Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), extending cenvat credit on “Air Ticket Booking Service”, on the ground that this did not have any nexus in manufacture of final products which is the requirement for eligibility of credit availed. 2. On hearing both sides and noting that the lower appellate authority has built in a safeguard that credit is to be allowed subject to the condition that the air journeys undertaken are for business purposes only, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeals....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Does the Commissioner (Appeals) have the power to remand the case to the adjudicating authority after amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001? 2. I have heard both sides on the appeal involving the above issue. I note that in the case of Commissioner Vs Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (224) ELT 393 (PandH)], the Hon’ble Punjab High Court held that power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals) having been expressly taken away by the Finance Act, 2001, he is divested of the power to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority. The Bench concluded that there is expression of necessary intendment in deletion of the expression “or may refer the case back”, by the Legislature under Section 128A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of CCE Jalandhar Vs B.C.Kataria [2008 (221) ELT 508 (PandH)], the High Court followed the ratio of the Division Bench judgement in the Enkay (India) Rubber Co....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Credit of Rs.11,75,355/- has been denied to the appellants herein on Benzene and Orthoxylene on the ground that total quantity of inputs were not received in the assessee’s factory of production of final product. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against such denial. The items in question are organic chemicals. In a recent decision in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. - MISC Order No.591/09 dt. 12.11.09, the Larger Bench has held that decision to allow or not to allow credit in a particular case will depend on various factors such as the following: - (i) Whether the inputs/capital goods have been diverted enroute or the entire quantity with the packing intact has been received and put to the intended use at the recipient factory. (ii) Whether the impugned goods are hygroscopic in nature or are amenable to transit loss by way of evaporation etc. (iii) Whether the impugned goods comprise countable number of pieces or packag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The application for condonation of the delay in filing the cross objection is allowed as we are satisfied with the reason given for the delay. 2. Now, we take up the appeal against the reduction of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of medical equipment imported by the respondents herein for heart surgery, and the setting aside of the penalty imposed on the importer, by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We have heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has given reasons namely that the importer had no intention to violate the policy provisions and that the goods are for actual use and since they are not for sale, there cannot be any market price, based on which the redemption fine can be calculated, for the reduction in the quantum of fine from Rs.3,60,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. We see no reason to interfere with the same. 4. As regards penalty, since it is clear that the equipment was given free to the importer and there was no deliberate act or omission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein are manufacturers of P or P medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are paying excise duty @ 16% for dutiable products and reversing @ 8% in CENVAT credit for the exempted goods for the reason that the they maintain a consolidated CENVAT credit account. Since the assessees had collected Rs.34,062/- as excise duty for exempted products and not paid the amount collected, to the credit of the Central Government, show cause notice was issued directing them to pay the amount collected to the credit of the Central Government as per Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. Notice also proposed levy of interest. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand together with interest; the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the provisions of Section 11D have not been contravened for the reason that appellants did not retain the amount collected from the customers since they debited their RG.1 account whil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.2/95-CE dated 4.1.95, as amended is sought to be denied to fresh mushrooms cleared by the respondents herein for home consumption, on the ground that the processed mushrooms which were exported were not similar to the goods cleared for home consumption as they fell for classification under separate chapter headings, for the reason that the concessional rate of duty is available only if the goods were similar to the goods exported outside India. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. As we find no reason to keep the appeal pending any further, on the ground that the case has been coming up for hearing on several occasions and the respondents have never been present on any occasion. 3. We find that Notification No.2/95-CE dated 4.1.95 uses the expression “similar”. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw Appeal Nos.E/743/04, E/745/04 and E/746/04. Leave granted - these three appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Now, we take up Appeal No.E/744/04 which is against confirmation of demand of Rs.22,86,036/- together with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh. This demand stands confirmed since the total value of clearances of aerated water/fruit juices by the interdependent units of the assessee located in Madurai, Virudhunagar, Palayamkottai, Kumbakonam, Salem and Madras as also Ariyakudi (which is a rural area) exceeded Rs.300 lakhs in the year 1999-2000, and therefore the unit at Ariyakudi village is not eligible for SSI exemption. 3. On hearing both sides, we find that vide the common impugned order, which is under challenge in the present appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the issue relating to demand of Rs.26,12,325/- which was once again confirmed by the Deputy Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether the assessees’ furnace is a pusher type furnace or a batch type furnace - according to the assessees they have installed batch type furnace while the Revenue treats the furnace as a pusher type furnace and the Commissioner refixed the ACP treating the furnace as a pusher type furnace. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that one team of technical experts / departmental officials had verified the furnace and two of the members of the committee stated that the furnace was a batch type furnace while two others stated that it was a pusher type furnace. Show-cause notice was issued proposing revision of the ACP treating the furnace as pusher type furnace; the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the proposal in the notice; the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1764 and 1765/2001 dated 12.10.2001 remitted the case for fresh consideration with a direction that the Commissioner should take fresh opinion by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in dispute relates to determination of duty liability on hot re-rolled products and waste and scrap manufactured in August 1997 and cleared during August and September 1997, including stocks held on 31.8.1997. 2. We have heard both sides. Duty was leviable on hot re-rolled products during the month of August 1997 under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and according to the assessees they were entitled to discharge duty liability for August 1997 after using MODVAT credit. The Department, on the other hand, has held that MODVAT credit cannot be utilized for payment of duty on hot re-rolled products in terms of Notification No.27/97-CE dated 25.7.1997. The assessees bring to our notice Notification No. 29/97 dated 1.8.1997 rescinding Notification 27/97 by which utilization of MODVAT credit for payment of duty was not permitted. As regards payment of duty on waste and scrap, learned consultant draws our attention to Notification No. 49/97-CE dated 1.8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The Revenue challenges the setting aside of the penalties both under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules (now replaced by Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000). 2. We have heard both sides. The assessees who are manufacturers of articles of plastics and parts of pumps, paid duty by including only value of materials they themselves procured and used and not the value of materials freely supplied under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Act. Short levy was alleged and show-cause notice was issued proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.1,01,689/-. The duty was paid even prior to the issue of show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount already paid, directed payment of interest under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside both the ...
Tag this Judgment!