Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The challenge in the present appeal is only to the imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 the demand of service tax together with interest stands paid and is not challenged. 2. I have heard both sides. I find force in the submission that penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 78 is not sustainable for the reason that the penalty under the above mentioned provision can be imposed only if service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, due to fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax and review show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner does not allege any one of these five ingredients. Although the notice states that the assessees got registered, filed returns and paid service tax only after detection by the department by the department, this averment is not enough to hold that the noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The issue in this case as to whether service tax is leviable on distribution of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) for sale through the public distribution system to holders of family cards. The amount of service tax involved is Rs.6,407/-. Interest has also been directed to be paid and a penalty equal to the tax amount has been imposed. 2. The plea that service tax is not leviable is not tenable in the absence of the issue of any exemption in such cases. No argument was raised before the authorities below against imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessees were approaching the Government for clarification etc. Since no case has been made out and since the amount involved is less than Rs.10,000/-, I hold that this not a fit case for admission. The appeal is, therefore, not admitted. For statistical purposes, the appeal is dismissed along with stay application....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The issue in dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is whether the assessees herein are required to reverse 8% of the sale price of Vermi-Compost using by-products Press Mud and Bagasse as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 417, holding that Press Mud is a non-excisable product and not an exempted final product so as to attract the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and hence the demand of 8% of the sale price of Vermi-Compost was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. Following the ratio of the above order, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
All these cases involve a common issue and are hence heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In the above cases, show-cause notice were issued proposing rejection of abatement claim by the assessees who paid service tax on receipt of Goods Transport Agency service and proposing recovery of differential service tax together with interest and proposing penal action. The ground on which it was proposed to deny the facility of abatement from the actual freight paid was that the facility of abatement was not available to them as they were discharging service tax liability while the service was provided by the GTA. The adjudication orders, however, reject the claim for abatement on the ground that the conditions stipulated for seeking abatement are not fulfilled by the assessees and the adjudication order has been upheld by the lower appellate authority. In view of the fact that the ground on which the demands stand confirmed was not a ground in the show-cause notice, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
All the above appeals have been dismissed, by two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground of time-bar. 2. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants is correct in his submission that the period of limitation provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been wrongly applied for treating the appeals as barred by limitation. The issue in the appeals relates to refund of service tax and, therefore, it is the provision of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is applicable. According to this provision, the period of limitation is three months from the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone further delay of three months if he is satisfied with the reason therefor. 3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases for fresh decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall first satisfy himself as to whether the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeals with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: P.K. Das, Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that by Final Order No. 169, 170, 171/2005 dated 25.06.05, the Tribunal remanded these matters to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matters afresh after considering the submissions made by the appellants that part of LAB procured by them was used in the manufacture of cleaning and washing powder. It is also directed that the benefit of cum-duty price and the benefit of SSI exemption Notification would be extended to the appellants. The Ld. Advocate fairly submits that the matter was fixed for hearing on 23.08.06. The Ld. Advocate submits that the matter was fixed for hearing but the proprietrix of the firm was unwell and therefore requested for adjournment and submitted medical certificate also. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that to meet the ends of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. This case is where the appellants imported the impugned goods during February 1999 to April 2000. Afterwards they discovered that some of the goods imported have not been reflected in the Bills of Entry filed by them and no duty has been paid on the same. On such discovery, the appellants intimated the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner vide letter dated 11.10.2000 the non-inclusion of the imported items and non-payment of duty and voluntarily paid the duty thereon along with the interest. Thereafter a show-cause notice has been issued by the Department which has been adjudicated under the impugned order. While appropriating the duty amount of Rs.54,37,268/- along with interest, the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,59,370/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that taking into account the volun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. Shri P.C. Anand, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the respondents states that the refund has been sanctioned by the authorities below, but the same has been credited to the Welfare fund, on the ground of Principles of unjust enrichment have been followed. He further states that this is the case where amounts initially collected from the customers have been subsequently given back by way of credit notes and he states that in such cases the refund is admissible according to the following two decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka: 1. Union of India Vs. A.K. Spintex Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj.) 2. CST, Bangalore Vs. Shiva Analyticals (I) Ltd.2009 (14) S.T.R. 301 (Kar.) 2. Heard the Ld. JCDR. 3. In view of the cited decisions of the Hon ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh order in the light of the said decision. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand and interest and for reducing penalty to Rs.10,000/-. The demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees are not entitled to take CENVAT credit paid under supplementary invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs for the reason that the additional amount became recoverable by reason of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. I find that assessees had accepted before the Settlement Commission that removal of dough for the purpose of manufacture of cookies by one unit to another without payment of duty was due to the suppression. This fact stands recorded in the adjudication order. The Settlement Commission has also held that it is not convinced about the contention of the assessee of non-intention to evade payment of duty. Under these circumstances, Rule 9(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is clearly attracted and, therefore, they are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the ground that the duty was paid prior to issue of show-cause notice. The Department is in appeal against the same. 2. Both sides agree that in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and the subsequent decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) the matter requires to be re-examined by the lower appellate authority as to whether the elements of Section 11AC are present in this case requiring imposition of penalty. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded. Both sides should be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Tag this Judgment!