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.
Nethra Textile Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants are seeking abatement of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme for the period 16.12.98 to 18.1.99. Shri S.Sridhar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that due intimation as required under the law was given to the jurisdictional authorities about closure of the appellants factory on 15.12.98 and hence the appellants are eligible for the abatement claimed by them. 2. Heard ld. JCDR. He states that the abatement for the impugned period has been denied under jurisdictional Commissioner’s letter dt. 4.2.2000 on the grounds of non-payment of duty in advance and non-compliance of the sealing procedure. However, he fairly states that before taking the decision of disallowing the abatement as contained in the letter dt. 4.2.2000, the Commissioner has not heard the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants have not been heard before an adverse decision has been taken against them, by the jurisdictional Commissioner, the subseque...
Commissioner of Customs (imports), Chennai Vs. P.R.Agro Nutri (Pvt.) L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
Heard both sides. The stay petition filed by the department is rejected as the same has been filed in a routine manner without any justification. 2. With the consent of both sides, the appeal and the cross-objection filed by the respondents are taken up for hearing and disposal. 3. In this case, the Bill of Entry was assessed in the Custom House without passing a speaking order. The respondents filed the appeal against the same and the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order directing the original authority to pass a speaking order. Without having the benefit of a speaking order, the lower appellate authority could not have known the reasons for taking a particular assessment decision that has been taken by the original authority. As such, his decision directing to pass a speaking order cannot be faulted. Hence, the appeal and the cross objections are dismissed with a direction to the original authority to pass a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of h...
Rogini Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
Heard both sides. Shri J.Shankarraman, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have paid duty on the used capital goods on the reduced value whereas the department is asking for reversal of the initial credit taken on the capital goods. He further states that the Tribunal has, in such cases including in the case of the appellants, has allowed payment of duty after taking into account the depreciation to the extent allowed in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd. - 2009 (242) ELT 124. 2. Heard ld. SDR Shri Rao. 3. Following the cited decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to re-determine the demanded amount after allowing depreciation to the extent allowed in the cited case law. 4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
N Ramachandran Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary to Govt. ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
ACA Adityan The Petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras with the Writ Petition No.16826 of 2004 for disability pension after he was discharged from the Army Service on 16.10.1963 on medical ground of Idiopathic Epilepsy. After the constitution of this Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, this Writ Petition was transferred and the same was taken on file by this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.11/2009. 2. The averments in the affidavit to the Petition filed by the Petitioner sans irrelevant particulars, are as follows: The Petitioner had enrolled in the Indian Army on 21.01.1961 and was serving the same as Craftsman with No.7044475 Cfn in EME Unit. The Petitioner was a Vehicle Mechanic Class III during the Indo China War and was working in the field in 301 station workshop. The petitioner was discharged from the Indian Army Service on 16.10.1963 and the reasons stated was that the petitioner was medically categorised as EEE . Neither Service pension...
M/S. Ashok Leyland Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2010
Heard both sides. This case falls within the jurisdiction of Single Member. As such, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal by me with the consent of both sides even though the case was listed before the Division Bench which is not sitting today. Shri R. Raghavan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods in respect of which input duty credit was taken had become scrap at the time of clearing the same at scrap value from the appellant s factory. He states that duty has been paid on the scrap value at the time of clearance but the department is demanding for reversal of the entire credit. He further states that in respect of the appellants themselves, for an earlier period, the same issue had arisen and the Tribunal had set aside the demand holding that modvat credit is not deniable in such cases in view of the provisions of Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, vide Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2002 (149) ELT 1096 (Tri.-Chen.). 2. Hea...
A.Gopalakrishna Moorthy Versus Officer Incharge Records, Electrical an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2010
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.25924 of 2005 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.32 of 2009. 2. The applicant has approached the Court for grant of pension. The applicant joined in the Army service as LNK on 30.09.1981. After undergoing necessary training, the applicant became full-fledged military man. During his service in the cold region, the applicant had developed running nose and was admitted in military hospital and he undergone an operation in the nose. Even though the applicant recovered from his illness after surgery, his body constitution is not fit to work in the hill areas. The applicant was referred to medical board, which discharged him from service on medical ground on 05.11.1987. Since the applicant is short of required years of service, he was denied service pension. ...
Chief Terminal Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in these appeals is as to whether Service Station Licence Fee collected by the assessees from their dealers towards rental on land, tanks, pumps and kiosks installed by the former for the benefit of the latter is includible in the assessable value of petroleum products supplied to the dealers. 2. On hearing both sides, we note that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2007 (209) ELT 237. This in turn relies upon Final Order No.401-404/2005 in the case of the same assessees. 3. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we set aside the impugned orders by which such licence fee stands included in the assessable value, and allow these appeals....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that shortage of (i) 0.76% (iv) 0.62% (iii) 0.71% and (iv) 1.09% in consignments of normal paraffin imported under four separate Bills of Entry under Notification No.68/98-Cus. dt. 8.9.98 was reasonable loss having regard to the nature of the product (volatile) and within the permissible limit and, therefore, set aside the demand raised on the shortages and confirmed by the adjudicating authority. 2) We have heard both sides and find that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order in the light of Tribunal s Final Order No.817-820/09 dt. 3.7.09 in the case of SPIC Ltd. Vs CCE Maudrai where demands were raised and confirmed on imported furnace oil. The Tribunal has held that the difference in the quantity imported and the quantity received which is attributable to loss in unloading, to transit and to the method of weighment adopted can be ignored since the entire quantity o...
Cce, Chennai - Iii Vs. M/S. Mira Textiles and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The respondents manufacture kraft paper, part of which is sold outside, part of it is also sold to their sister unit for manufacture of corrugated paper board and paper cartons therefrom, another part is internally consumed for similarly making corrugated paper board and cartons therefrom. The dispute in these two appeals relates to sale of kraft paper to the sister unit and consumption of kraft paper internally for manufacture of corrugated paper board and cartons therefrom. 3. The respondents have taken the cost of production of the impugned kraft paper as Rs.10,250/- per MT for the period upto 29th April 1996 and have paid duty on such value derived from cost of production. They have also similarly adopted the value of Rs.10,250/- per MT to calculate the cost of corrugated paper board for paying duty thereon since the same is used for manufacturing cartons which are exempted from duty. For the later period, from 30.4.1996 till Ma...
The Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in the present appeal, namely, admissibility of credit on HSD oil during the period 16.3.95 to 12.5.2000 stands settled against the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in M/s.Vikrant Tyres Ltd.and Others Vs CCE Bangalore and Others - Final Order No.858-880/04 dt. 28.4.2004, holding that credit is not admissible in view of the retrospective amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules, 2000. 2. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order denying credit and reject the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »