Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(140)ELT203Tri(Chennai)
1. The appellant is a Custom House Agent. He is aggrieved with the order of suspension dated 5-5-2001 in F. No. R-609-CHA passed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai by which he has suspended CHA Licence No. R-609/CHA under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR 1984 pending investigation and finalisation of the matter.2. Ld. Counsel Shri Murugappan seeks for disposal of the appeal itself by allowing the miscellaneous application seeking for early hearing in view of the matter being covered by Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Freightwings & Travels Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 226], Varun Forwarders v. CC, Mumbai reported in [2001 (129) E.L.T. 384 (TriMum.], Kothari & Sons v. CC, Jaipur reported in 2000 (40) RLT 1078 (CEGAT)] and the judgment rendered by this bench in the matter of K.P.S. and Co. v. CC, Madras vide Final Order No. 1763/2000, dated 8-12-2000 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 128 (T)].3. Ld. D.R. Shri A. Jayachandran reiterates the findings contained in the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The appellant is a Custom House Agent. He is aggrieved with the order of suspension dated 5.5.2001 in F No.R-609-CHA passed by Commissioner of Customs, chennai by which he has suspended CHA Licence No.R-609/CHA under Regulation 21 (2) of CHALR 1984 pending investigation and finalisation of the matter.2. Ld.Counsel Shri Murugappan seeks for disposal of the appeal itself by allowing the miscellaneous application seeking for early hearing in view of the matter being covered by Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of FREIGHTWINGS & TAVELS LTD. VS. CC MUMBAI [2001 (129)ELT 226], VARUN FORWARDERS VS. CC MUMBAI reported in 2001 (129) ELT 384-TRI-MUM.], KHOTHARI & SONS VS. CC, JAIPUR reported in 2000 (40) RLT 1978(CEGAT)] and the judgment rendered by this bench in the matter of KPS & Co. Vs.CC, MADRAS vide final order No.1763/2000 dated 8.12.2000.3. Ld. D.R. Shri A. Jayachandran reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order, particularly in para 3 to 6 and the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC209
1. These 3 revenue appeals against common Order-in-Appeal No.349/96(H)CE, dated 19-9-1996, the Commissioner has held in para 2 onwards is as below : "The appellants manufacture cotton yarn. They sell their goods through their depots. In the price declaration filed by them, they claimed deductions on account of handling charges. These handling charges, as per the appellants' reply to the show cause notice, are charges for the purpose of unloading the goods at the depot of the consignment agents and loading them during the course of onward despatch to the customers. In the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellant's contentions and demanded differential duty of Rs. 51,274/-.on handling charges. Hence the appeal. The appellants were heard in the matter on 5-9-96. I have examined the impugned order and the contentions of the appellants carefully. Handling charges are one of the deductions claimed by the appellants from the depot price. Others being sales tax, lorry...
Tag this Judgment!