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, Pondicherry Vs. M/S.Bharat Sanchar Nig ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The respondents provide telephone services. Earlier, they were part of Department of Telecommunication and in November, 2000, they became a corporate entity. The impugned period in this case is November, 2000 to May, 2002. The learned counsel for the respondents/PSU, Shri K.S. Venkatagiri states that the respondents have paid certain amounts of service tax every month from October, 2000 to September, 2002 which were in some cases more than the tax due and in some cases less than the tax due. His contention is that the service tax return was to be filed once in six months and the assessments were to be done half-yearly. The excesses and shortages according to him are required to be adjusted and if there is any shortage, the respondents are liable to pay the interest on the service tax amount short-paid. 2. The department has demanded service tax only taking into account the shortages. It appears that the department holds the view that fo...
Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shri Jai Durga Import (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The Additional Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the goods declared as One step pregnancy test single pack imported by the respondents herein from China on the ground of mis-declaration of description and mis-declaration of value of the goods as it was found that the description on the single pack was One step HCG Urine Pregnancy test strip and that identical goods had been supplied by the same supplier from the same country of origin at the unit value of US$0.075 per piece, which was higher than the value declared by the importers, with an option to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 5000/- and had imposed a penalty under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, ought to have been invoked and this Section would make the importer liable to penalty equivalent to the duty sought to be evaded. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected ...
Cc, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. Dcw Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the assessees herein imported Vinyl Chloride Monomer vide Bill of Entry dated 23.02.1999 and cleared the goods on payment of duty. Subsequently, due to budget changes vide Notification No. 22/99-Cus dated 28.02.99, the CVD was reduced from 18% to 16%. Accordingly, the above Bill of Entry was re-assessed. This resulted in excess payment of Rs. 2,88,735/- for which the assessees filed a claim for refund. Show Cause Notice proposing the rejection of the claim was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, rejecting the claim as unsubstantiated. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the bar of unjust enrichment did not operate because for the reason that the Chartered Accountant has certified that the sum has not been charged to the price of the final product PVC Resin and that the excess duty paid by the assessees was held as receivables from Customs and also that the Range Superinte...
M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The demand of service tax on the assessees who are recipients of Goods Transport Operator’s services is required to be upheld in the light of the apex Court’s decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2006 (3) STR 608 (S.C.), upholding the validation of the levy of service tax on users of services rendered by goods transport operators, which was required in view of the apex Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. UOI -1999 (112) ELT 365 (S.C.). The impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs.15,88,185/- is therefore upheld and we reject the appeal in the light of the apex Court decision cited supra....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Eveready Industries India ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise finalized provisional assessment of zinc cans, zinc offcut/scrap etc. manufactured and stock-transferred by the assessees herein who are manufacturers of electric dry cell batteries and stock-transferred by them from their Tiruvottiyur factory to Guindy factory during the period 2001-02, by adopting the assessable value of materials/inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate goods along with addition of other elements as devised in CAS-4 for determination of the value of intermediate goods. He rejected the adoption by the assessees of the cost of production of inputs as the cost for inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate goods. This resulted in differential duty demand of Rs.5,48,366/- on AA mix 915, AA mix 1015 and AA cans, together with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, accepting the assessees contention that assessable value of EMD/zinc callot cannot be taken as the cost of the mate...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. the India Cements Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely the eligibility to credit on spares and components of Wagon Drill and Dumpers used in the capital mines of the assessees stands settled in their favour by Tribunal’s decision in their own case in Final Order No.1836/09 dated 30.11.09, wherein the Tribunal has followed the Apex Court’s decision in Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore 2006 (197) ELT 145 (S.C.). Following the same, we uphold the impugned order extending the credit to the assessees and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 2. The Cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s appeal and is therefore dismissed....
M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellant-public sector refinery removed the furnace oil from its Manali unit to its Nagapattinam unit following the warehousing procedure. The case records show that both the appellant-assessee and the departmental authorities were under the impression that furnace oil manufactured in the refinery at Manali can be moved duty-free to the unit at Nagapattinam, as both were deemed to be warehouses under the erstwhile Rule 140(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Larger Bench in the appellant’s own case, vide CCE, Chennai Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2008 (228) ELT 533 (Tri. LB), has held that with the introduction of the new Central Excise Rules in 2001 and 2002, refineries can no longer be deemed to be warehouses. 2. It is the contention of Shri R. Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned furnace oil was moved duty-free from Manali to Nagapattinam unit under the bonafide belief that both the refin...
M/S. Tvs Srichakra Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram Both appeals arise out of the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence taken up together for disposal. 2. The issue in dispute is the classification of waste of rubberized tyre cord warp sheet of high tenacity yarn manufactured by the assessees herein, who claims the classification under Chapter Heading 59.06 while the Revenue has classified the goods under Chapter Heading 59.02 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue has come up in appeal against setting aside of the demand by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the process of calendaring dipped warp sheet with rubber compound does not amount to manufacture. 3. Heard both sides. As regards classification, we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal as seen from 2009 (243) ELT 306 (Tri.-Chen.), accepting that the goods in question falls for classification under Heading 59.06 and not under Heading 59.02, in the ...
Indian Carpet Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-exports), Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Ld.counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the above appeal leave granted appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The EH application stands disposed of....
Jsw Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram For the reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of duty of Rs.57,98,690/- and penalty of equal amount and proceeded to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides. 2. A show-cause notice dt. 7.1.08 proposing recovery of Rs.1,32,51,385/- representing CENVAT credit wrongly availed on the strength of debit notes and abstracts of works contracts etc. and proposing imposition of penalty was issued. The adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) allowed CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs.74,52,695/- and disallowed credit of Rs.57,98,690/- on the ground that this credit was taken on the strength of photocopies of invoices, as verified by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. He also demanded interest on the amount confirmed and imposed a penalty equal to the credit disallowed. Hence this appeal. 3. The submission of the assessees is that they are in possession of the original invoices which are the valid duty pay...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »