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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Src Projects Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Adjustment of excess payment of service tax paid for services rendered to SEZ towards subsequent payment of service tax for the period from October 2005 to March 2006 is objected to by the department in this appeal on the ground that adjustment is provided for only under Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules and the provisions of the above Rule are not applicable in the present case as the assessees had, admittedly, rendered service to the SEZ (adjustment under the rule cited above is permissible only when no service has been rendered either wholly or partially). 2. I have heard both sides. I find that in a series of decisions including two cases relied upon by the lower appellate authority namely Nirma Architects and Valuers Vs CCE Ghaziabad [2006 (1) STR 305] and Prachar Communications Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2006 (2) STR 492], adjustment carried out by the assessees has been accepted by the Tribunal. Even if the Revenue is correct in their contention that a strict interpretation of the ru...
Commissioner of Customs (imports), Chennai Vs. Venus Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
The application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the above appeal is dismissed as the ground made out in the application is totally insufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay. As a result, the stay application is also dismissed and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation....
Meenakshi Match Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Credit of Rs.1,68,206/- representing 50% CENVAT credit on capital goods viz. match making machine has been denied to the assessees on the ground that it was taken on the strength of an endorsed Bill of Entry and sales invoice of the importer who was not registered with excise authorities, together with interest. 2. I have heard both sides. M/s.Arunshankar Match Industries, Pandarapuram had imported used match making machine Model KL/401. The Bill of Entry bears a noting that the capital goods covered under this Bill of Entry has been entirely transferred to Meenakshi Match Industries, Allampatti. The sales invoice does not indicate that the machine had discharged the liability to duty of customs. The submission of the assessees that the endorsed Bill of Entry read with sales invoice would clearly establish that the goods had entirely been transferred to them and that the goods in question which are also described in the sales invoice as match making machine Model KL/401 had discharged ...
Commissioner of Customs, TuticorIn Vs. New Hope Food Industries (P) Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
The reduction of fine in lieu of confiscation of Economical Margarine imported by the assessees/respondents and setting aside of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged by the Revenue in this appeal. The confiscation arises for the reason that the test report of the goods showed that they do not conform to the Standard of Margarine and also certified that cargo is adulterated and misbranded. 2. I have heard both sides. In para 4.3 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given twin reasons for reduction in penalty namely (a) that the assessees have not indulged in any such import of adulterated consignment previously and (b) there is no mistake on the assessee’s part but the mistake was that of the foreign supplier. He has also kept in view the fact that the assessees were ready to re-export the goods. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the reduction in the quantum of fine. As regards penalty, the lower appellate authority has ...
K.Abdul Hameed and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy and Ano ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
Maruti Car bearing Regn.No.KL-8N-7767 belonging to the assessee herein was confiscated under the provisions of Section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reason that it was used as conveyance for transporting the smuggled goods, with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 125 ibid. This order was challenged by the owner of the car by filing Appeal No.C/486/01 which was disposed of vide Tribunal’s order No.670/2008 dt. 8.7.08 by remanding the case for fresh decision on the quantum of redemption fine. By the present impugned order, the fine has been reduced to Rs.50,000/- which is challenged by the appellant. 2. Revenue is also in appeal against the Commissioner’s order on the ground that redemption fine could not be arrived at without there being an order of confiscation. 3. I have heard both sides. Although, ld. counsel for the appellant seeks to argue against the confiscation, I find that what has been directed by the Tribunal’...
Amma Alloy (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimb ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
The assessees are in appeal against confirmation of demand of Rs.3,14,236/- together with interest under Section 11AB and equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on clandestine removal of 818 MTs of ingots seized on 5.7.2006, and the confiscation thereof with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.1,81,280/-. 2. I have heard both sides. The charge of clandestine removal is based upon entries in a note book seized on 5.7.2006. The note book is described at Sl.No.45 of the mahazar as 1 Quire = size Note Book of Material Requirement. The submission of the assessees is that the author of the notebook one Shri Y.Yuvaraj, is the stores-in-charge of the company and he has admitted that he is maintaining the entries relating to raw material requirement. The assessees had throughout sought examination of the handwriting on the page in the private notebook showing stock of ingots as they denied that it had been written by Yuvaraj. The seizure of semi-finishe...
N.K.Fasteners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2010
The assessees challenge the demand of service tax of Rs.37,637/- together with interest and penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand is on certain activities such as processing and assembling Jeans Buttons with metal inserts and nylon inserts, and processing Needle Threader, on the ground that the processes do not amount to manufacture so as to be excluded from the levy of service tax. 2. I have heard both sides. Although the assessees had argued that the processes carried out by them amount to manufacture and therefore they have not provided any Business Auxiliary Service as held by the department, this argument was given up and the ld.consultant for the appellants raised the alternative contention that, even if the finding that the processes carried out did not amount to manufacture and they were, therefore, covered under Business Auxiliary Service is upheld, the duty liability arises from only w.e.f. 16.6.2005 when the processing of go...
P.R.Anuradha ... Vs. Mrs.V.Padmavathy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. The Revision petitioner/Defendant has projected this Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the judgment dated 16.03.2005 in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 passed by the Learned III Small Cause Court Judge, Chennai.2. The trial Court namely, III Small Cause Court in the judgment in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 dated 16.03.2005 has among other things observed that(a) the suit vacant site has not been given as Gift to the Revision petitioner/Defendant's mother in law namely, Thayammal and(b) the Revision petitioner/Defendant is a tenant of the land in the suit property.(c) the Revision petitioner/Defendant has constructed additional building without the permission of Respondent/Plaintiff.(d) the Revision petitioner/Defendant has constructed the building without the permission of the Respondent/Plaintiff and therefore she is liable to be evict and(e) the Revision petitioner/Defendant as tenant cannot cannot deny the title of the landlord in respect of the suit property and ...
H.Sonnappan, and ors. Vs. the Divisional Fire Officer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
1. The petitioners 1 to 3, H.Sonnappan, R.Janakiraman and M.Sekar filed the original application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking promotion as Leading Fireman, on the ground that respondents 3 to 5 namely, Jagadeesan, R.V.Radhakrishnan and Selvaraj, being Juniors, were considered for promotion leaving the petitioners, who were seniors to them.2. The 1st petitioner H.Sonnappan was appointed as Fireman on 10.11.1981 and posted to Hosur SIPCOT Fire Station in Dharmapuri District. At the time of filing the application, he was working in Denkanikottai Fire Ftation. The second petitioner R.Janakiraman was also appointed as Fireman on 01.04.1983 and posted to Salem Steel Plant Fire Station and at the time of filing the application, he was also working in Denkanikottai Fire Station. The third petitioner M.Sekar was also appointed as Fireman on 01.04.1983 and posted to Attur Fire Station, Salem District and at the time of filing the application, he was working at H...
M/S. Madras Cements Ltd Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein received inputs from the manufacturer M/s. Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Limited. Credit was initially taken on the strength of invoices under which the goods were classified under Chapter Heading 59.11. Show Cause Notice was issued to the manufacturer proposing re-classification under Chapter Heading 70.19 and proposing recovery of differential duty, applying proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The supplier issued three supplementary invoices showing the classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 70.19 and on payment of differential duty and the assessees herein took the credit, which is disputed by the department on the ground that additional duty became recoverable from the manufacturer as a result of fraud, suppression etc. and therefore, the assessees were hit by the restrictions/conditions stipulated under Rule 9 (1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads as under:- “the Cenvat Credit may be...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »