Chennai Court June 2011 Judgments
M/S. Meenakshi Industries Vs. Cce, Puducherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly states that the issue is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440. He also states that the duty, interest and 25% of the penalty has already been paid within one month of the impugned order. He only prays that the second penalty imposed under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 may be set aside as the same is harsh in view of the penalty already imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 3. Hear the learned SDR who defends the impugned order. 4. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC meets the ends of justice and there is no need to impose another penalty of Rs.40,000/- under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the penalty amount imposed under Rule 13. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. In this case in the first round of appeal the lower appellate authority had remanded the matter for determining the amount of refund admissible to the appellants after computing the value applying Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Department does not dispute the applicability of the said Rule 7. The subsequent order passed by the lower appellate authority also does not dispute the applicability of Rule 7. Yet in the subsequent order against which this appeal has been filed before the Tribunal, the lower appellate authority states that the method adopted by the original authority is contrary to Rule 7. But he has not calculated the amount which would be correct and in accordance with the said Rule 7. Under the circumstances, merely setting aside the original order and leaving the vacuum cannot be approved particularly when the appellants have already received the refund amount in pursuance of the original order way back in August 2008. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mallow International Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C.Ex and St Tiruc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. At the outset, it stands confirmed by the Revenue that the calculation furnished by the assessees to show that they had discharged the entire service tax liability both on export commission as well as on local commission is correct. The assessees only dispute the liability to penalty. 2. Heard both sides. I find that the facts of the case are identical to that of M/s.Paradigm International wherein vide Final Order No.378-379/2011 dt. 1.3.2011, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed on the assessees, on the twin grounds of availability of credit of the service tax paid by them and the provision in the relevant EXIM policy that “for all goods and services exported from India, services received/rendered abroad, wherever possible, shall be exempted from service tax”. The ratio of the above order is applicable on all fours to the present case and therefore following the same, I set aside the penalty and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Sree Lotus Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
1. For reasons recorded below, I waived predeposit of penalty imposed upon the assessees (entire service tax demand has been paid together with interest) and proceeded to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides, as the issue lies within a narrow compass. 2. The Order-in-Original dt. 28.11.2008 was communicated to the assessees on 4.12.2008. Thereafter, on 23.9.2010, they wrote a letter to the department seeking rectification of the errors apparent on record. The above mentioned letter is reproduced herein below:- “Sub: Rectification of mistake - Order in original C.No.V/ST/15/49/2008 ADJ dated 28.11.2008 - M/s.Sree Lotus Exports -reg. Please refer to the order in original mentioned above. In this connection, we wish to submit the following details for your kind consideration. 2.0 We have paid the entire service tax amount of Rs.55,832/- along with interest of Rs.7,293/-. The same has also been appropriated in the above mentioned order in original. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Elumalai Vs. the Manager the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to return the jewel of 47 grams of 22 ct. gold, or its equal value, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.2.2008 in CC.No.14/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 13.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 complainant having failed before the District Forum, to get a favourable order, on the basis of the deficiency of service alleged against the opposite party, preferred this appeal, challenging the order dt.29.2.2008. 2. The complainant/ appellant, availed ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Golden Gas Service Vs. R. Dharmalingam and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the third opposite party to supply the retained booking cylinder, directing the opposite parties to pay the cost and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenient and mental agony suffered by the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the third opposite party, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the third opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.08.2009 in C.C.393/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and first respondent counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of first respondent/complainant as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The third opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/fir...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi and Com ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
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 Rs.150000/- with 18% interest, alongwtih compensation of Rs.50000/-, Rs.25000/- towards litigation expenses and cost. 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.27.3.2008 in OP.No.17/2000. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 13.6.2011. 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 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ 1st respondent, who is the owner of a building, situated at Seelanaickenpatty bye pass road, Nattamangalam post, Salem, had insured the said building, through Lakshmi Vilas Bank, from the period...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. thee thermal Technologies Company, Rep. by Its Managing Partner K ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
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 return the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with 12% interest upto date of settlement which was paid by the complainant to the first opposite party, to pay Rs.12 lakhs for the supply of inferior quality of Furnace and for the deficiency of service and to pay Rs.10,000/- for legal expenses. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the first opposite party, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the first opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.02.05.2008 in C.C.94/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and first respondent 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 first opposite party is the appell...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Parameswari Vs. E.R.R. Constructions (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Direct ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,55,000/- with 18% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost. 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.22.8.2008 in CC.No.34/2004. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 08.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel 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 complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ appellant, had purchased a house, in the first floor of Rukmani Apartments, Annai Sathya Nagar, Erode for Rs.4,55,000/- from the opposite party, as per the agreement dt.15.7.1998. The opposite party had agreed to finish the construction work and...
Tag this Judgment!Cc, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. Harihar Alloy Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the finding of the lower appellate authority that the goods imported by the assessees and the Bill of Entry dated 26.06.2003 are “Heavy Melting Scrap” - it is the case of the revenue that the goods are steel brackets (fabricated steel structures). 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the goods were examined by M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., and as per their report, the goods were fabricated steel structures with red oxide coating and are tailor made for the specific purposes and cannot be used for any other purposes/Civil constructions and all the brackets were in welded condition and the same cannot be cut and re-used for any other purposes since wastages would be on the higher side and hence, the consignment may be considered as scrap. We also note that the assessees have categorically stated that the imported item was melted and end-use certificate was obtained that the goods underwent melt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »