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. Shobhagya Steels 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 leaned counsel reports that he has no instructions to represent the appellants. Notice has been issued to the appellants for today’s hearing. None is present for hearing. The appeal is hence dismissed for non-prosecution....
United Bleachers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants challenge the confiscation of loose stock of processed fabrics and imposition of penalty. We have heard both sides. We find that the authorities below have rightly held that the processed fabrics are liable to confiscation for the reason that stock was not entered in the RG.1 Register and the goods were therefore unaccounted. We, therefore, uphold the confiscation; however, having regard to the fact that the duty on the seized goods is only a little over Rs.35,000/-, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only). Penalty of Rs.15,000/- as reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not call for any interference and is therefore left untouched. 2. The appeal is partly allowed by reduction in the quantum of fine....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The lower appellate authority has accepted the contention of the Revenue that Rocker Chairs manufactured by the respondents herein call for classification under CET SH 9401.00 and has directed reworking of the assessable value by treating sale price as cum duty price as per the ratio of the apex court decisions in Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. - 2000 (118) ELT A.159 and Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). The Revenue is in appeal against such direction. 2. The assessees have asked for a decision on merits and hence we heard ld.SDR and perused the records. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in consonance with the settled legal position regarding benefit of cum duty price. We therefore uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. 3. In view of the above decision, the cross-objection is also dismissed....
Tsr and Co.,home Needs (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has come to the decision that the appellants are eligible for abatement under Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, he has stated that the appellants have not specified the nature of abatement they are seeking. 2. Ld.Advocate Shri K.R.Natarajan appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the appellants are only seeking deduction towards the duty as prescribed under Section 4 (4) (d) (ii). We find that the submission made on behalf of the appellants is reasonable. Accordingly, we order that the assessment shall be done taking the invoice price as cum duty price and the appellants should be given consequential refund, if any, arising from such recalculation. The impugned order is modified accordingly and the matter is remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose of recalculating the duty demand and refund amount due. The appeal is allowed in the above...
Senior Depot Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the Order-in-Original dt. 28.2.2003, received by the assessees on 1.3.2003, a demand of Rs.87,825/- was confirmed together with interest and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed, by the Deputy Commissioner. The corrigendum was issued on 1.4.2003 by which the duty liability was reduced to Rs.57,825/-. The assessees preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 12.5.2003 which has been dismissed as barred by limitation; hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We do not agree with the assessees that there is no delay in preferring the appeal as the limitation period begins to run from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original namely 1.3.2003. However, we note that the delay is within the period which can be condoned, on satisfaction, by the lower appellate authority. 3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to first consider the assessees application for condonation of delay, if filed, and if...
Sree Visalakshi Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mad ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees who are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn manufactured yarn on job work basis for and on behalf of M/s.Sivaparvathi Textiles, Guntur on the materials supplied by them, for which they received conversion charges. The assessees raised invoices on M/s.Sivaparvathi Textiles and claimed the benefit of Notification No.43/2001-CE dt. 26.6.2001. The benefit of the notification was sought to be denied on the ground that the goods were supplied to Sivaparvathi Textiles, while the requirement under the notification was that excisable goods can be procured without payment of duty and cleared for the purpose of use in the manufacture or processing of export goods and their exportation out of India to any country except Nepal and Bhutan. The benefit was denied by the adjudicating authority in respect of 8 invoices. The contention of the assessees that the goods had been cleared under ARE-3 to exporters has been rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) having...
Elgi Tread (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The allegation by the department is that the appellants have sold the impugned retreading machineries to their franchisee holders at a lower price. However, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that a lower price is allowed to such buyers as they make prompt payments whereas in the case of other buyers such as govt. transport departments, the payment is delayed by 80-90 days. The ld. advocate also shows us a statement at page 40 of the appeal papers to corroborate the contention of the appellants that the same lower price is also allowed to other buyers who make prompt payment. On the other hand, we find no contrary example brought forward by the department to show that lower price was not available to any buyer who was willing to make prompt payment. 2. As such, we are of the view that there is no case made out for non-acceptance of the value adopted by the appellants for sales to their franchisee holders. Consequently, the impu...
Chemfab Alkalis Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein do not dispute the duty demand on spent sulphuric acid, in the light of the decision of the apex court in Southern Petrochemical Inds. Vs CCE [2002 (148) ELT 1012 (SC)]. They also do not dispute the applicability of extended period of limitation. The only dispute relates to levy of interest under the provisions of Section 11AB and imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act throughout the period in dispute namely Nov-92 to Aug-97, for the reason that above mentioned statutory provisions were introduced only w.e.f. 28.9.96. In other words, their only contention before the Bench is that interest and penalty should be held to be applicable only w.e.f. 28.9.96. 2. Ld.SDR fairly leaves this for the decision of the Bench. 3. Having regard to the well settled legal position, we accept the contention of the assessees that interest is payable on the demand confirmation, only w.e.f. 28.9.96 and penalty is impos...
Commissioner of Customs(Airport), Chennai Vs. M.Raghava Reddy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting their appeal against non-imposition of penalty on the respondent for import of a consignment of two live dogs without specific licence as required in law. 2. Since the respondent has asked for a decision on merits, we heard ld. SDR and perused the records. Having regard to the small amount involved, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority and accordingly uphold the same and reject this appeal....
P. Aknes Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
(Order of the Tribunal was made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The unfortunate mother of a solider, who served in the Army and before completing his service ended his life by committing suicide with an army weapon, had knocked at the doors of the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras (Madurai Bench), with a writ petition, which has been transferred to this Tribunal after the formation of this Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and reassigned T.A.No.26 of 2010. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition run as follows:- The petitioners son viz. V.Titus was enrolled in the Army under the Madras Regiment and his number was assigned as L / NK No.2599729 and he had committed suicide with the army weapon on 28.10.2004 when he was in service at Trivandrum camp. He was the only earning member of the family of the petitioner. The petitioners son late V.Titus had married one Sudharani on 20.09.2004 and t...