Chennai Court April 2011 Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Klemmen Engineering Corpor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.7,73,766/- against the appellants and also ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period in dispute namely March 2001 to March 2002. The assessees challenged only levy of interest and did not dispute the duty liability before the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the assessee’s contention that since they paid duty pursuant to the adjudication order within 45 days, interest is not leviable in the light of the language of Section 11AB which provides that in cases where duty becomes payable consequent to issue of an order, instruction or direction by the Board under Section 37B, and the amount of duty payable is voluntarily paid in full, without reserving any right to appeal against such payment at any subsequent stage, within 45 days from the date of issue of such order, instruction or direction, no interest shall be payable. Hence this appeal by the Reve...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Bayer Indian Syntans Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is the classification of the product “Preventol NP” - whether a fungicide under Chapter Heading 38.08.10 as claimed by the assessees and upheld by both the authorities below, or under Chapter Heading 38.08.90 as preservative, as claimed by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the contention of the assessee on classification based upon the HSN Explanatory Notes on fungicides, test report of the Chemical Examiner and the explanation furnished by the CLRI, Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the findings and the department has not been able to dislodge the finding of the authorities below that the product is fungicide classifiable under Chapter Heading 38.08.10. The product is used as a chemical agent to effectively protect against attack of micro organisms like fungi, bacteria and moulds and since “Preventol MP” is gene...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Dsq Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The extension of benefit of “Nil” rate of duty in terms of Customs Notification No.29/97 by the adjudicating authority is challenged by the Revenue in this appeal. 2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of service of the notice; hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that the importers had submitted that the export product namely “Sorbitol” is an “Agro Product” and produced an amendment/endorsement of the DGFT on the EPCG licence. The decision of the EPCG committee to categorize “Sorbitol” under “Agro-based products” was on the basis of Revised National Industrial Classification of all Economic Activities’ issued by the Central Statistical Organization, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, Government of India. The benefit under the notification is available, inter alia, in case of a licence issued with an obligation to expo...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Total credit of Rs.19,94,383/- has been disallowed on structurals, tube sheets, MS plates, Aluminium rolled sheets and Aluminium corrugated sheets. In addition, a penalty of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on the assessees. The period of dispute is March 2001. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that structurals and tube sheets falling under Chapter Heading 73.08, MS plates falling under Chapter Heading 72.04, Aluminium rolled sheets and Aluminium corrugated sheets falling under Chapter Heading 76.06 are all in the nature of supporting structurals as brought out from the usage of these materials by the assessees themselves and hence are not eligible to credit, in the light of Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur [2010 (253) ELT 440]. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the denial of credit. As regards penalty, since we have held that the credit availed was irregular, penalty is justified and we, accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Devi Enterprises by Its Manager Vs. S. Srinivasan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of issuing NBW of the District Forum in EA No.10/2011 dt.09.11.201002.03.2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, this commission made the following order. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. (Open court) 1. Revision Petition itself taken for hearing. 2. The Judgement Debtor/opposite party, having suffered an exparte order, failed to take further action, resulting execution petition, where NBW was ordered to be issued, when it was sought to be enforced, at that time the opposite party, who failed to contest the case, as reported, filed this Revision Petition, as well as CMP.480/2011, for the stay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission directed the Judgement Debtor to pay the entire award amount, less mandatory deposit, since already deposited before this commission, as per order dt.24.3.2011, which w...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay pay the policy amount with 18% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of Rs.7500/-. 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.27.6.2007 in OP.No.15/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 20.4.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The facts leading to the subject The wife of the 1st complainant, and adoptive mother of the 2nd complainant, by name Thamaraiselvi, had taken two life insurance policies, from the opposite parties, for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50000/-, in 2001 and 1997 respectively, wherein sh...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Ramanathan and Another Vs. the Manager Indian Bank Asiad Colony ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction to the opposite parties. On which a petition has been filed by the opposite party, questioning jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the said petition. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.12.2010 in CC. No.07/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the petitioner, perusing the documents, 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. Heard. The petitioner, as complainant, has filed a case before the District Forum, Madurai, against two opposite parties, against whom cause of action had arisen, who are admittedly residing at Chennai, impleading a formal party 3rd opposite party, a branch office, at Madurai,...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Selvaraj Propr ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.7,20,000/- alongwith 18% interest, compensation and cost of Rs.10000/-. 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.20.3.2008 in OP.No.2/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.4.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent, in this appeal, had insured his business premises, and stock, with the opposite arty, for Rs.10 lakhs, between the period 3.12.2004 and 2.12.2005, under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, hereafter called the policy. In the Tsunami, which occu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. DolphIn Electronics Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. This appeal has been restored vide Misc. Order No. 136/10 dated 01.03.2010. Post restoration, the appeal has been listed for regular hearing on quite a few occasions and at every time the appeal has been adjourned at the request of the Ld. Counsel of the appellants. For today’s hearing, the Ld. Counsel has sought for adjournment on the ground of illness. However, from the note sheets and record we find that, the case has been adjourned several times and we are therefore not inclined to accede to the request for adjournment. Since, the assessees are not interested in pursuing the appeal we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Amman Granites Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The assessee is a 100% EOU procuring raw materials, consumables and fuels etc., without payment of duty, according to the provisions of Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 04.01.95. During the period 24.06.02 to 03.07.02, the assessees transferred 16000 liters of HSD oil to M/s. AG Granites Pvt. Ltd. Harur, without payment of duty, which was contrary to the provisions of amendment vide Notification No. 35/02 dated 24.06.02 to Notification No. 1/95-CE - as per the amendment no inter-unit transfer of raw materials, consumables and fuels etc., is permissible whether the units fall within the zone or outside the zone. A show cause notice proposing to demand duty on the clearances of quantity of HSD oil and to imposition of penalty was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority by confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 28,483/- together with interest and imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The Commissioner (A) upheld the duty demand and set aside the penalty. Hence, this appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »