Chennai Court June 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.
Sriram ... Vs. the Executive Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
1. The petitioner states that the first respondent temple issued a notification inviting tenders / public auction to be held on 14.05.2010 relating to vending of Prasadams in the temple for the period from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. It is stated in the tender notification that the last date for receipt of tender documents was 14.05.2010 at 04.00 p.m. and the tender box will be kept open in the temple office from 10.00 a.m. on 13.05.2010. The tender box will be opened at 04.00 p.m on 14.05.2010 in the temple premises. Public auction is also contemplated. Duly filled tender forms should be deposited in the tender box in a sealed cover. It is further stated that the tenderers should deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the first respondent temple, along with the tender form. It is also stated in the tender notification that the persons, who did not offer their tender, could participate in the public auction, by depositing a sum of ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. the India Cements Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue relates to admissibility of MODVAT credit on capital goods used in mines. The mines are the captive mines of the assessees and, therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore [2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC)] holding that credit is admissible in the case of use of these items in captive mines is squarely applicable to the present case and following the same, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Lovely Offset Printers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeals. Leave granted appeals are dismissed as withdrawn....
Texmo Industries (Motor Division) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeal. Leave granted appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....
Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram A demand of Rs.6400/- has been confirmed along with Cess of Rs.900/- on rejected tea on the ground that it undergoes various processes like grinding, pulverizing, powdering and is mixed with green leaf and this is a process amounting to manufacture. 2. The assessees have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we heard ld. DR and perused the records. 3. We find that the assessees are relying upon the decision in their own case Final Order No.1042-1050/06 dt. 10.11.06 in which levy of Cess was set aside relying upon the earlier order of the Tribunal in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy 2005 (187) ELT 247. However, we note that in the present case, it is not only a demand of Cess but also demand of duty as set out above. Therefore, as the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessees relates only to non-levy of Cess, we set aside the demand of Cess of Rs.900/-. 4. As regards the duty demand, we are in agreement with finding of the authorit...
Sovereign Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The common issue arising for determination in both these appeals is whether installation and commissioning charges are includible in the assessable value of final products manufactured by the assessees herein. 2. The assessees have asked for a decision on merits and hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We note that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the context of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act post-1.7.2000 (which is the period in the present case) in the case of Emerson Network Power India P.Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2004 (176) ELT 168]. 2. Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Modi Pipes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of PVC plastic piping and casing falling under Chapter Heading 39.26 of the First Schedule to the CETA 85. Based upon intelligence that they were clearing goods affixed with the brand name MODI which does not belong to them, without payment of duty, under the pretext of availing SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000, a show-cause notice dt. 27.1.2003 proposing denial of the benefit of the SSI notification, recovery of duty of Rs.8,20,977/- together with interest, and proposing imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rule 173Q as well as Section11AC of the Central Excise Act was issued. The notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner who confirmed the demand on the ground that brand name MODI belonged to M/s.Modi Industries, a proprietary concern of Late Dinesh Modi, father of Nilesh Modi who was one of the partners of the respondents herein. Penalties were also imposed. The Co...
Allied Healthcare India and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airpo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
The issue for determination in Appeal No.C/376/2003 is the eligibility of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. dt. 1.3.2001 to Electro-surgical equipment imported by the assessees vide bill of entry dt. 20.11.2001, claiming such equipment to be diathermy equipment. The issue in Appeal No.C/24/2004 is the eligibility to the benefit of the exemption under the same notification to Cardiac Stents imported under bill of entry dt. 3.12.2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the benefit of exemption to cardiac stents, accepting the assessee s plea, relying upon technical literature and certificate of one Dr.G.Sudarsana, that stents are accessories of catheters. He has, however, rejected the claim for exemption to Electro-surgical Generator on the ground that diathermy apparatus is different from electro-surgical apparatus and the two cannot be treated as similar apparatus. 2. We have heard both sides. As per the invoice and the catalogue, Electro-surgical...
M/S. Royal Enfield Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The appellants manufacture motor cycles of various models. Apart from making direct sales, the appellants also sale motor cycles through dealers for which there are dealership agreements. 3. It is contended by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, learned counsel for the appellants that under the agreements there is no obligation for advertising by the dealers but on voluntary basis dealers do advertising of the motor cycles and the appellants reimburse part of the expenses. He states that part of the advertising expense which is reimbursed by the appellant forms part of the cost of the product and therefore becomes part of the assessable value on which excise duty is being paid. The Department is seeking to include the part of the advertisement expense incurred by the dealers and not reimbursed by the appellants in the assessable value. He states that there is no warrant in law for doing so as the advertisement done by the dealers in the local ar...
Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant is a Govt. of India Enterprise requiring COD clearance to pursue the appeal. In the absence of clearance, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »