Chennai Court February 2014 Judgments
indo Deutsche Trade Links and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
Per Mathew John, J. 1. Nine appeals are being considered in this proceeding. Out of these, 8 appeals are filed by one appellant and another appeal by another appellant. All the appeals involve the same issue and hence are being considered in the same proceeding. These appeals involve imports made under 10 Bills of Entries out of which two were filed in June 09 and 8 Bills of Entries were filed in Oct 2009. 2. The appellants had imported nine consignments of goods declared as Heavy Melting Scrap and claimed classification of the goods under heading 7204 of Customs Tariff. Goods falling under this heading could be imported free of any licensing restriction. Further the appellants claimed exemption from basic customs duty under Notification 21/2002-Cus (S. No. 200) for Melting Scrap of Iron and Steel falling under heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff. On examination the goods were found to be used rails of assorted sizes (The sizes are not recorded in the impugned orders). Revenue was of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rmc Readymix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of ready mixed concrete.Appellant supplied such item by taking it in vehicles specially designed for transportation of this item and supplied it at the site where construction took place. The vehicles used for this purpose had facility for pumping ready mixed concrete from the container on the vehicle to the work site and the material was so supplied by pumping. Revenue was of the view that this activity of pumping ready mixed concrete from vehicle to work site was taxable under entry for Transportation of goods through pipeline or conduit made taxable under section 65 (105) (zzz). Since the appellant did not pay service tax on this activity, a show cause notice was issued for the period 16-06-05 to 31-12-06. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming the tax demand but he did not impose any penalty. The adjudicating authority considered that the disputed service was newly brought into tax net and there was...
Tag this Judgment!Superfil Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
Mathew John, J. 1. There are two appeals being considered in this proceeding. The issue involved in both the appeals are the same but relate to different periods. Therefore both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of nylon filament yarn. For the purpose of manufacture of said yarn, the appellant imported raw material declaring the goods in the Bill of Entry as "Ultramid B 35F Nylon 6 Resin" supplied by BASF Germany and claimed exemption from customs duty vide Notification No.17/01-Cus (Sl.No.133) and under exemption under notification 21/2002 (Sl.No.145 and 146) depending on the period of import. These exemptions were for "Nylon chips for manufacture of nylon filament yarn falling under Heading 39.08 of the Customs Tariff and the concessional rate of 25% was made available subject to condition No.5 that the importer had to follow the procedures set out in Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. L and T Finance Limited rep. by Its Zonal Legal Manager Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
C O M M O N O R D E RAll these applications are filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying inter alia for the appointment of Advocate Commissioners to seize and possess the hypothecated equipment and for the issue of a prohibitory order restraining the Garnishees from making payment to the borrower.2. I have heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr.K.Prahalad Bhat Ravi, learned counsel for the respondent.3. The applicant, at various points of time, extended credit facilities to the respondent, for the purchase of machinery and equipment. Under one agreement dated 11.02.2010, bearing Deal No.549303, the applicant financed the purchase of one machine. The amount financed was re-payable in 36 monthly instalments commencing from March 2010 and ending in February 2013.4. Under the second loan agreement dated 11.11.2010, bearing Deal No.646427, the applicant financed the purchase of two machinery and equipment and the amount fin...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sundram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.65/2005 (M-III) dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee cleared the goods on payment of duty. Subsequently, there was a price revision and the assessee paid the differential duty on the supplementary invoice. A show-cause notice was issued proposing demand of interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Hence, Revenue has filed this appeal for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC) and CCE Vs. International Auto Ltd. 2010 (250) ELT 3 (SC) held that interest is payable on the differential duty paid due to price revision. In view of that, the im...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bannari Amman Transport Rep. by Its Manager Vs. M/S. Mrinal Spinn ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
(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.931768/- alongwith 24% interest and compensation of Rs.65000/-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.6.8.2010 in CC. No.128/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.11.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant being the yarn manufacturing company, sent yarn goods to the 3rd and 4th opposite party, through the 2nd opposite party, on the orders placed by one Sri Lakshmi Agencies, for the value of Rs.931768/-. The comp...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore and Another Vs. M. Hamsha and Othe ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
The Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore and Another Versus M. Hamsha and Others The Respondents 1 and 2 is the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.56/2007, dated 30.05.2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.12.2013, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order. A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainants filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 5 alleging negligence against the opposite parties 1 and 2 / appellants in encashing the cheques of the 2nd opposite party for whom the 1st complainant being the mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs TuticorIn Vs. Sooraj Graphics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. Respondent filed Bill of Entry No.359777 dt. 24.3.2005 at Tuticorin Port for import of goods declared as used photocopier parts. The goods were valued at Rs.1,64,179. During the relevant time, import of all used goods were restricted under the Import Policy except used capital goods. Revenue also disputed that there was undervaluation in value. They got the Chartered Engineer to value the goods and the value was increased to Rs.4,30,468/-. This value was not disputed. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act read with section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation ) Act 1992 and allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs.80,000/- . Further a penalty of Rs.30,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the fine and penalty relying on the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.T. Venkatachalam Vs. Chennai Roofings Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manag ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,09,000/- alongwith 18% interest and compensation of Rs.100000/- and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modify the order of the District Forum dt.27.10.2011 in CC. No.37/2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.11.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency of service in not performing the agreed contract of putting up roofing for the family functions, and thereby praying refund of Rs.2,09,000/- paid with interest agreed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Canara Bank and Another Vs. M. Hamsha and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
(The Respondents 1 and 2 is the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.56/2007, dated 30.05.2009.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainants filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 5 alleging negligence against the opposite parties 1 and 2 / appellants in encashing the cheques of the 2nd opposite party for whom the 1st complainant being the mother of 2nd complainant having account with the 1st opposite party operating the transaction certain cheques said to have been stolen and forged and used for payment through the 1st opposite party by the 3rd to 5th opposite parties which made the complainant to be involved in criminal case relating to cheque bounc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »