Chennai Court May 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. V.N.K. Menon and Co. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessee-appellants herein manufactured housing containers and freight containers on job work basis for their principal M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Cochin, who supplied raw materials free of cost to the appellants under dealers invoice and the appellant in turn took MODVAT credit on the raw materials and manufactured the above mentioned goods and cleared it to Balmer Lawrie on payment of duty. M/s. Balmer Lawrie were paying labour charges for furnishing the containers and also paid a fixed amount of Rs.50,000/- per month towards services enumerated below, rendered by the appellants:- (a) provide covered space of a minimum area of 2000 sq. ft. for the purpose of storage of materials; (b) provide open space of a minimum area of 12,500 sq. ft. including electrical power upto a maximum of 5HP for taking up furnishing work of housing containers / insulated containers etc.; (c) provide all necessary facilities including manpower and personal computer and undertake ...
M/S. Krm International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have confirmed a demand of duty of Rs.3,73,395/- and imposed penalty and denied DEEC benefits to the goods in question namely off-white leather cow lining which is the product under export, on the ground that it would not qualify for the definition of finished leather and instead attracts duty @ 60% in terms of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The basis of the finding is that the goods are not finished leather as they do not satisfy the norms as per CLRI test report dated 28.5.2001. The reason given in the report is that the sample failed to satisfy the norms and conditions due to absence of dyeing imparting medium / dark shade. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of off-white/white leather the processes required as per Public Notice No. 3-ETC (PN) 92 97 dated 27.5.1992 are levelling, combination tanning, fat liquoring, setting, staking/boarding, producing a clean flesh side by mechanical means, protective c...
Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Ibm (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The respondents have supplied the impugned general purpose computers to a privately funded college. The college is not registered with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The university to which the college is affiliated has also not given the required essentiality certificate under DSIR Letter F.No.525/15/2003-Cus. (TU) dated October 1998 for availing the impugned exemption under Notification No. 19/97-CE dated 1.3.1997. 3. As such, we are of the view that the respondents are not eligible for the impugned exemption meant for research purposes. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant for the respondent pleads for cum-duty assessment and for adjustment of 8% CENVAT credit reversed in respect of the impugned goods. We find that the submissions made by him in this regard are reasonable. 5. Hence, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal insofar as it relates to duty demand and interest is concerned and allow the Departmen...
Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram A duty demand of Rs.58,157/- has been confirmed against the assessees on various types of scrap and a penalty of Rs.30,000/- has been imposed in terms of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and a penalty of Rs.3,772/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, with effect from 28.9.96, the date on which section 11AC was introduced in the statute. The appellants only prayer in the present appeal is for reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the first round of proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) had imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- when the duty demand confirmed was a little over Rs.2 lakhs. In the present case, since duty demand is approx. Rs.60,000/- we accept the prayer for reduction and reduce the penalty to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only). 2. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above....
Tamilnadu Asbestos Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance, which is required as the appellant is a State Government Undertaking, with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is obtained....
Premier Polytronics P Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein cleared cotton waste and yarn waste to DTA without payment of duty availing exemption under Notification No.8/96 dt. 23.7.96. As per the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, duty on goods manufactured by 100% EOU (all the assessees before us are 100% EOUs) and allowed to be sold in India shall be levied and collected equal to the aggregate of duties of customs leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India. Since the exemption in terms of Notification No.8/96 was only from payment of duties specified in the schedule to the CETA-85, show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of duty at the applicable rate; duty demands raised were confirmed by the adjudicating authority; the Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld the demand by a common order; hence these appeals. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that one of the appellants before the Commissioner...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Tamilnadu Cements Corp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance (the respondent is a State Government Undertaking) with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is obtained. The cross-objection is disposed of accordingly....
M/S.Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram For the reasons recorded below, we waived pre-deposit of duty of Rs.52,63,061/- confirmed under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 representing 10% of the price at which the assessees sold Dead Burnt Magnesite and Calcined Magnesite, on the ground that Furnace Oil was a common input used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products and that the assessees had not maintained separate accounts as contemplated under Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and penalty of equal amount imposed under Rule 15 and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether a demand of 10% of the sale value of exempted goods can be made on the ground that Furnace Oil was used as a fuel both for the manufacture of non-dutiable intermediate goods, namely, Dead Burnt Magnesite which was partly sold in the market and partly consumed in the manufacture of dutiable final produ...
M/S. Global Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the assessees have not produced any proof of pre-deposit of Rs. Three lakhs as directed by the Stay Order No. 96/10 dated 22.02.2010....
Speciality Foods India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seapo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2010
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rejected the claim of the assessees for refund of Rs.4,36,157/- paid on pet food for the import of which Bills of Entry were filed on 17.3.2006 and which goods were permitted to be re-exported as the Department of Animal Husbandry, Ministry of Agriculture prohibited import of pet food and cancelled all import permits issued earlier due to outbreak of bird flu in European countries as premature for the reason that Bills of Entry were provisional and not yet finalized. He held that the assessees were free to claim refund on production of original documents, after finalization of the Bills of Entry. Hence this appeal by the assessees who contend that the amount paid was only a deposit and not duty, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs Banmore Electricals Pvt.Ltd.[2006 (205) ELT 689]. Therefore, the assessees contend that they are not required to wait for final assessment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »