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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Eid Parry (i) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of sugar, molasses, denatured spirit and carbon dioxide. Show-cause notice was issued alleging that the assessees, while arriving at the cost of manufacture of denatured spirit, were adopting the price of molasses at which it was billed to unrelated buyers as the cost of molasses, instead of adopting 115% of such cost of molasses captively consumed as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly undervalued the denatured spirit. Besides, the following three elements were also included to arrive at the duty liability namely: - (1) Administration Fee of Rs.1/- per Litre of spirit paid to the State Govt. (2) Selling and Administration expenses and interest charges and (3) Loading of molasses price by 15% and another 15% of the value of denatured spirit. The adjudicating authority, while accepting that in terms of CAS-4 selling and administration expenses and interest are not includible in the ass...
Madhava Lakshmi Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbato ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein were engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn during the material period i.e. January to March 2000. Prior to 14.8.99, the assessees were clearing their products on payment of duty. On that date, they informed the department that they were availing SSI exemption in respect of the specified goods. For the period from August to October 1999, they cleared cotton yarn without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/99-Cus.(SSI exemption notification). For the subsequent period, they paid duty at concessional rate on their cotton yarn clearances as they crossed the aggregate clearance value limit of Rs.50 lakhs. The benefit of the notification has been denied to the assessees which resulted in a demand of duty as well as imposition of penalty. Hence this appeal. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that for the same issue, for the period immediately prior to the period in dispute in the present case, the Revenue’s appeal against the...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Mcnally Bharath Engineerin ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram On hearing both sides and noting that the issue in dispute namely as to whether service charge collected by the respondents herein is required to be included in the assessable value of the machinery supplied by them stands settled against the Revenue by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of the same assessees reported in 2004 (174) ELT 414 holding that service charge being independent of supplies is not includible in the assessable value of the machinery, we uphold the present impugned order which relies upon the Tribunal’s decision cited supra, and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Cheran Plast
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to Tribunal’s Final Order No.108/2001 dt. 9.1.2001 remanding the case for requantification of duty computation and reworking out of the benefit of deduction of duty element from the assessable value and also for reconsideration of the prayer for reduction of penalty in the light of reduction of duty amount. 2. According to the Revenue, the Commissioner has wrongly arrived at the duty amount of Rs.1,19,261/-, as according to them, the duty gets reduced to Rs.1,49,148/-. The further prayer of the Revenue is that Commissioner should not have reduced the penalty from Rs.1 lakh as imposed prior to the remand order of the Tribunal to Rs.35,000/-. We find that the Commissioner has noted that the Tribunal has held that duty in terms of impugned order gets reduced to Rs.1,19,261/-. This order of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly arrived at the reduced duty of R...
Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbato ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. The appellants have cleared the impugned goods to their own units on payment of duty by reversing the credit taken on such goods initially at the time of receiving in their factory. The authorities below have decided that appellants should have paid @ 115% of the cost of production instead of merely reversing the credit taken. However, we find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vadodara Vs Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 228] has held that, in such circumstances, it meets the requirement of law if the credit taken on the impugned goods is reversed when the same is cleared as such. Following the ratio of the cited decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the appellants are not required to pay any more duty than the reversal of credit amount already done by them. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed. Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The benefit of exemption in t...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Sree Lakshmi Trading Co
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), while upholding the confiscation of garlic of Chinese origin imported by the assessees and upholding the penalty, has set aside the redemption fine on the ground that margin of profit is shown as “Nil”. 2. We have heard both sides. Once the goods have been confiscated, fine in lieu of confiscation is required to be levied except in the case of absolute confiscation. Assessees herein have admittedly cleared the goods. Therefore, we are of the view that the Revenue is correct in its contention that redemption fine should have been levied. We hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a fine of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. We therefore partly allow the appeal by holding that the assessees are liable to a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)....
Prime Cotton Textiles and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The dispute in the present appeals relates to payment of additional duty of excise by 100% EoU. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessees by the judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs Union of India [2004 (170) ELT 518 (SC). The apex court’s decision has been followed by the Tribunal in M/s.BAPL Industries Vs CCE Coimbatore (BAPL is one of the three respondents in the Revenue’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) whose impugned order is challenged today before us). Following the ratio of the decision cited supra, we set aside the impugned order confirming duty demands, and allow the appeals....
Senior Depot Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees challenge the duty demand of Rs.71,57,637/- collected, by them as excise duty from their retail outlets and certain direct customers, on the ground that they are only the depots from whom the duty cannot be collected as duty liability lies upon the manufacturer of the goods in question. In this connection, they rely upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner reported in 2002 (144) ELT 672, 2002 (146) ELT 646 and 2003 (158) ELT 833 and also upon the fact that the S.L.P filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal’s order reported in 2003 (158) ELT 833 has been dismissed, as seen from 2004 (172) ELT A133 (SC) and the Tribunal’s order in their own case reported in 2007 (212) ELT 536. 2. Following the ratio of the above decisions, which held that demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can only be made from the manufacturer of the goods in respect of which such amount was collecte...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Sinetech
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) holding that Sign Poles are not marketable without being dismantled into its components/parts and are therefore immovable and not liable to duty. 2. The notice issued to the address for service given in the records has been returned undelivered; hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that similar issue had come up for decision in the case of Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai [2009 (243) ELT 132] wherein the Tribunal held that signages erected at various petrol bunks of IOCL were excisable goods liable to duty. We are also informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order No.101/2003 dt. 19.9.2003 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned order has been allowed by way of remand vide Final Order No.1619/2009 dt. 6.11.2009. We follow the same route in this case also and set aside the impugned order and...
Bangarammal. Vs. the Special Tahsildar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant as against the judgment and decree passed in LAOP No.35 of 1991 dated 30.4.2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal.2. The land of the appellant was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Arunthathiars in Rasipuram. The land of the appellant was situated in Rasipuram Village, Rasipuram Taluk. On such acquisition, the acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.16,201/- for 0.66.12 Cents in LAOP No.35 of 1991. The aggrieved appellant sought for higher compensation and hence the matter was referred to the decision by the Reference Court. In the present case the Sub Court, Namakkal.3. Before the Reference Court LAOP Nos.35 and 36 of 1991 were tried together. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined including the appellant as C.W.3. On the side of the Government, no witnesses were examined and no documents were filed. On the side of the claimants, Ex.C.1 Sale Deed dated 18.12.1988 was filed. On th...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »