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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Samhita Enterprises Pv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute relates to the date of applicability of Notification No.8/2000 dt. 1.3.2000 as amended by Notification No.15/01-CE dt. 16.3.01 providing SSI limit of Rs.10 lakhs for the period from 1.3.2001 to 31.3.2001. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has held that the clearances effected by the assessees qualify for small scale exemption and the ceiling limit of Rs.10 lakhs cannot be made applicable to corrugated boxes, cartons, containers etc. which were included only by way of Notification No.15/01 dt. 16.3.01 . In doing so, he has followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE Vs Roto Mould (India) Ltd. [2000 (119) ELT 235]. The Larger Bench decision cited supra has been recently followed in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs Sigma Pack vide Final Order No.1735/09 dt. 5.11.09. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that amended notification does not have retrospective effect and only ope...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Adhavan Processors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue of classification of bleached stiff finished fabric not having permanent stiffness stands settled in favour of the assessees by the apex court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Susma Textile Pvt. Ltd., [2004 (167) ELT 487 (SC)] holding that such fabric falls for classification under Chapter Heading 52.06 of the Schedule to the CETA-85 as claimed by the assessees and not under Chapter Heading 59.01 as contended by the Revenue. Following the ratio of the apex court’s decision on an identical commodity, we uphold the impugned order by which the classification has been arrived at under Heading 52.06, and reject the appeal. 2. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the appeal of the Revenue and is hence dismissed....
Visagam Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram This appeal has been coming up for final hearing from time to time and the assessees have not been represented and, in fact, notice of hearing issued by the Registry has been returned on an earlier occasion, as well as today. It therefore appears that the assessees are not interested in pursuing their appeal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. IlijIn Automotive Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of over Rs.1 crore and also imposed a penalty of equal amount on the ground that the assessees have wrongly availed credit to the above extent that demand was set aside by the Tribunal. In the same order, he has also confirmed a demand of Rs.5,61,959/- holding that assessees were guilty of undervaluation of the goods by non-amortization of the cost of the capital goods in the components manufactured by them and supplied to M/s.HMIL. He has however refrained from imposing any penalty on this score. It is against non-imposition of penalty that the Revenue is in appeal before us. 2. We have heard both sides. We find force in the submission of the ld.SDR that once the demand of Rs.5,61,959/- has been confirmed which is obviously confirmed under the first proviso to Section 11A(1), it means that the element of suppression has been established. The Commissioner, therefore, had no option but to impose equal amount of penalt...
Roja Ramani Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. T.A.No.123 of 2009 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 06.04.2010. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the G.O.No.12(16)/86/D Pens/Sers, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 03.06.1988, before the appropriate forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Smt.Roja Ramani had filed the said T.A.No.123 of 2009 for grant of family pension with effect from 29th March 1992 ie., the due date of reporting back from leave for duty of her husband or from 26th March 1992 ie. From the date of issue of apprehension roll by the Commanding Officer. She has challenged the order of the respondents vide letter No.14571886 / Court Cases / Pen dated 17.09.2008. The said impugned order was passed by the respondents as per the directions given in the Judgment dated 13.06.2007 passed in W.P.No.20256 of 2007 filed by the same petitioner Smt.Roja Ramani. The said impugned order was passed...
M. Appalanaidu Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The unfortunate petitioner, who had AFMSF-16 / opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board in his favour, after getting an order of rejection of the disability pension from the second respondent, ultimately knocked at the doors of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.12250 of 2005, the same, after the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, after the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, has been transferred to this Tribunal and assigned T.A.No.77 of 2010. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition relevant for deciding this case sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner enrolled in the Army on 09.11.1984 in the Artillery Centre and at the time of joining Indian Army, he was placed under the medical category AYE. After the training, the petitioner was posted at high altitude area and he was assigned the job of Mess-waiter in the Army clos...
Ex. Cpl. K. Angappan Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) The petitioner, who was discharged from service on the basis of the medical invalidment of suffering from Schizophrenia, had approached the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing W.P.No.39695 of 2002 for grant of disability pension challenging the impugned orders of the third respondent vide No.RO/2706/602482/NERW (DP-5) dated 28th May 1981 and No.RO/2706/602482/ P and W (DP) dated 16.07.2001. After the constitution of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, after the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the said petition was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.130 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the petition in brief runs as follows:- The petitioner had enrolled in the mighty Indian Air Force on 04.07.1969 in the trade of Radio Operator. At the time of enrolment, the petitioner was in sound health. The petitioners conduct and character were assessed as Exemplary. However, the p...
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, P ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The benefit of exemption in terms of Sl.No.17 of the Table to Notification No.76/86-CE dt. 10.2.1986 covering Sludge obtained in the sewage or effluent treatment plant belonging to municipal corporation, local authority or an industrial unit has been denied to the assessees herein who are manufacturers of urea, on the ground that, what was cleared was carbon dust, and not carbon sludge and that it was not obtained in an effluent treatment plant, resulting in demand of duty of Rs.21,02,659.58 raised in show-cause notice dt. 26.10.92 and subsequent 14 show-cause notices issued upto August 1999 (subject matter of appeal No.E/535/03) together with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty, and demand of duty of Rs.51,785/- together with interest and penalty of Rs.17,000/- (subject matter of appeal No.E/536/03). The period covered in the first appeal is Feb-92 to August-99 and the second appeal covers the period from Sept-99 to March 2000. The adjudicating au...
M/S. Excel Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
Heard the learned SDR Shri C.Dhanasekaran. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite adjournments granted earlier. There is also no adjournment request. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2010
Heard both sides. It is the case of the Department that the respondents received back DG sets and took credit of duty paid on the same but these were not subjected to any manufacturing process and therefore under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 they were required to reverse the credit taken by them. It is the contention of the respondents that some of these sets were dismantled and either the dismantled items were sold or re-made DG sets were sold and in some cases the DG sets were sold as such. They further contend that while clearing the goods they have appropriated duty with reference to the transaction value. It is also their contention that they have disclosed the receipt and the sale of the impugned DG sets in the monthly returns giving cross-reference to the original clearance number in which the DG sets were initially received back. They also support the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the lower appellate authority holding that the demand to be entirely time-bar...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »