Chennai Court March 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.
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Devi Constructions
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the setting aside of penalties imposed on the assessees herein under the provisions of Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that the assessees had established reasonable cause for failure to pay the service tax leviable within time, and extended the protection under Section 80. 2. I have heard both sides. Section 80 of the Finance Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Sections 76, 77 and 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the assessees had obtained registration certificate well before the issue of levy of tax arose and that there was a confusion in the mind of the assessee since Southern Region Petroleum Corporation Contractors Welfare Association was taking steps to move the High Court regarding levy of service tax. I ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Shri Gangotri Textiles Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2010
The issue in dispute is as to whether the assessees herein are required to reverse credit in respect of capital goods removed as such after being put to use. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice and hence I heard ld. SDR and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals), whose order is in challenge in the present appeal, has relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd. Vs CCE Pune [2007 (219) ELT 911] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs Nahar Fibres [2007 (220) ELT 885] 3. I find that in the case of Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Raigad [2008 (232) ELT 29], the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has distinguished the decision of Cummins India Ltd. (supra) and has held that credit reversal on removal of capital goods even after being put to use is required. Following the decision of the Larger Bench cited supra, I set aside the impugned order by holding that credit availed on capital goods is required to be reversed, and allow the appea...
Smp Textiles Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madura ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2010
The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of viscose staple fiber yarn. During the year 2002-03, the assessees turnover was over Rs.13 crores. They paid turnover tax at the rate of 1% on the turnover for the above mentioned year. They filed refund application on 5.3.2003 on the ground that turnover tax is eligible deduction as they have paid duty on value inclusive of turnover tax. The refund application covers the period April 2002 to January 2003. The claim was initially rejected; the rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); vide the Final Order No.1499/2005 dt. 25.11.05, the Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority to examine the documents of the assessees to establish that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person; the Asst. Commissioner passed fresh order on 28.2.2007 wherein he was satisfied that the assessees had not passed on the incidence of duty to its customers and hence sanctioned the claim; the lower appellate authori...
M/S. Pgm, Bsnl Vs. Cce (St), Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
No one is present on behalf of the appellant PSU. There is also no adjournment request. The appellant PSU has also not filed the necessary COD clearance despite two adjournments granted earlier. As such, the appeal along with the stay application is dismissed for want of COD clearance with the liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration of appeal in the event of obtaining COD clearance later on....
M/S. Indo Shell Mould Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Heard both sides. The issue in this case relates to payment of interest in respect of cenvat credit taken but not utilized. The authorities below have held that in view of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, interest is payable on cenvat credit wrongly taken even if not utilized. They have also placed reliance on the Board’s Circular No. 897/17/2009-CX dated 3.9.09. 2. Shri T.H. Rao, Ld. SDR, appearing on behalf of the department supports the impugned order on the basis of the specific wording of the Rule 14, which he points out that, is different from the wording earlier used in Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Shri M. Saravanan, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants on the other hand places reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2009 (240) ELT 328 (PandH), which in para-11 thereof holds as under:- “Reliance of respondents on Rule 14 of ...
M/S. Precot Meridian Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Heard both sides. It is the case of the department that the impugned machine was procured by the appellants when they were an export oriented unit, under CT-3 Certificate without payment of duty. Subsequently, the appellants converted into a domestic unit. The stock verification undertaken by the jurisdictional officers revealed that the impugned machine was returned back by the appellants to the supplier without following the prescribed procedure. Hence, the duty amount has been demanded in respect of the said machine and a penalty equivalent to the duty amount has been imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. Shri S. Kothandaraman, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants did not follow the prescribed procedure for return of the impugned machine initially obtained duty free but, there was no malafide intention. The supplier in his letter dated 24.6.06 has duly acknowledged the receipt of the machine which was the first of its kind. Th...
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Jamara Textile Processing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Heard both sides. I find that the lower appellate authority has remanded the matter to the original authority for issue of a favourable order after following the principles of natural justice. I find nothing wrong with his order as in the first instance, the original authority has not passed any speaking order. One fails to appreciate why the department is filing an appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority who was merely directed the original authority to pass a speaking order! As such, the department s appeal along with the stay petition is dismissed....
M/S. Sri Venkateswara Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants have taken credit of duty paid by the supplier as directed by the excise authorities at the suppliers end. The ground has been taken by the central excise officers having jurisdiction over the appellants that duty is not payable at the suppliers end and therefore credit is not admissible to the appellants. 2. Shri S. Kandasamy, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants states that following two precedent decisions hold that the quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of the recipient unit:- (a) CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 485 (S.C.) (b) Ruptex Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2008 (228) ELT 440 (Tri.-Del.) 3. Heard the Ld. SDR. 4. In the light of the cited decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MDS Switchgear (supra), the jurisdictional officers at the end of the appellants cannot question the quantum ...
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2010
Both sides agree that the appeals involve drawback claims and hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals. As such, both the appeals along with the stay applications are dismissed as not admissible....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Nithya Motors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2010
Heard both sides. I find that the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed order justifying the reduction in the penalty amount invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 in the light of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal. As such his order requires no interference. Consequently the Department’s appeal is rejected....