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. Shree Vaikunth Paper and Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
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. This case was initially posted for hearing on 13.11.2009 and adjournment was granted fixing the hearing on 18.12.2009 when the learned counsel appearing for the appellants took notice personally. However, no one appeared on 18.12.2009 but an adjournment request was received stating that the authorized representative has certainly fallen sick. The case was thereafter adjourned to 29.1.2010. Again an adjournment request was received stating that the counsel has gone to his native place Karur. The matter was adjourned to 26.2.2010. Again, another adjournment request was received stating that the counsel has suffered a minor fracture in the right hand. The matter was further adjourned to today’s hearing. Now another adjournment request has been received stating that the counsel has gone to Mumbai. The matter has thus been adjourned several times against the maximum number of adjournments being ...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that while passing the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner has recorded the following finding:- “The issue to be decided is whether the poly-sleeved batteries cleared in bulk from Chennai unit to Dehradun unit are to be assessed under the provisions of Section 4A or under Section 4 of the CEA. The contention of the department is that these poly-sleeved batteries are complete in all respects and as such, should be taxed by calculating the value based on MRP. Support was drawn from the opinion given by the Department of Legal Metrology. The party strongly contended that the batteries which are imported as bare cells are brought to their Chennai unit where poly-sleeving of these cells are done and the battery thereafter will contain the name, emblem and other details. They have contended that these batteries are sent then to their Dehradun unit for blister packing individually and put in cartons for clearance and sal...
Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport Expor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
For reasons recorded below, I waived predeposit and proceeded to take up the appeals themselves for final hearing with the consent of both sides. 2. In both the cases, duty demands were confirmed for non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) as required under the advance licence scheme. In the first case, the appeal against confirmation of demand was rejected on the ground of delay of 28 days beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), under the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. In respect of the other appeal, the lower appellate authority has upheld the demand on the ground of non-production of EODC from the DGFT. 3. I have heard both sides. As regards Appeal No.C/133/10, I note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon a note dt. 19.11.09 of the Revenue confirming that the relevant Order-in-Original dt. 29.4.08 was received on 5.5.08 by one Sampath Kumar of M/s.Navrang Shipping Pvt...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Ace Glass Containers Ltd.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue in dispute in these appeals being common, we are taking up the same for disposal by this common order. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue namely as to whether the cost of packing material supplied free of cost by buyers of glass bottles manufacturers to the assesses herein is includible in the assessable value of the bottles stands settled against the Revenue by various decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned orders namely Collector Vs. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (83) ELT A184 (S.C.), Collector Vs. United Glass 1995 (76) ELT A232 (S.C.) and Jauss Polymers Ltd. Vs. CCE 2003 (58) ELT 598 (S.C.). Following the ratio of the above decisions which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, we uphold the impugned orders ad reject the appeals of the Revenue. We however, correct the period in dispute shown in E/181/04 as August, 1989 to January, 2000....
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein received angles, channels and other re-rolled products and used the same in further manufacture of final products namely transmission towers, after availing credit on the inputs. The remnants of the inputs received were cleared on payment of duty by classifying the same under Chapter Heading 72.04. It is the case of the Department that what was cleared was inputs as such and that therefore the assessees should have reversed the credit originally taken on the inputs when they were received by the assessees into their factory. We agree with the assesses that what was cleared by them cannot be treated as clearance of inputs as such and that what was cleared could only be treated as end-bits or off-cuts of iron and steel in the light of the apex Court’s decision in case of LML Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur - 1997 (94) ELT 273 (SC). Therefore, we accept the contention of the assessees that what was cleared was not inputs as...
M/S. Neelchem Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a total demand of duty of Rs.1,29,689.84 on 1549.5 kgs of instant tea cleared without payment of duty and 4564 kgs. of instant tea cleared without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty it is the case of the Revenue that duty was to be paid on a value of Rs.278.40 per kg. and Rs.276/- per kgs. for the period from 1.7.1990 to 30.9.1990 and 1.10.1990 to 13.12.1990 respectively. Penalty of Rs.2,000/- has also been imposed on the assessee. The assessees do not contest the finding of liability to pay duty on the above mentioned quantities; further they only contest the adoption of the value by the Department as according to them Rs.125/- per kg. was declared in the price list which was approved and therefore the above value is required to be adopted and the duty demand is required to be scaled down proportionately. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the matter had come up before the Tribunal earlier and the Tribunal vid...
M/S. Maheswary Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Cent ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram None appears for the appellant inspite of notice. The appeal has been listed for hearing from time to time since May 2009. It appears that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the case. Hence we dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution....
M/S. Shri Kanchi Steel Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Heard both sides. The grievance of the appellants in Appeal No. E/367/2003 is that the impugned order rejecting the claim for abatement of duty for two periods of closure of their factory manufacturing non-alloy steel and hot re-rolled products from 1.4.1999 to 2.5.1999 and 1.10.1999 to 31.10.1999 was passed without granting them sufficient time of opportunity to appear. The show-cause notice was served upon the assessees on 24.2.2003 and the hearing was fixed before the Commissioner on any date between 18.3.2003 and 21.3.2003. The assessees request for adjournment by a month s time on the ground that the security personnel of their factory handed over the show-cause notice only 19.3.2003 has been rejected. However, we agree with the assessees that since there was a short gap between the date of receipt of the show-cause notice and the date of fixing personal hearing, they should have been granted some time to present their case before the adjudicating authority...
M/S. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The claims for refund of Rs.22,95,991/- and Rs.8,74,624/- paid on motor cars (refund sought for the reason that cars were cleared on payment of duty @ 32% advalorem while cars intended for use as taxis, which these cars were, were eligible for concessional rate @ 16% advalorem vide Notification No.3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001 as per Sl. No. 225 read with Condition 40), have been rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty, the prescribed period of limitation under the notification. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the statutory period of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is one year. The notification seeks to whittle down the period provided under the statute. This issue has been the subject-matter of two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra - 2007 (214) ELT 234 and other decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra - 2007 (216) EL...
M/S. Jumbo Bags Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel Shri Raghavan states that the first part of the demand is covered by the subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2004 (171) ELT 118 - appeal against which has been dismissed by the Apex Court. As regards the second part of the demand, he states that he will be in a position to show that the impugned goods were cleared to exporters against CT3 certificates and that the goods have been subsequently exported. 3. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for re-deciding the case in the light of the ratio of the cited decision and after taking into account the fresh documents to be produced by the appellants. The appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter afresh. 4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »