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.
Maveric Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein are engaged in testing of functionality and performance of software developed by its clients. As per Section 65 (106) of the Finance Act, 1994, technical testing and analysis service was defined as any service in relation to physical, chemical, biological or any other scientific testing or analysis of goods or material or any immovable property. Therefore, it appeared to the excise authorities that testing service rendered by the appellants was liable to service tax w.e.f. 1.7.2003. Appellants were also engaged to supply the required skilled manpower to test the software being developed by their clients and since manpower supply had been included as a taxable service under Section 65 (105) (k) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 16.6.2005, it appeared that subsequent to 16.6.05, the appellants were rendering manpower supply services which was liable to service tax with effect from the above mentioned date. Since service tax on both the services ...
Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Chennai Vs. Leap International P.Ltd ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2010
After condoning the delay of 10 days in preferring the above appeals arising out of a common impugned order, and dismissing the prayer for stay of operation thereof, I proceed to take up the appeals themselves for decision at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s.Graphite India Ltd. (importer) filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of zinc phosphate covered under Bill of Lading dt. 30.9.07 and invoice dt. 13.9.07. The Bill of Entry was filed under the DEPB scheme claiming exemption under Notification No.89/05-Cus. at Sl.No.1 of the Table thereto. The Bill of Entry was facilitated in the Risk Management Scheme (RMS) waiving assessment and examination, and after scrutiny, out of charge order was passed on 27.10.07. On 31.10.07, the CHA intimated the authorities that due to oversight, only one invoice was mentioned and requested permission for inclusion of the second invoice covered by Bill of Entry for reassessment. The adjudicating authorit...
M/S.Leo Oils and Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the appeal filed by the assessees against confirmation of demand of Rs.56,95,736/- representing MODVAT credit alleged to have been wrongly availed by the respondents for the periods both prior to 01.04.1994 when the gate pass system was in force and post 01.04.1994 when invoice system replaced the earlier system, was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There was a delay of 40 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal did not find it fit to condone the delay and hence dismissed the Appeal No.E/873/2004 vide Final Order No.125/2006 dated 21.02.2006. Aggrieved by this, the assessees preferred a Writ Petition No.8758/2006 and vide order dated 15.02.2010, the High Court set aside the Tribunal s order dated 21.02.2006 and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, an...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S.Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2010
Heard both sides. It is confirmed by both sides that the amount involved in this appeal filed by the department is relating to an amount of Rs.91,858/- only and the same does not involve any classification or valuation issue and hence the appeal can be heard and decided by the Single Member Bench. 2. The learned JCDR fairly states that the demand amount of Rs.91,858/- was adjusted against refund due to the respondents but the said demand has since been set aside by the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 30.09.2008 in Writ Appeal Nos.19to 21 of 2001. In view of the cited decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the order passed by the lower appellate authority setting aside the order of adjustment is legal and proper and the same requires no interference. As such, the department s appeal is dismissed....
M/S.Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondiche ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein manufacture various industrial chemicals. In one of their plants, they manufacture Denatured Ethyl Alcohol for which they filed a price declaration of Rs.11,174/- per KL on 12.04.1994 with effect from 01.04.1994, for clearance of the goods for captive consumption, based on the cost of production and gross profit earned during the previous year and various elements of cost of production such as, raw material cost, overheads etc. Subsequently, a revised declaration was filed on 08.10.1994 of Rs.16,486/- per KL with retrospective effect from 01.04.1994. Provisional assessment of RT 12s from 01.04.1994 was ordered by the Assistant Commisisoner’s letter dated 17.10.1994, on the ground that the price of comparable goods is available and that should be adopted as assessable value and further details are required for arriving at duty due on the goods, since the profit shown by the assessee was only provisional. B-13 Bond was executed by the ap...
M/S. Virgo Properties Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. For the reasons stated below, we waive the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. Shri V. Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants had acquired the land and subsequently built the houses / flats thereupon which were transferred to the customers after the construction was completed. As such, the ownership of the property remain with the appellants till the construction was over and the residential units were handed over to the ultimate buyers. Hence, the case squarely falls under paragraph 3 of the Circular No.108/2/2009-ST dated 29.1.2009 which was not available at the material time when the original order was passed. Further, he pleads that in view of the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ardra Associates Vs. CCE, Calicut 2010 (17) STR 162, the matter requires to be reconsidered applying the ratio of...
Spic Smo Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram For the reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of penalty of Rs.30 lakhs imposed upon the assessees herein for wrong availment of CENVAT credit during the period April 2007 to March 2008 and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. The service tax amount of Rs.1,24,36,820/- utilized by the assessees during the period in dispute has been reversed on 30.4.08 prior to the issue of show-cause notice dt. 21.7.08. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1944 are attracted so as to hold that assessees are not liable to any penal action. Section 73 (3) reads as under :- “SECTION 73. ‘Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - - (3) “Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person chargeable with the service tax, or the person ...
Nucletron India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport), Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, vide the order dt. 16.1.03, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the transaction value of medical equipment imported by the appellants herein and the importer and the supplier were held to be related persons. In the absence of issue of any show-cause notice or personal hearing, the importer challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. She has held that, according to her, the Deputy Commissioner has determined the value using reasonable available means consistent with the principles of general provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and sub-section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962. She also held that if the importer was able to show that the similar discounts claimed by the importer were available to independent buyer or other discounts were available to independent importer, due adjustments may be given and the value may be accordingly determined under ...
Zeno Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeal has been listed for hearing on a number of occasions and has been adjourned from time to time. 2. Ld.counsel for the appellants has sent a request for adjournment. However, no reason is contained therein. It appears from the fact that the case has been adjourned from time to time that the appellants are not serious in pursuing the matter. Hence we dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution....
Sri Kumaran Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Ser ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants have not complied with the direction for predeposit of Rs.1 lakh as contained in Stay Order No.144/10 dt. 8.3.10. Ld. counsel for the appellants also states that the assessees will not be in a position to deposit the amount as directed. The appeal is therefore dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›