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. Bilt Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty on the Company as well as waiver of penalty on Shri J. Ponthiagaraj, Manager (Accounts). 2. We note that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was received by the assessees on 01.10.08 and the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 30.11.08. The appeal was filed by the Company only on 01.12.08, the Commissioner has therefore held that the appeal was filed one day beyond the expiry period of statutory limitation. However, the assessees were correct in their submission that since 30.11.08 was Sunday, the appeal could be preferred only on 01.12.08 and therefore, there was no delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, after granting the prayer for waiver of predeposit, we set aside the impugned orders (individual had filed the appeal within the statutory period of limitation) and remand the ...
Shri M. Chandrasekar Vs. Cce, Salwm
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appellants have complied with the direction of predeposit of Rs. 75,000/-. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessees on the ground of non-compliance with his stay order. Now that the appellants have complied with the Tribunal s direction to make the predeposit, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority, who shall pass fresh order after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Bell Pins Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The benefit of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No.1/93 dated 28/2/93 as amended was sought to be denied to the respondents herein (M/s. Bell Pins Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturers of Staple in strips and waste and scrap of steel and M/s. Lily Pins Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of safety pins and waste and scrap of steel), on the ground that both the respondents were using the brand name of another person. The brand name of M/s.Bell Products Pvt. Ltd. is the emblem of Bell whereas the brand name of M/s. Bell Pins and M/s. Lily Pins is Bell in letters. However, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on the ground that the goods manufactured by M/s. Bell Products Private Ltd. were different from those manufactured by M/s. Bell Pins and M/s. Lily Pins, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 1999 (109) ELT 204. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders; hence these appeals by the Revenue. 2. We have heard ...
M/S. Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri A.S. Monappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellants received rolls for use in their rolling mills and took credit of the duty paid thereon. He states that these rolls are used again and again and hence they become scrap within a short period. Since 100% depreciation of the value of these rolls is available under the Income Tax Act provisions, the depreciated value of these rolls have been written off which is reflected in the balance sheet. These rolls have been subsequently sold as scrap, the value of which is much lower than the depreciated value written off. Though the scrap rolls have been cleared on payment of duty under regular invoices, the impugned order has demanded duty on the written off depreciated value which is not justified. He, however, admits that the entire details were not made available to the adjudicating Commissioner particularly invoices for sale of the scrap rolls and details...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›