-carriers for voice, video and data transmission. Show Cause Notices proposing recovery of differential duty by denying the benefits of above mentioned notifications were issued; the notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs...
Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Jagannath Textiles Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty on cotton yarn containing Synthetic Staple fibre manufactured and cleared by the respondents from their factory during the relevant period, on the ground that the final product on which duty demand was raised and confirmed by the adjudicating authority, was not tested to ascertain as to whether it contained synthetic staple fibre and on the ground that sales invoices described the goods as polyester waste (which initially was a mixed waste containing cotton and polyester but subsequently segregated in the godown of the respondents) and only cotton waste was cleared to the factory of the respondents and further used in the manufacture of cotton yarn. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. We find that the assessees have filed a worksheet before the adjudicating authority showing sale of polyester waste which was segregated in the godown of the respondents and invoices which...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The appellants have different units in the same premises. However, electricity generated in one unit has been supplied to the other unit through the grid of the TNEB. The lower appellate authority has held such supply of electricity to be captive consumption and has therefore allowed cenvat credit on inputs such as furnace oil and lube oil used in the generation of electricity. 2. The department is in appeal stating that the TNEB has not transmitted the entire quantity of electricity but has retained 15% of the same. On this ground, the department seeks to deny proportionate credit in respect of 15% of the electricity retained by the TNEB as the same cannot be construed as captive consumption. 3. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR supports the department’s appeal stating that the 15% electricity retained by TNEB would have been supplied elsewhere and the same has to be therefore taken as not captively consumed. He, however, fairly agr...
M/S. Fine Fit Garments Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry No. 447615 dated 28.02.2002, for the import of spare parts for knitting machines. On the date of import the effective rate of duty was 30% BCD, 16% CVD and 4% SAD. The goods were assessed under merit rate of duty and goods were cleared on payment of duty. On 22.11.2002, a claim for refund was filed by the importer seeking the benefit of EPCG scheme under Notification No. 29/97 dated 01.04.97, on the strength of EPCG license with amendment slip dated 27.09.02, as per which import of spares for the CIF value of GBP 20350. The claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the amendment has prospective effect unless it has been given retrospective effect subsequently by the competent authorities issuing the amendment. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. We find that the amendment slip dated 27.09.02 permits the appellants to import spares for CIF value and also amends the export obligation ...
Dr. M.R. Reddy, Retired Wing Commander Versus the Station Commander, S ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.20651 of 2001 before the Honourable High Court, 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.34 of 2009. 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.Natanarajan and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.S.Haja Mohindeen Gisthi and also the learned JAG Officer for the respondents and considered their respective submissions. 3. The averments in the affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner in brief sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- 3(a)The petitioner is an Army Medical Corps Officer and classified as Specialist in Surgery. He was posted to Military Hospital, Chennai, from 20th May 1996 to August 1999. He was commissioned in the Army during 1979 and the Army number given to him was MR 04943. The petitioner was seconded to Air Force ...
Joe Transport Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Heard both sides. Shri M.N.Bharathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the service tax amount has since been paid by the appellants partly before issue of the show-cause notice and partly before conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. He states that provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 should have been applied in the case of the appellants and no penalty should have been imposed. As regards interest on the delayed payment, learned Advocate undertakes to pay the same immediately. He also prays that in case penalty is held to be imposable, there is no case for imposition of penalty under Section 76 as well as under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the appellants had not paid the tax merely on the ground that the customers had not paid the tax to them and there was no suppression of the value of the taxable service. 2. Heard Shri C.Rangaraju, learned SDR appearing for the department. He says that appellants had not paid the full amount of...
Major P.Parathasarathy Versus Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary for ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
ACA Adityan) The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.1949 of 2001 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, 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. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner for the relief of pension reads as follows:- 2(a)The petitioner joined Indian Army in the year 1964 as an Emergency Commissioned Officer and he was released from Indian Army in June 1969 after completion of 5 years of service. Thereafter, the petitioner served in the DG (S) Establishment 22 (Cabinet Secretariat) Emergency Affairs Cell II from July 1969 to January 1971. Subsequently, he joined Border Security Force in January 1971 and served as Assistant Commandant till his release in August 1974. Thereafter in August 1977, the petitioner joined Territorial Army and was released from service in April 1992. The petiti...
M/S. Sumangala Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2010
Heard both sides. 2. Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants do not have a case on merit in view of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rajuri Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2008 (225) ELT 189 (Bom.). However, he states that the show-cause notice issued on 6.5.1998 demanding additional duty for the months of August and September 1997 is clearly time-barred as the extended period of time limit has not been invoked in the impugned show-cause notice. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao who confirms that the extended period of time limit has not been invoked in the show-cause notice. It is also confirmed by both sides that at the relevant time, the time limit for demand of short-paid duty was only six months which was amended to one year from 2000. 4. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the arguments advanced before me, I set aside the impugned order as the demand cannot be su...
Nelsun Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2010
Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have brought imported inputs for use in the manufacture of finished goods which are dutiable. The appellants have used CHA services for clearance of the imported inputs and are claiming credit in respect of the same which has been denied by the Department leading to this appeal. He also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. Roles Rings P. Ltd. - 2008 (230) ELT 569 in which credit on similar inputs service has been allowed. 3. Heard the learned SDR. 4. In view of the fact that the impugned service has been utilized for clearing the imported inputs and bringing the same to the appellant s factory for manufacture of finished goods which are dutiable, I am of the view that the credit in respect of such service is admissible to the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »