Chennai Court April 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.Nithya Property Developers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
The claim of the assessees for refund of Rs.1,89,121/- stated to be the amount of service tax paid in excess on the service of Construction of residential complex has been rejected on the ground that the assessees had not substantiated their stand on payment of excess tax and further on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis inter alia that the benefit of abatement under Notification No.18/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005 was not available and that part of the claim have barred by limitation and that the assessees had not substantiated the fact of excess payment. The adjudicating authority, however, accepted the contention of the assessees that no part of the claim was time-barred and that they were eligible to avail the benefit of abatement of 67% as per Notification No.18/2005. He, however, rejected the claim on the ground of non-substantiation of payment of excess tax and on the ground of unjust enrichment. The ...
Jerald Dias Versus Appeal Medical Board and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner, who is having two opinions of the Medical Board to his credit one in favour of him and another against the interest of him, has approached the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, claiming disability pension by way of filing W.P.No.10859 of 2007, which was transferred to this Tribunal after the constitution of this Tribunal, under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T.A.No.15 of 2010. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner has joined Indian Army as Trainee Sepoy and after putting 19 years and 9 months of service, he was compulsorily discharged from service on medical ground. The petitioner had served at Kuppuwara Sector Jammu and Kashmir for nearly three years and three months. While he was serving in the station, he got afflicted with th...
S. Tomy Corera Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
The appellant is aggrieved by the confiscation of 8 nos. of tarpaulins stated to be of foreign origin, sold by him to one Shri P. Roshan and by the imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon him. 2. The brief facts are that on 20.09.2006, the appellant’s godown in Tuticorin was searched in the presence of one Shri Roshan, who had hired the godown and in the presence of two independent witnesses and 8 nos. of tarpaulins were found therein. Shri Roshan stated that the tarpaulins had been purchased for Rs.30,000/- from the appellant who is the Proprietor of M/s.Rosel Engineering Works at Tuticorin. Since the department was under the reasonable belief that the tarpaulins were illicitly brought into India from a foreign vessel berthed in New Port, Tuticorin in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the same were seized. Shri U. Subramanian driver of a van belonging to M/s.Rosel Engineering Works stated that he brought the tarpaulins through the green gate in a van an...
M/S.Caltex Gas India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
The appellants herein imported fully refrigerated homogenously premixed LPG from Saudi Arabia under bills of entry for warehousing. The bill of entries were assessed on ad valorem basis on invoice value. As per the survey reports, the actual quantity received in the short tank was less than the quantity shown in the bill of lading. The importers filed applications for refund of import duty paid for the short-landed quantity, as it was their stand that they were required to pay only on the actual quantity received in the shore tank. The claim was proposed to be rejected and the notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the claim for refund of Rs.8,93,495/-. The rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the bill of lading quantity/the invoiced quantity loaded in the port of loading and the quantity discharged from the ship is one and the same, as per the certified ullage report and the difference in quantity was only in the shore tank. ...
M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Heard both sides. 2. Shri P.C. Anand, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant states that the appellants being an EOU had imported the impugned blades for use in the machines for cutting granite logs which were exported after such cutting. He states that the blades become unusable and scrap after a number of use and these have been sold outside in the DTA as scrap and duty on the same has been paid on transaction value. He challenges the duty demanded by the Department holding that the duty should have been paid on depreciated value of the blades though the differential amount has already been paid by the appellants who are seeking refund of the same. 3. Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR confirms that the initial imports were made under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3.6.1997 and hence the scrap arising out of imported blades would be governed by the provisions of the said notification. 4. After hearing both sides I find that Condition No. 7 to the said notification would...
M/s.The King's International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The demand of duty of Customs of Rs.1,75,15,890/- and duty of excise of Rs.29,64,204/- together with interest has been upheld along with penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, Rs.20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and penalty equal to excise duty under Section 11AC on the ground that the appellants (a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting marine products) did not fulfil the export obligation cast upon them (out of the total export obligation of Rs.38,515.22 lakhs for 5 years,, they fulfilled export commitment only to the extent of Rs.64.80 lakhs and did not carry out any further manufacture). 2. We have heard both sides. We find that a fresh green card has been issued to the appellants by the MEPZ, SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai on 10.10.2009 and the period for fulfilment of export obligation has been extended upto 09.10.2010. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the adjudi...
M/S. Veejay Lakshmi Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
Heard both sides. For the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay and stay application, the delay in filing the appeal by 30 days is condoned and the requirement of predeposit is waived. With the consent of both sides the appeal is also taken up for hearing and disposal today itself. 2. The appellants have paid duty on the transaction value on the capital goods at the time of clearance of the same after about ten years of use. The Department seeks reversal of the credit initially taken. Shri T. Rameh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that in number of cases the Tribunal has allowed clearance of the used capital goods on payment of duty after taking into account the depreciation to the extent of 2.5% per quarter. He undertakes to pay the balance amount, if any on re-calculation of the depreciated amount. He further states that the appellants have not, however, filed any refund claim and the entire proceeding has arisen out of a demand...
C. Kondaiah, (Ex-serviceman) Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioner originally got an order of disability pension later lost the same due to the opinion of the Re-assessment Medical Board dated 28.04.2003. In furtherance of the impugned order from the Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp, Maharashtra, dated 23.08.1996, the petitioner has moved the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.7521 of 1997 got a final order dated 26.06.1997, and thereafter filed W.P.No.19660 of 2003 challenging the impugned order which has been passed after the directions of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.7521 of 1997. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, in pursuance of the enactment of Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the said W.P.No.19660 of 2003 has been transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.87 of 2009. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner in the affidavit to the petition relevant for decidin...
Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trich ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram CENVAT credit of Rs.72,32,130/- has been disallowed to the assessees herein on capital goods on the ground that although the goods were erected in the factory of the assessees, they were not erected by the assessees themselves, but by the contractors M/s.Larsen and Toubro and other sub-contractors. In addition, a penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed. 2. We have heard both sides . We find that this issue stands decided in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Triveni Engg. and Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2001 (136) ELT 617 [upheld by the apex court in 2002 (139) ELT A310 (SC)] which has been followed in Thermax Surface Coating Ltd. Vs CCE Chandigarh [2002 (145) ELT 356]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, against Order-in-Original No.21/2002 dt. 22.7.02 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, M/s.MAPCON Pvt. Ltd. and its officers and M/s.INDCON Structurals Pvt. Ltd. came up in appeal to the Tribunal vide Appeal Nos.E/589 to 591/02 and Revenue filed E/252/2000. The appeals were disposed of by Final Order No.209-212/07 dt. 6.3.07 by way of remand. The relevant portion of the Tribunal s order is reproduced herein below :- “The direction in Final Order No.1236-1239/1999 passed by this Bench in the batch of appeals filed by the parties was for a de novo adjudication culminating in a speaking order. We find that this direction was not scrupulously followed by learned Commissioner. Order-in-Original No.21/2002 dated 22.07.2002 passed by learned Commissioner pursuant to our remand order (Final Order No.1236-1239/99) did not touch the question whether the assessees were eligible for the benefit of Notification No.8/96-CE (S.No.68.4) in re...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »