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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.Vellore Shoe Fabrik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
The issue in dispute is as to whether a service recipient in India is liable to service tax for services received from abroad for the period prior to 18.04.2006. On hearing both sides, I note that this issue stands decided against the Revenue by the apex court decision in Union of India Vs Indian National Shipowners Association [2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)] in which the apex court upheld the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court holding that no levy of service tax arose in such as case prior to enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.04.2006. 2. Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S.Indian Oil Corpora ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
The appeal is dismissed for want of CoD clearance with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted. Cross objection also dismissed accordingly....
M/S. Shree Gopal Textiles Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
Heard both sides. There are findings with the authorities below that during the period April 2003 to September 2003, the appellants cleared the impugned processed cotton fabrics in the guise of rejects without payment of duty and without following the prescribed procedure for a value of Rs.22,47,367/- in a separate bill book. The appellants have paid the duty amount and interest amount on the evasion of duty coming to light. The learned counsel for the appellants Shri P.K. Parameswaran states that since the payment of duty has been done before issue of show-cause notice, no penalty should have been imposed on the appellants. 2. Shri C. Dhanasekaran, learned SDR appearing for the Department states that the legal position in respect of imposition of penalty in cases of evasion of duty involving fraud, concealment, suppression etc. is now settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (i) Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231)...
M/S.Subramanyasiva Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., and Another Vs. Commi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
Service Tax demand has been confirmed against both the assessees herein on the ground that they were receiving Good Transport Agency services. Penalties have also been imposed. 2. I have heard both sides on the appeals against the demand and penalties. The assessees have filed applications to raise additional ground that they received services from individual truck/tractor operators who do not fall within the definition of GTA as per Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the applications are based upon the Tribunal’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Guntur Vs Kanaka Durga Agro Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (15) S.T.R.399 (Tri.-Bang.)] holding that service tax is not payable when transport services are rendered by individual truck/transport operators, the applications are required to be allowed. I order accordingly. 3. The details of owners of vehicles on which the goods were loaded were not available before the authorities below. The interest of j...
A. Manimegalai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
The learned proxy counsel seeks for adjournment on behalf of the counsel for the appellants. However, I see no reason to keep the appeal pending and hence proceed to hear the learned DR and peruse the records. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessees against confirmation of demand on the ground that the appellants were rendering Tour Operator service, and imposition of penalty, for non-compliance with his direction for pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed pre-deposit of Rs.25,000/- only in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Since the appellants have complied with the pre-deposit direction, and since there is no finding on merits by the appellate authority, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case to Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass fresh order after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
Cce, Ltu, Chennai Vs. M/S. Areva T and D India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
Heard both sides. I find that the lower appellate authority has taken note of the fact that the respondents were not heard before passing the impugned Order-in-Original and hence there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Though he has not specifically stated, as fairly stated by the learned SDR, the lower appellate authority appears to have remanded the mater to the original authority for fresh determination after taking into account the directed documents to be filed by the respondents after giving them an adequate opportunity of hearing. The Department is aggrieved that the lower appellate authority’s order appears to be a conditional remand. 2. After taking into account the facts on record and the submissions made by the learned SDR, I modify the order of the lower appellate authority and make it an open remand to enable the original authority to pass a fresh order after taking into account any documentary evidence to be produced by the respondents and after ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.J. Dhanraj
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2010
In this case, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, while upholding the demand of service tax on Man-power Recruitment Service together with interest. The Revenue has challenged setting aside of the penalty. 2. I have heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has extended the benefit in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 by accepting that the appellants had put forth reasonable cause for non-payment of the tax. There is no challenge to the extension of protection in terms of Section 80 in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The only ground in the appeal of the Revenue is that Section 78 provides for imposition of penalty. 3. In these circumstances, I see no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, which is accordingly dismissed....
M/S.Canaan Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant’s challenge in the present appeal against confiscation of second-hand printing machines under the provisions of Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option of redemption and imposition of penalty, is to the quantum of fine and penalty the assessable value of the goods is approximately Rs.11,28,127/- and the fine in lieu of confiscation is Rs.3,00,000/- and penalty is Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the amounts of fine and penalty have been arrived at after considering the fact that the dates of the two bills of lading were manipulated. Although the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the manipulation was only by the shipper and that the appellants had nothing to do with such manipulation, we find that the shipper is not going to be benefited by the manipulation of bill of lading. It is only the importer who would stand to benefit since if the actual dates were shown in the bill of ...
M/S.Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Aquaculture Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. The defects pointed out by the Registry in their hearing notice have also not been rectified. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in terms of Rule 11 of CEASTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.Shivsu Watek P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is excisability of otherwise of Mineral Water Plant assembled at the site of customers both the authorities below have accepted the contention of the assessees that the item in question is not excisable goods but immovable property not subject to excise duty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Additional Commissioner has studied the erection and commissioning of the system in-depth and he has held that it is clearly evident that Mineral Water Purifying System emerged only at the site of the customer after they erected piece-by-piece and in all cases, the number of vessels/tanks/ultraviolet boxes etc., are grouted on a permanent basis. The relevant extracts of the adjudication order are reproduced herein below: “13.1 In the Post-filtration stage, the output received from Anion Chamber (the final stage of Pre-filtration) is pumped to a Break Pressure Tank by using stainless steel pipes; that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »