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.
Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants challenge the rejection of their claim for refund of Rs.8,25,709/-. 2. We have heard both sides. Service tax of Rs.8,84,818/- was paid by the assessees as recipients of service under the category of Goods Transport Operators Service and CandF Agents Service during the period Dec-97 to Jan-98. On 1.10.99, a claim for refund of the entire amount paid as service tax was filed on the basis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharathi Ltd., which claim was sanctioned by the department on 28.12.99; however, a sum of Rs.8,18,709/- was adjusted towards Central Excise arrears due and Rs.7000/- towards arrears of penalty, confirmed under five separate Orders-in-Original. The balance amount of Rs.59,109/- was refunded by a cheque dt. 26.12.99. Vide the letter dt. 29.5.2000, due to retrospective amendment made in the Finance Act of 2000, the amount refunded was directed to be repaid, and the assessees once again paid the amount of Rs.8,84,818/- v...
Tamil Nadu Jai Bharath Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Levy of Additional Duty of Excise under the provisions of Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act during the period March to August 2000 on cotton yarn cleared by the appellant who is an 100% EOU, is challenged in the present appeal on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs Union of India - 2004 (170) ELT 518 (SC). 2. We have heard both sides. The apex court’s decision cited supra is subsequent to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which has been challenged in the present appeal. Interest of justice requires that the authorities below consider the matter afresh in the light of the above judgment. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the above judgment. Fresh orders are to be passed after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard in their defenc...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Lakshmi Card Clothing M ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein are manufactures of parts of textile machinery in their Palladam unit for which they procure raw material, namely, round wires from the sister unit at Pollachi. The Palladam unit (hereinafter referred to as Unit-I) availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs i.e. round wires out of which they manufactured profile wires. They also sent profile wires to the sister unit at Pollachi and Hosur. Unit-I filed price declaration in Form Annexure II based on the value arrived at by cost construction method as there was no sale of profile wires but were only captively consumed and were partly transferred to their sister units. There was an increase in the profit margin for the year 1995-96 and, therefore, Unit I had to file a revised price declaration in the Form Annexure II on 1.4.96 which they did after a gap of six months i.e. only in the month of Oct-96. Unit-I failed to discharge the duty on the enhanced value during the period from April-96 t...
M/S. Euro Merchandise (i) Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri S. Krishnanandh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the issue involved in this case is whether the impugned tiles imported by the appellants can be subjected to anti-dumping duty applicable to vitrified tiles. He states that the Chemical Examiner’s Report does not furnish the basis for holding the impugned goods to be vitrified tiles and he has not provided any reference to water absorption percentage. As regards the retest by the CRCL, he states that the report indicates that the sample tiles were received by the CRCL in broken condition and the same cannot be considered to be a reliable sample for testing. Ld. Advocate also refers to the procedure for testing of vitrified tiles prescribed under the ISI specification and states that ten tiles should be drawn as samples. We, however, do not find any request from the appellants made to the authorities below for drawing of samples of ten tiles. Ld. Advocate ...
M/S. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills and Another Vs. Cce (St), Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The miscellaneous applications for raising the additional ground that the mills (appellants) received service only from the truck owners/tractor owners who do not fall within the definition of ‘goods transport agency’ and therefore the applicants are not required to discharge service tax liability, are allowed as we find that this ground is based upon the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Guntur Vs. Kanaga Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (15) STR 399. 2. On a query from the Bench at the stage of hearing the applications for waiver of predeposit as to how the assessees would establish that they received services from individuals, the learned counsel for the appellants files a list of the truck/ tractor owners and pleads that since they are all individuals who have provided the services, the assessee is not liable to service tax. 3. We find that these details of the owners of vehicles on which the goods were transported, was not before the auth...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Dsilva Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The original authority had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 19,97,174/- and had imposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC and an additional penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q apart from confirming demand of interest under Section 11AB on the respondents M/s. D’silva Engineering Works (in short DEW). The lower appellate authority has set aside the order of the original authority leading to this appeal by the department. It is the case of the department that the respondents DEW manufactured the impugned goods much in excess of the small scale exemption limit out of the raw materials supplied by four other units viz., M/s. Chemitherm Plant and Systems Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Enerchemic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Multimet Thermal Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Techno Products. It is also the case of the department that the factory of DEW was used for producing the entire quantity of goods and the same was cleared without payment of duty and without ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›