Chennai Court January 2011 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. Premier Polytronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
Heard both sides. 2. Shri C. Saravanan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods were exported to China for exhibition availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No.263/79 dated 23.9.1979 following the prescribed procedure of export under bond. The impugned goods were subsequently imported and cleared on 21.3.2003 without payment of duty. Later on, show-cause notice dated 27.8.2003 was issued to the appellants demanding duty and interest on the same. The appellants have paid the duty demanded on 24.9.2004. The appellants have challenged the demand of interest through this appeal on the ground that there was no willful or intentional misdeclaration on the part of the appellants and therefore the interest on the delayed payment of duty is not payable. The appellants have also taken the ground that the delay in payment of duty was not on account of any fault or mistake on their part. 3. The learned Advocate initially made a submission that th...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Ggn Spinning Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
Heard both sides. 2. Ms. Indira Sisupal, learned JDR appearing for the Department states that the respondents removed capital goods on which they had availed CENVAT credit to their sister unit. According to the rules in force at the material time, they were required to pay duty on the value of the capital goods. The respondents, according to her, have calculated depreciated value applying depreciation at the rate of 25% as provided under the Income Tax Act and have therefore paid less amount of duty than they would have paid. She states that the depreciated value of the goods were required to be done in accordance with Board s Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 (Sl. No. 14 to the Table annexed to the circular) read with Circular F. No. 495/ 16/93-Cus. VI dated 26.5.1993 referred to therein. She states that these circulars provide for a depreciation of 4% for every quarter in the first year, 3% for every quarter during the second year, 2.5% for every quarter during the third yea...
M/S.Aravind Opticals, Rep. by Managing Director/Partner Vs. S. Sampath
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
The Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and sufferings. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.08.2007 in C.C.247/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.01.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order, of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The order under challenge in this appeal is dated 29.08.2007 in OP.247/2005, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore , wherein, a direction has been given against the opposite party/appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with cost, for the alleged defici...
K. Ibrahim Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.49,600/- towards the value of the damaged baggage, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the order of the District Forum dt.03.03.2009 in C.C.121/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. Facts leading to this appeal in brief:- The complainant/appellant along with his wife, traveled from Chicago to Chennai in the opposite partys airlines on 25/26.06.2005, checking in, four suitcases, weighing 129 kgs. In the suitca...
Cce, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. PolyspIn Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
Heard both sides. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether credit of service tax paid on foreign commission agents services are available in respect of goods exported and the amounts involved are only Rs.2,512/- in one case and Rs.24,302/- in another case.. The same issue has been dealt with by the Division Bench yesterday i.e. 13.1.2011 in Appeal Nos. E/544/2009 and E/191/2010 allowing the credit. As such, the appeals filed by the Department in these two cases require to be dismissed. I order accordingly....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Ayya Communications
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
Heard both sides. 2. The Department is in appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority waiving all the penalties imposed against the respondents citing the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned SDR appearing for the Department states that this is not a case that can be brought under the purview of Section 80 as in this case the respondents were liable to pay service tax with effect from 1.7.2003. They had obtained registration and they had paid an amount of Rs.7,870/-towards service tax during the period December 2005 to March 2006. The impugned period is from April 2006 to October 2006 for which they have neither paid any service tax nor filed any service tax returns as required under the law. Only after investigation by the Department it was ascertained from the statement of M/s. AIRCEL Ltd. dated 24.11.2006 that the respondents have received an amount of Rs.5,38,644.23 towards commission charges for the period from April 2006 to October 2006. Ad...
Cce, Madurai Vs. K. Selvaraj
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
Heard both sides. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Department on the ground that the lower appellate authority has no power to remand the matter to the original authority. I find that this is a service tax case and this Bench has already held in the case of CCE Vs. Ramesh Enterprises vide detailed Final Order No. 1276/2010 dated 13.12.2010 that Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of remanding a service tax matter to the original authority under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. As such, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed....
M/S. Tafe Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
Heard both sides. 2. The original authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs.3,90,796/- against the appellants and has appropriated an amount of Rs.1,45,448/- paid by the appellants before the issue of show-cause notice and he has also imposed a penalty of Rs.3,90,796/- in addition to demanding appropriate interest. The lower appellate authority has upheld the penalty amount but has set aside the order of denial of CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the impugned goods subject to production of relevant invoices etc. to the satisfaction of the authorities. The lower appellate authority has not specifically remanded the matter to the original authority and has not also directed for re-quantification of the duty amount which would be necessary in the light of his order to allow the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs. In the absence of re-quantification of the duty amount, confirming the penalty amount equal to the total duty amount cannot be justified....
Dr. Amala Vs. Tmt. Marikkannu
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party, praying for various reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint granting Rs.2,21,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.10.2005 in COP No.35/2003. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 23.12.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, upon perusing written arguments, lower court records, and also the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party having suffered an adverse order, in the hands of District Forum, Trichy, in O.P.No.35/2003, has challenged the said order, in this appeal. 2. The complainant/respondent, was admitted in the opposite party/ appellants, hospital for second delivery on 8.1.2002. She delivered a male baby, on 10.1.2...
Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein, who are manufacturers of pharma products falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985, manufacture both dutiable goods as well as exempted goods in terms of Notification No.4/06 dt. 1.3.06 viz. intravenous fluids falling under Sl.No.58 etc. and formulations/life saving drugs falling under Sl.No.59 of the Table thereto. They availed of CENVAT credit in respect of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input service in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They maintained separate accounts in respect of common inputs used both for dutiable and exempted products; however, they did not maintain separate accounts of common input services used in the manufacture of both categories of products. As per Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, where a manufacturer avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs/input service and manufactures such final products which are chargeable to duty as well as exempted goods...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »