Chennai Court February 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.
Kali Aerated Water Works (Madurai) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeals involve a common issue viz. benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Sl.No.15 of the Table to Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 to aerated waters (Bovonto quality) supplied by the assessees to vending machines covering different periods, and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. We have heard both sides. Sl.No.15 of the Table to the notification covers ‘aerated waters prepared and dispensed by vending machines’. The claim to the benefit is made on what is supplied in canisters to the vending machines in which Carbondioxide is added and aerated water comes into existence and is dispensed through the vending machines. In the light of the clear language of Sl.No.15, assessees have no case for exemption for the goods supplied to the vending machines which is nothing but soft drink concentrate. The argument that what is supplied in canisters to the vending machines is in semi-finished form a...
Pioneer Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present case namely as to whether on forfeiture of fortnightly payment facility covering the period 31.3.2001 to 25.5.2001,CENVAT credit could be utilized for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of excisable goods, stands settled in favour of the assessees for the period prior to 31.5.2005 (when sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was amended to debar use of CENVAT credit) by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs UOI [2009 (246) ELT 114 (Bom.)].Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
M/S. Madhav Marbles and Granites Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. 2. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have borne the incidence of duty themselves and this has been demonstrated before the lower appellate authority by producing copies of the invoices, which shows that the appellants have not changed the price during the periods they were paying lesser and higher duty. He states that when the price is not varied, the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted as per the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta-III Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. - 2004 (172) ELT 310 (Cal.).3. However, we find that a three judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. - 2004 (116) ELT 3 (S.C.), has held that uniformity in price does not lead to inevitable conclusion that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer as such uniformity may ...
Star Drugs and Research Labs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the assessees were directed to deposit Rs.20,76,609/- in the order passed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in an appeal against the order of the Asst. Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalty. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance vide the impugned order. The assessees preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with application for waiver and vide Stay Order No.1357/2005 dt. 21.3.05, Rs.10 lakhs was directed to be deposited. Assessees having complied with the order and the impugned order not recording any finding on merits of the demand, we set aside the same and remit the case for fresh decision to the lower appellate authority who shall pass fresh orders on merits in accordance with law after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 2. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....
Sharp Tools Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In both these appeals, interest has been demanded from the assessees for the reason that they had not paid duty amount on fortnightly basis as per Rule 173G (1) (a) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 but instead paid on monthly basis and therefore there was a delay in payment. In appeal E/764/04 covering the period from Jan-01 to Aug-01 a penalty of Rs.3000/- has been imposed. 2. We have heard both sides. As per Rule 173G (1) (a), every manufacturer, other than a manufacturer who is availing exemption under a notification based on value of clearances in a financial year, is liable to pay duty in respect of clearances of excisable goods - (i) during the first fortnight of the month, by the 20th day of that month (ii) during the second fortnight of the month, by the 5th day of the succeeding month and (iii) during the second fortnight of March month, by the 31st day of March. The assessees being SSI unit, are availing exemption under a notification which...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Tamil Nadu Asbestos ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondent is a State Government undertaking. The Revenue has not obtained requisite COD clearance for pursuing the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Tansi Engineering Work ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondent is a State Government undertaking. The Revenue has not obtained requisite COD clearance for pursuing the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted....
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Mrs.Ja ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Salem, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to pay opposite parties 2, 3, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and 4, to pay all the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards punitive damages and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Salem dt.28.04.2008 in C.C.No.75/2004. After hearing the arguments of appellant side, finally on 21.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. 4th Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/complainant originally filed a complaint against respondents 2 to 4, claiming policy amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against the death of the complainants husband and directing the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000...
The Special Officer Tirunelveli Special-70- Sillanatham Primary Agricu ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40000/- with 7.5% interest p.a., alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 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.7.8.2008 in CC. No.37/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite parties 1 and 2, in O.P.No.37/2007, on the file of District Forum, Tuticorin, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dt.37/2007, have come before this Commission, as appellants. 2. The 1st respondent, in this appeal, who is t...
Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Vs. Sujatha and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore alleging deficiency against the opposite party and praying to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the matured policy amount with interest at 18% p.a. till realization, to pay the future premium and other benefits, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and 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, Coimbatore dt.13.05.2008 in C.C.No.275/2007. After hearing the arguments of appellant side, finally on 21.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondents/complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for payment of claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the insurance policy amount for the death of 1st complainants husband Sadhasivam and Rs.10,000/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›