Chennai Court June 2011 Judgments
Jayaram Muthukali M/S. Rajeswari Metallurgicals Ltd. M/S. Hemalatha Me ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. Under the impugned order, the declared description in respect of 39.98 MTs scrap imported as “lead scrap relay” has been discarded and the same has been held as copper scrap and revaluation of the consignment has been ordered resulting in confirmation of differential duty demand of Rs.11,80,575/-. The impugned goods have also been confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs.3 lakhs. In addition, penalty of Rs.11,80,575/- has been imposed on the appellant M/s. Hemalatha Metal Mart under Section 114A, penalty of Rs.1. lakh has been imposed on the appellant M/s. Rajeshwari Metallurgicals Ltd. under Section 112(a) and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on the appellant Shri Jayaram Muthukali, MD of M/s. Rajeshwari Metallurgicals Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned counsel Shri R. Raghavan states that the impugned goods have been redeemed on payment of the redemption fine and duty amount determin...
Tag this Judgment!Lister Laboratory and Others Vs. Dr. P. Srinivasan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
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.4,15,705/- with interest of 12% and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.7.2008 in OP.No.215/2001, and the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.110/2009 to enhance the compensation. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 08.06.2011. 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 opposite parties and the complainant, are the appellants in OP.No.104/2009 and 110/2009, respectively. 2. The parties are referred in this appeal, as arrayed in OP.No.215/2001. 3. The complainant who is a doctor, doing busine...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. When the case was called, we find that Appeal No.S/4/2004 against the same impugned order viz. Order-in-Appeal No.208/2003 dt. 2.6.03 has been disposed of vide Tribunals Final Order No.300 and 301/07 dt. 28.3.07 wherein the Tribunal has allowed Appeal No. S/04/2004 by holding that freight was not includible in the value of taxable service but that in respect of other expenses incurred, inclusion of the same in the value of taxable service was correct in law. The Tribunal directed the original authority to re-quantity the amount of differential tax to be paid by the assessee and also to examine afresh the question as to whether the assessee was required to pay any penalty, and if so, to what extent. The dispute in the present Appeal No.S/17/2003 is identical to that in Appeal S/04/2004. Since 2004 appeal by J.N.Traders already stands disposed of as seen above, the present appeal becomes infructuous and is hence dismissed. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Sterling Lab Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the correct classification of “Helmisol” manufactured by the assessees herein - whether as preparations of a kind used in animal feed under Tariff Heading 23.02 as claimed by the assessees or under Tariff Heading 30.03 as medicaments as held by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. We find no merit in the claim of the assessees regarding classification of the product for the reason that there is no evidence on record to show that the product is commonly known as animal feed supplement in the market and further the assessees had themselves classified the product under Tariff Heading 30.03 and had obtained a drug licence for the same until 22.7.2002 and they subsequently changed the classification to Tariff Heading 23.02 although there was no change in the composition of the product. We, therefore, uphold the order on classification. As regards the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirun ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether service tax is recoverable from goods transport operator for services received during the period Nov-97 to June-98 stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the Larger Bench decision in Agauta Sugar and Chemicals Vs CCE Noida [2010 (19) S.T.R. 849]. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The cross objection is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sri Soma Sundari Transport (Regd) Vs. J. Smuermul Jain
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.47,885/- with 18% interest, alongwtih compensation of Rs.15000/- 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.25.4.2008 in OP.No.334/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 08.06.2011. 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 opposite party is the appellant. 2. The opposite party/ carrier, for non delivery of the goods, based upon deficiency of service, suffered an adverse order on 25.4.2008, in the hands of District Forum, Chennai (North), and the result is this appeal. 3. The complainant/ respondent , entrusted hi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate P. L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we granted the prayer of Revenue for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and proceeded to take up the appeal themselves for final disposal at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. Claims for refund filed by the assessees were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of time bar; the Commissioner (Appeals), however, held that the provisions of Section 27 prescribing longer period for filing refund claims are not applicable as there was no order of assessment in the present cases; hence this appeal of the Revenue. 3. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable in all cases of refund and therefore if the claim is barred by limitation, by reasons the Commissioner (Appeals) should have rejected the same on the ground of time bar and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable cannot be sustained and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Printers and Lithographersand#8217; Association Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of service tax amount of Rs.2,44,719/- together with interest and penalty and proceeded to decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the activity performed by the appellants are liable to be taxed under the category “Club or Association Service” under the Finance Act, 1994 during the period 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2007. The assessees rely upon Section 96J introduced with effect from 8.4.2011 to the effect that no service tax shall be levied or collected in respect of membership fee collected by a club or association formed for representing industry or commerce, during the period on and from the 16th day of June 2005 to the 31st day of March 2008. 3. We find that the applicability of the Section is required to be considered by the adjudicating authority to whom we remit this case, after setting aside the impugned order, for ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Tansi Engineering Works Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of duty of Rs.13,839/- confirmed against the assessees together with interest and penalty of equal amount and proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue stands covered by the decisions of the apex Court which have been followed by the Tribunal. 2. The issue in dispute in this case is as to whether excess freight is required to be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the assessees - the assessees received freight from the operators under a pre-determined ratio based on the weight of the final product as per the contract. According to the Revenue there was a difference between the freight shown in the transporter’s invoice and that shown in the sales invoice. It is the Revenue’s case that excess freight is required to be included in the assessable value. However, we note that this issue is no longer res integra as it stands covered in fav...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Jeyaraj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-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.1,04,939/- with interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.75000/0 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.30.11.2007 in CC. No.85/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel on eitherside, 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 party, having suffered an exparte award dt.30.11.2007, challenges the same, on various grounds, in this appeal. 2. The Complainant, being the owner of the vehicle, insured the same with the opposite party, which appears to have met with an accident, thereby...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »