Chennai Court May 2010 Judgments
M/S.Motherson Automotive Tech and Engg., Pondicherry Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-26-2010
Heard both sides on all the above appeals involving common issue as to whether refund of accumulated credit in respect of impugned goods supplied to a 100% E.O.U. without payment of duty for further manufacture and export, as admissible to the assessees. 2. I find that in the case of the same assessee, refund has been granted vide Final Order No.1102/09 dated 01.09.2009. The Bench has followed earlier decisions in the cases of Manoj Handlooms Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2009 (240) E.L.T. 158 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat Vs Shilpa Copper Wire Industries [2008 (226) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.Ahmd.)]. 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief due to the appellants in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Cobot Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-25-2010
Cenvat credit of Rs. 61,200/- has been disallowed on the ground that the service rendered by the service provider was not an input service as there was nothing to relate the service to the factory premises of the assessees. In addition, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- has also been imposed. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides and I find that the assessees have substantiated their claim to cenvat credit as it is clear from the purchase order placed by the assessees on the Anna University that the Consultancy Services are for environmental evaluation work including onsite evaluation and report submission and the fact that the purchase order was raised at the address of the factory premises however supports the case of the assessees. There is no reason why the documents produced before the authorities below were not considered as sufficient proof to establish the services rendered were input services. 3. In the light of the above, I accept the contention of the assessees that they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-25-2010
The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has accepted the contention of the assessees that they are eligible to cenvat credit of service tax paid towards Employees Medical Insurance and Employees Personal Accident Insurance. 2. On hearing both sides, I note that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunal’s Final Order No. 1396/2009 dated 07.10.2009, which decision in turn relies upon Millipore India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2009 (13) STR 616 and CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Endurance Systems India Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (237) ELT 204. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order extending credit and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Dynacast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-24-2010
The issue for decision in this appeal namely as to whether reversal of credit equal to the credit taken on rejected goods when removed from the factory as scrap is required, stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad [2000 (119) ELT 711] holding that credit of duty paid on final products is available in cases where such final products being defective, are subjected to melting and once again used for manufacture. This decision is applicable to 3389.20 kgs. which were imported and reprocessed into automobile components. As regards duty demand on the quantity of 120.61 kgs. which was scrapped and sold without being used for manufacture it already stands paid by the assessees. Therefore, no duty demand arises in the present case. I therefore set aside the impugned order, and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Meenakshi Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
Heard both sides. In this case, the lower appellate authority has allowed credit in respect of MS angles and CTD bars used for construction applying the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad - 2008 (223) ELT 517. The said decision of the Tribunal has since been overruled by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. - LB). Hence the impugned order requires to be set aside and the Department’s appeal is to be allowed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that since the lower appellate authority has allowed the appeal on merit he has not gone into the question of limitation which was raised by the respondents before him. Hence, he prays that the matter may be remanded for giving a specific decision on limitation. 3. Taking into submission made from both sides, the impugned order is set aside following the ratio of the Larger Bench i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Suganthi Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
The appellants who are Rent-a-cab operators, are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs.71,193/- for non-payment of service tax during the period Apr.-05 to Mar.-06. 2. I have heard both sides. The demand of service tax is not disputed and stands paid together with interest. The submission of the assesses is that they are not guilty of suppression so as to warrant invoking of the extended period of limitation for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Their plea in his regard is that in the case of rendering a service to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), they were orally informed by the NHAI to withhold payment of service tax until further instructions and, therefore, they cannot be held to be guilty of any suppression with intention to evade payment of duty. 3. I, however, find no merit in the above submission in the light of the fact that the assessees were registered providers of services and were adjusting service tax liability when services were rendered by t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Tcp Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
Heard both sides. The impugned goods on which MODVAT credit has been denied having described as pressure vessel and have been classified under Heading 7311.90 by the supplier. It is the appellant’s case that the said goods are actually rotary conical jacketed cylindrical dryer as confirmed by the suppliers and that the correct classification of these goods which are machinery items should be classified under 8421.00. As such, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that they are entitled for credit on the impugned goods as these are capital goods specified under the then Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As regards the other item namely batch controller, the duty credit involved being a small amount of Rs.6,725/-, Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appeal is not being pressed in respect of this item. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the impugned item namely rotary conical jacketed cylindrical dryer described as pr...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Psg Sons Charities Metallurgy and Foundry Division Vs. Cce, Coimb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
Heard both sides. Shri C. Sadasivam, authorized representative appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods on which credit has been denied has actually been used for manufacturing machinery parts which is further used for building a machinery for manufacture of moulds. I find that at the time of hearing of the said application, waiver of predeposit was granted on the ground that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (230) ELT 169 was pending. Now that the Larger Bench decision is available vide 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB), I am of the view that the matter requires to be re-examined by the original authority in the light of the Larger Bench decision after taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. As such, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after giving them an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appella...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
Heard both sides. The appellants manufactured the impugned cotton yarn in their Manaparai unit and the same on payment of duty was sent to their Paravai unit. They took credit of the duty paid on such yarn in their Paravai unit. Subsequently, the impugned yarn was cleared without payment of duty under CT-1 certificate obtained by Loyal Textiles and Mills and the latter converted the said yarn into fabrics and ultimately exported. The Department is not questioning the fact of export. The only question raised in this case is that the Paravai unit cleared the yarn without undertaking any manufacturing process. Hence, the duty equivalent to the credit taken has been demanded and an equal amount of penalty has been imposed apart from levying interest. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the case records, I find that no questions have been raised by the Department regarding the eligibility of M/s. Loyal Textiles and Mills to procure the impugned yarn without payment of duty, proces...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Morvi Export and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trich ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-21-2010
The challenge in these two appeals is the imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78. The reasons given by the assessees before the authorities below for non-registration and non-payment of service tax on the services rendered by them is that they were dealing with export consignment and they were under the belief that such consignments were not liable to service tax and the moment they came to know about their liability, they got themselves registered and started paying tax. Nothing is coming out from any statement of the appellants that they had knowledge of liability to pay and yet did not pay. The burden of proving that the assessees were guilty of suppression lies upon the Revenue. As the burden has not been discharged, I, therefore, accept that these are fit cases for setting aside the penalty and, therefore, set aside penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and upholding only the penalty imposed under section 77 ibid. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »