Chennai Court July 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.
Park Digital Colour Lab Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. The assessees who are engaged in providing photography services did not debit CENVAT credit account for the period 1.2.2005 to 30.6.2006. They debited CENVAT credit account and paid interest on 4.9.2006. The show cause notice issued to the assessees proposed recovery of interest and the imposition of penalty, invoking the extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount already paid and the penalty under Section 77 but dropped proceedings for recovery of interest and for imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. His order was reviewed and the revision order was passed demanding appropriate interest under Section 75 of the Act and imposing penalty of Rs.200/- per day during failure to pay continues or at the rate of 2% of such tax per month whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount of service tax, not exceeding the...
indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. For reasons recorded herein below, I waived predeposit of demand of interest of Rs.80,469/- and proceeded to decide the appeal itself at this stage, with the consent of both sides. 2. The assessees, who are engaged in providing ‘Banking and other Financial Services”, had short paid tax and subsequently made up short payments, namely in August and September 2006. Therefore, show-cause notice proposing to demand applicable rate of interest on the delayed payment and proposing to impose penalty was issued to the assessees; adjudicating authority confirmed the interest demand but dropped the penal proceedings; the Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied after considering the documents filed by the assessees of the remittance of interest by them even prior to the issue of SCN but this was not taken into account by the adjudicating authority. However, in spite of the satisfaction regarding payment of interest as seen from the challan dt.5.1.2007, he has upheld the adjudication or...
Laboni Collections Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Heard both sides. There is a delay of 261 days in preferring the above appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) [before whom also, there was a delay of more than 9 months, which was not condoned]. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the assessees for the delay. Therefore, I decline to condone the delay. As a result, COD application and stay application are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time-barred....
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Itc Ltd., (Pspd Divn.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Heard both sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order remanding the matter for fresh decision by the original authority on the ground that principles of natural justice were not followed. He has also directed for re-examination of the matter in the light of the clarification issued by the Ministry of Environment apart from granting opportunity for personal hearing to the respondent-assesses. As such, the impugned order of the lower appellate authority requires no interference. The original authority is directed to pass fresh order following the directions of the lower appellate authority. All the three appeals filed by the Department are disposed of by way of remanding the matter to the original authority....
G. Mangamma Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary and O ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The applicant, who is the widow of late Ex-Coporal A.S.Govindasamy of the Indian Air Force, has approached this Tribunal for second family pension with this application. 2. The averments in the affidavit to the application relevant for deciding this application sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicants husband A.S.Govindaswamy was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 07.03.1957 and discharged from service on 21.11.1973 after completing an unblemished record of service of 16 years 8 months and 14 days. The applicants husband (Late) A.S.Govindaswamy was granted pro-rata pension for his services rendered in Indian Air Force till his death vide Pension Pay Order T.S.No.32758/73. Subsequent to his discharge from Air Force service, the applicants husband was employed in the Bank of India on 26.03.1977 and he retired from the Bank of India on 30.06.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. Till the date of his death ie...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›