Chennai Court August 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.
M/S. Indian Foods (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants herein received ATC flats supplied by Britannia Industries Ltd., Madras which were cleared by the manufacturer after paying an amount of 8% advalorem on the value in terms of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The amount so reversed was taken as MODVAT credit by the assesses and this was objected to by the Department on the ground that the said amount cannot be equated with duty of excise for the purpose of availment of credit. The authorities below have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2001 (135) ELT 795 to hold that the amount expunged under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be considered as excise duty and therefore credit cannot be availed thereof. 2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records (the assessees have asked for a decision on merits), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order relying upon the Tribunal’s decisi...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the levy of interest and imposition of penalty on the assessees herein - the setting aside is on the ground that differential duty paid by the assessees was available to assessees themselves in an other factory and therefore intention to evade payment of duty cannot be alleged for the purpose of holding that the assessees are liable to penalty and interest. He has also relied upon the fact that the differential duty has been paid before the issue of show-cause notice to hold that penalty cannot be sustained. 2. We have heard both sides. The payment of the amount before issue of the show-cause notice is no longer a ground to hold that penalty and interest are not sustainable. However, the availability of differential duty as credit to the assessees themselves is certainly a ground for holding that there cannot be guilty of any intention to evade payment of duty. The deci...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. K.T.V. Oil Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is whether benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended by Notification No. 139/99-Cus. dated 30.12.1999 is available to the assessees on import of crude sunflower seed oil. The benefit has been extended by the lower appellate authority in separate orders all of which are challenged by the Revenue in the present appeals on the ground that there is a shortage of oil in the quantities between the Bills of Entry and the actual quantity received and used in the refinery. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the quantity as per shore tank receipt has been taken while the Revenue contends that the quantity in the ship ullage survey report is required to be adopted. The apex Court’s decision in NOCIL - 2002 (142) ELT A280 (SC) has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also relied upon CBEC’s Circular No.96/2002-Cus. dated 27.12.2002 to ho...
M/S. Stallion Garments Vs. Cc, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard both sides. 2. In pursuance of favorable order of the Tribunal No. 217 to 292/09 dated 26.03.08, the original authority sanctioned draw back claim and also interest for delayed payment of the draw back claim reckoning the due date from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. The original authority declined interest for the earlier period ie., from the date of Let Export order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 3. Both sides agree that identical issue arising out of the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 26.03.08, in respect of M/s. Marvel Apparels and M/s. Styleman in appeal No. C/184/10 and C/196/10 has been decided allowing interest for the delay after the expiry of one month from the date of Let Export in respect of each of the consignments. 4. In view of the detailed reasons given in the said order, the present appeal is also allowed with consequential relief as per law....
Commissioner of Customs, Trichy Vs. M/S. Kiran Pondy Chem Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the enhancement of value of Titanium Dioxide B101 Anatase imported by the respondents herein in September 2001. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the value declared by the assessees swas US$ 825 equal to Rs.39,454.38. Contemporaneous import of identical goods from China in November 2001 by M/s. Berger Paints was noticed and that value was adopted by the Department for rejecting the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, relied upon import of identical goods from the same supplier in January 2002 by M/s. Pure Trading Asia Ltd., Karaikal. We find that the import by M/s. Berger Paints can be treated as contemporaneous import as that import took place just about two months subsequent to the import by M/s. Kiran Pondy Chem Ltd. The fact that M/s. Berger Paints imported from China while the assessee imported from Hong Kong does not make a difference. The...
M/S. Elegant Fabric Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. All these appeals, by the same appellants, are arising out of common order in appeal C.Cus. No. 33 to 41 dated 04.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants imported fabrics and filed nine Bills of Entries on various dates starting from 7.8.09 to 2.9.09, claiming classification under various sub-headings such as 5007.2090, 5210.2190, 5408.2120, 5408.3490, 5408.2110 and 5212.2190. The assessments were completed by the assessing authorities accepting the claims of the appellants with regard to the classification and exemption Notification. The appellants paid the duties as assessed and cleared the consignments. Thereafter, they challenged by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessment made in the nine Bills of Entries on the ground that they were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 30/04-CE dated 09.07.04 as amended. They also submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that they could not claim the benefit ...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Nellai Concrete Products and Construction Co ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 33/2010 dated 25.02.2010, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the power of remand has been specifically taken away by amendment to Section 35(A), w.e.f. 11.05.2001. Therefore, he submits that the Commissioner should have called for report on the relevant facts and decided the matter himself, instead of remanding to the original authority. 4. Ld. Consultant defended the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Asia Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004 (165) ELT 349. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. Contradicting judgments regarding the availability of power of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) has been cited....
Shri K. Dasarathan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Penalty of Rs. One lakh imposed under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellant is challenged by him. 2. We have heard both sides. The importer of upholstery fabrics for whom the appellant filed bills of entry have been found to be non-existent and its proprietor Shri Ashfaq Ahmed has also not been found and the Commissioner has therefore held that the importer and its proprietor are fictitious. The goods have been confiscated on the ground that they were imported duty-free under DEEC scheme in the name of a non-existent firm which had also supplied fake/forged bank guarantees and the goods imported duty-free had been sold in the local market without complying the export obligation. As far as the appellant is concerned, he has misused the CHA licence of M/s. Maruti Transport without even taking care to verify whether M/s. Galaxy Exports existed. The Commissioner has held that he should have exercised greater care particularl...
M/S. Arasan Syntex Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The demand of Rs.54,543/- being service tax on services rendered to the assessees by goods transport operators, together with interest @ 24% p.a. for the period from 16.7.1997 to 1.8.1999 is disputed in the present appeal. 2. The appellants have filed written submission; we heard the learned SDR and perused the records. As per Section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000 those who are receiving services rendered by transport operators are liable to pay tax for the services availed by them. The Act has retrospective effect from 16.7.1997. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the assessees are liable to pay tax on the services received by them from the GTO. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Tamilnadu Road Development Company Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Custom ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant is a public sector undertaking. No clearance from the Committee on Disputes has been produced. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with liberty to apply for restoration as and when COD clearance is granted....
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »