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.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
Vide the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has held that CENVAT credit of service tax paid is admissible on GTA service relating to coal used for generation of electricity used for staff quarters of the assessee and set aside the interest relatable to the above credit, as well as set aside the penalty. 2. I have heard both sides. Ld. counsel for the assessee does not dispute that credit is not admissible and states that the assessee has reversed the credit. Her only prayer is that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. 3. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)] holding that on account of repeated amendments to the CENVAT Credit Rules, penalty on the assessee is not justified, I hold that penalty on the assessee is not warranted. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by disallowing credit on GTA service relating to coal used for production of electricity used for staff quarters but ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. Dcw Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of credit of service tax paid on passenger air fare 2) service tax paid on servicing charges and insurance charges of company vehicle 3) service tax paid on residential telephone lines of the staff of the assessee and 4) setting aside of penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Heard ld. SDR and perused the records none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. 3. I find no legal infirmity in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is eligible to credit of service tax paid on air travel fare, if the air travel has been performed for the purpose of company business. It is not the case of the department that air travel was performed for the personal purposes of the officers of the manufacturing company. Therefore, credit has rightly been extended. As regards extension of credit of service tax paid on servicing charges and insurance charges of the company vehicle, in the light of Tribunal’s deci...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. Plascare Industries (P) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
The issue in dispute namely as to whether benefit of condition No. (vi) of Notification No.96/2004-Cus can be denied to the assessee in respect of imports made after 17.9.2004 and cleared on payment of duties by way of debits in DEPB licences issued after the said date, stands settled in favour of the assessee by Tribunals decision in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2007 (217) ELT 562] wherein the objection of the Revenue on the ground that duty was not paid in cash has been negatived and it has been held that such benefit is available. Following the ratio of the above decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Deccan Bitumen Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenn ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
CENVAT credit has been extended to the assessee by the Commissioner of Central Excise; however penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed under Rule 15 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that invoices on the strength of which credit was taken did not contain all the particulars as required under Rule 11 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Heard both sides. Once the Commissioner has held that credit is admissible on the strength of invoices which did not contain dealer registration number on the ground that absence of the above particulars was only a lapse which occurred during the transitional period, imposition of penalty is not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the penalty and allow the appeal....
C.R.i.Pumps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
The authorities below have disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs.2,07,636/- availed by the assessee of duty paid on pumps, electric motors and accessories received as samples on the ground that the goods were neither capital goods nor inputs eligible to credit. The period in dispute is April 2006 to December 2007. Penalty of amount equal to credit denied has also been imposed. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessee imported/purchased from manufacturers, electric motors and pumps etc. and dismantled the same to find out the technology used by other manufacturers of pumps etc. As per Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, capital goods - means the following goods namely :- “i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85 - ii) - iii) - iv) - v) - vi) - vii) - used - (1) in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office; or (2) for providing output services.” There is no dispute that the goods...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Another Vs. S. Jeg ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
The Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to execute the Sale Deed, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings, to pay Rs.3,000/- towards expenses and to pay the cost of the complaint. 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.27.06.2006 in C.C.60/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.12.2010, upon hearing the arguments of either counsels and perused the documents, written submission of the Respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent, who is the complainant, had applied for allotment of a house in Palayamkottai Rural Development Part-V Scheme, sponsored by the opposite parties/appellants on 27.4.9...
V. Baskaran Vs. the Branch Manager, Uti Bank
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
The Appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards cheque amount and mental agony with cost. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.05.2007 in C.C.351/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.12.2010, upon hearing the arguments of 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. The complainant/appellant was having a savings bank account, with the opposite party, in which, he remitted a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 28.01.2004 by cheque, issued by third party. After giving credit, the complainant had several transactions. When he had received the statement of account, for t...
Ex Hony Nb Subedar a Vanaraj Vs. the Under Secretary to Government of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Lt Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman) 1. The applicant, a retired Havildar / Hony Nb Subedar of the Army, has by means of OA 35 of 2010, challenged the impugned order of rejection of disability pension in his second appeal to the first respondent. 2. The short facts of the application, sans irrelevant particulars, are set out as follows: 2(a) The applicants second appeal for claim of Disability pension was rejected by the first respondent vide their letter F.No.1(39)/2008/D(Pen/Appeal) dated 21.05.2009. The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 28.10.1975 as Army Store Keeper in the ASC and rendered 26 years and 4 days of qualifying service. The applicant was discharged on 31.10.2001 as per Army Rule 13(3) item III(i), i.e., invalided out from service on medical grounds (erroneously mentioned by the applicant) from 217 Petroleum Controlling Unit, Wadala, Mumbai 37. The applicant would state that on 16.10.2000, on reporting sick, he was referre...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Sree Kaderi Ambal Steels L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
The respondents herein, manufacturers of MS ingots, were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and exercised their option to pay duty under Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Their annual production capacity was determined at 12800 MTs under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 1997, by the Commissioner’s order dt. 30.9.97 and the duty liability was worked out as Rs.13,33,334/- per month. As per Rule 96ZO, the duty liability as determined was required to be paid in two equal instalments, the 1st instalment latest by the 15th day of each month and the 2nd instalment latest by the 1st day of each month failing which interest @ 18% per month is required to be paid until the date of actual payment. The assessee had not discharged the duty liability and defaulted in payment for the period from 16.9.1997 to 31.3.1998. A letter dt. 24.4.98 was issued by the jurisdictional range officer calling upon th...
Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pondiche ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the above appeals (details of which are set out in the annexure to this order) is as to whether the value adopted by M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as SFL), who are manufacturers of nuts, bolts and screws falling under Chapter Heading 73.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for clearances to M/s.Sundaram Motors, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as SM) and M/s.Madras Auto Service, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as MAS), which two companies are divisions of M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as TVS), and TVS and SFL are interconnected undertakings, should be based on the price at which the goods were sold by SM and MAS as per the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 11, 9 and 10 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »