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.
M/S. Asheerwath Enterprises Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Heard both sides. Shri S. Dayaleeswaran learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellants are not contesting the duty demand and the demand of interest which have been fully paid. He also states that 25% of the penalty amount has also been paid as predeposit at the stay stage. He prays that considering the fact that the appellants are not contesting the duty demand and the interest amount and that they have paid most of the amount promptly before issue of the show-cause notice, he pleads for leniency in the amount of penalty imposed on the appellants. 2. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhansekaran. He strongly opposes reduction in the penalty amount on the ground that the appellants were involved in clandestine manufacture and clearance without payment of duty. He states that in such cases, penalty equal to duty amount is fully justified. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that penalty equal to duty amount has been imposed by the original...
M/S. Parry Enterprises India Limited Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Heard both sides. Shri J. Shankar Raman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant-company s name has been changed from Parry Engineering and Exports Limited to Parry Enterprises India Limited after following due procedure of law. The learned SDR has no objection to such a change being made and accordingly I order that the cause title be changed incorporating the new name of the appellant-company. 2. As regards the substantial issue involved in this case, the learned counsel states that the appellant had filed a refund application pursuant to which the original authority had allowed the refund. The subsequent proceedings have started for review of the said refund order but no demand notice under Section 11A has been issued for recovering the refunded amount said to have been erroneously granted. He states that as per the settled law, the Department was required to issue a demand notice under Section 11A in addition to review of the order vide Tribunal’...
M/S. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Heard both sides. Shri V. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellants are regularly exporting bulk drugs and earning precious foreign exchange for the country. As per the practice prevailing, the appellants were being sanctioned about 98% of the rebate of duty paid on the export goods [equivalent to the duty on FOB value] in cash and the balance amount was being allowed to be taken as credit in the CENVAT credit. He states that the prevalence of this practice is recognized by the Board’s Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX dated 3.2.2000. In the instant case, the appellants were sanctioned similar refunds but there was no specific order to take credit of the remaining amount. However, the appellants have taken credit of the same as per the usual practice. The learned counsel states that this was a small lapse for which the entire credit which is actually an export incentive should not be denied and such a heavy penalty equal to the credit amount shou...
M/S. Pallipayalam Spinners P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2010
Heard both sides. Smt. L. Maithili, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the Department has raised a dispute regarding the impugned amount of service tax paid by utilization of credit. She volunteers to pay the entire amount involved in this case which is a small amount of Rs.45,262/- by cash subject to the payment already made by credit being re-credited. She also pleads for waiver of the penalty, since the payment was already made by utilizing CENVAT credit. 2. Heard the learned SDR. 3. The offer made by the learned counsel is acceptable. Since the entire dispute arises in relation to the manner of payment of duty, once the appellants are agreeing to make good the payment by cash, there can be no objection to allowing re-credit of the amount paid through utilization of CENVAT credit. In the circumstances, it is a fit case for waiving the penalty imposed on the appellants. I order accordingly and direct the appellants to pay the impugned amount by cash and take re-c...
Gedee Weiler (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The inclusion of technical know-how for manufacture of lathe machine in India in the assessable value of imported components is challenged by the assessees herein. 2. We have heard both sides. Even as per the finding of the authorities below, the technology for which the payment is made by the assessees is in the form of basic blue print for the production of end products from the imported machinery and components/parts. Therefore, it cannot be added to the value of the imported goods as per of Rule 9(1) (c) of the Customs Valuation Rules as the inclusion is legally permissible only if the know-how is in relation to the items imported into India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Batliboi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of diesel generating sets. They had cleared control panels on various dates by discharging duty @ 13% advalorem instead of adopting the correct rate of duty at 18% advalorem payable on the goods. The consequential differential duty of Rs.1,30,469/- was therefore required to be paid by the assessees. Further, they had not paid appropriate duty of Rs.1,60,000/- being the invoice value of 180 KV Alternator cleared under invoice dt. 23.4.97 to M/s.Prime Plast, Vijayamangalam, of Rs.20,800/- out of which only Rs.4,545/- was paid as duty and therefore differential duty of Rs.16,255/- was also required to be paid. Show-cause notice raising differential duty demand of Rs.1,46,724/- (Rs.1,30,469 + Rs.16,255) involved in the clearance of control panel and alternator was issued. The notice proposed penal action against the assessees. The notice was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner who dropped the demand but imposed p...
Ganesh Trading Company Vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Chief Commissioner of Customs has confiscated the goods imported by the appellants and declared as ‘dried garlic’ but found to be ‘fresh garlic’ as the moisture content was in excess of 10% and as per DGFT’s Circular No.32(RE-99)/1999-2000 dt. 17.9.1999, the goods are to be treated as ‘dried garlic’ provided the moisture content thereof did not exceed 10% irrespective of the method of drying, with an option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs.2,15,000/- and has imposed penalty of Rs.40,000/- on the importers and has directed payment of both fine and penalty in addition to the applicable duty after confirming the value of the goods in question as US$ 565 per MT. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue as to whether circular dt. 17.9.99 will be applicable to imports which have taken place prior to that date has been the subject matter of decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribuna...
Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of processed cotton fabrics with the aid of power. They do not have any spinning facility. As per Notification No.29/96-CE dt. 3.9.96, a composite mill means a manufacturer, who is engaged in the processing of fabrics with the aid of power along with spinning of yarn from fibres and weaving or knitting or crocheting of fabrics within the same factory. As per this notification, the appellants mill would not be a composite mill. However, with the issue of Notification No.28/2000-CE dt. 31.3.2000, the definition of a composite mill was changed to mean a manufacturer who is engaged in the processing of fabrics with the aid of power along with weaving or knitting or crocheting of fabrics with the same factory . The requirement of a composite mill having spinning facility was taken away. Once again the definition of a composite mill as it stood in Notification No.29/96 was reintro...
Bajrangbali Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants do not dispute the finding of the adjudicating authority that the goods declared as ‘Non-alloy steel melting scrap’ are ‘Non-alloy steel re-rollable scrap’ and therefore not eligible to concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.21/2002 dt. 1.3.2002. They only plead for reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty. 2. We have heard both sides. The value of the goods is approx. Rs.12.73 lakhs. In the case of the same assessee, vide Final Order No.740/09 dt. 18.6.09, the Tribunal has reduced the fine to approx. 15% of the value of the imported goods. Applying the same yardstick in this case, we reduce the fine to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). No interference is called for in the quantum of penalty as it is not in excess of 10% which is the percentage applied as far as penalty is concerned, even in the earlier case cited supra. 3. The appeal is thus partly allowed by reduction only in the amount of redemptio...
M/S. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, In this case, the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 18,45,732/- together with interest on the ground that the assessee appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 30/97-cus dated 01.04.97, as they have violated the condition (vi) of the notification regarding proof of fulfillment of export obligation. The demand was challenged by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his Interim Order No. C3/458/D/09 AIR dated 15.09.09 under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, directed the appellant assessee to predeposit an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs failing which the appeal would be liable to be rejected. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard both sides. The appeal against an Interim Order is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Hence, the stay application, early hearing application together with the appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »