Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
All appeals involve a common issue and hence heard together and disposed by a common order. The appellants herein have imported Flax Fibre and availed exemption under S.No. 169 of Customs exemption Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 and cleared the goods by paying duty @ 15% advalorem instead of tariff rate of 30% advalorem. The Bill of Entries were assessed at concessional rate of duty of 15% advalorem. Subsequently, the appellants claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 5% advalorem under S.No. 436 of the same notification by a refund claim. The claim was dismissed on the ground that the assessment orders were not challenged. Hence, these appeals. 2. I have heard both sides. In the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2009 (240) ELT 490 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that payment of duty by mistake or by oversight when an exemption is available would result in manifest in justice unless the assessment is modified. The Court has directed the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of service tax and remanded the cases for fresh decision to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tuticorin, and directed him to re-quantify the demand if any payable by the appellants along with appropriate interest provided the tax has not already been paid to the Government by the Port Trust, as claimed by the respondents herein. He has also set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondents. The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order setting aside the penalties. 2. I have heard both sides. Since the re-quantification has been directed to be carried out by the Assistant Commissioner of the liability if any to be confirmed together with interest without there being any double taxation involved, he also should consider imposition of penalty on the respondents. I therefore, direct the Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the demand together with interest without involving any double taxation, and also consider the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant herein who has been held to have assisted the CHA M/s.A.M.Ahamed and Co. in the clearance of unaccompanied baggage which has been absolutely confiscated. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that the charge against the appellant that he assisted the CHA cannot be sustained for the reason that the penalties imposed on CHA and its General Manager have been set aside by the very same Commissioner (Appeals) in two separate orders also dt. 19.12.08. It is surprising as to how the lower appellate authority did not notice that he was exonerating the CHA and its General Manager while upholding penalty on the person who was found to have assisted the CHA and its General Manager. Since the CHA and its General Manager themselves have been exonerated, there is no cause to penalize the present appellant. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and imposition of penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The brief facts of the case as recorded by the original authority are as follows:- “M/s. Sri Lakshmi Industries, D.No. 25/20, Konar thoppu, Irvathanallur (for short SLI) is engaged in manufacturing RTS Grills falling under tariff heading No. 7308.40 and other EB line materials. Shri M. Gunasekaran is the proprietor of M/s. SLI. M/s. Sri Ganga Engineering (for short SGE), 25/20, Konar thoppu, Irvathanallur is an SSIs unit situated adjacent to M/s. SLI, whose proprietrix is Smt. G. Ganga, W/o. Shri M. Gunasekaran (proprietor of M/s. SLI). 2. Based on intelligence that M/s. SGE did not have facility to manufacture and were clearing the goods manufactured by M/s. SLI, in the name of M/s. SGE as if manufactured by them, the Central Excise officers attached to HPU visited the above units on 7.3.96. 3. During the visit, the officers noticed that the units are situated in adjacent places and both units were having power connection and mach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
In both these cases, the appellants challenge the imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on an application of the extended period of limitation, and also under Section 77 of the Act on the ground that the non-payment of service tax during the periods in dispute was due to ignorance and not due to any deliberate intention to evade payment of tax. 2. I find, on hearing both sides, that in the statements recorded from the partners they had clearly stated that they were not aware of their liability to service tax and came to know about such liability only after visit of the officers and it being explained to them that they were liable to pay service tax which they paid belatedly and also got themselves registered. The burden on the Revenue to establish suppression on the part of the assessees has not been discharged. I, therefore, accept the explanation of the assessees that the non-payment of service tax during the relevant periods was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard ld. SDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice and despite adjournment granted earlier. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested to pursue their appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard ld. DR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. There is neither any compliance report nor any adjournment request. As such, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the direction dt. 19.11.09 to predeposit an amount of Rs.21,033/-....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Service tax credit has been denied on the ground that:- a) The description of taxable service has not been mentioned in the invoices, b) Credit has been taken did not contain proper documents specified under Rule 9 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, c) Address of the manufacturer was not furnished, d) Address of the service provider was not furnished etc., In addition, penalty has been imposed on the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the demand and penalty. I find that in an almost similar situation in the case of the same assessees, the Tribunal has remanded the case for fresh decision in the light of details furnished by the assessees before the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 1775/09 dated 19.11.09. Following the same route in this case also, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner (A), who shall consider the various submissions raised by the assesses and then pass a fresh order after extending a reasonable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The Department challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the respondents herein that they were not liable to service tax on import of services during the period in dispute viz. 9.7.2004 to 30.9.2005, as service tax became leviable on import of services only with introduction of Section 66A on 18.4.2006. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association holding that tax is leviable on import of services only from 18.4.2006 has been upheld by the apex Court as seen from 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST, dismissing the Revenue’s SLP against the above mentioned Bombay High Court judgment. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The challenge to the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has upheld demands of service tax and penalties is only on the ground of limitation the show-cause notice is dated 23.6.2005 while the demand covers the period from 1.7.2003 to 30.9.2004 and the show-cause notice does not allege suppression etc. so as to warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that initially the demand was confirmed and penalty is imposed, against which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the case and in the second round of litigation, before the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee raised the plea that they cannot be held to be guilty of suppression. No finding has been recorded on this plea either by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned order. I have carefully gone through the show-cause notice and find that there is no recital of the charges necessary for invocation of t...
Tag this Judgment!