Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants challenge the upholding of demand of duty of Rs.1,53,216/- together with interest and penalty of Rs.5000/- covering the period 20.7.2002 to 31.3.2002, on the ground that the price adopted for machines and moulds by the assessees and supplied to M/s.PPL was not at arm’s length as there was mutuality of interest between the assessees and M/s.PPL and the price was influenced by various elements and APP and PPL were related persons. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue in dispute now stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal’s decision in 2008 (227) ELT 574 wherein Order-in-Appeal No.11 and 12/04 dt. 14.1.04 confirming duty for prior period namely November 2000 to July 2002 on the same ground (this OIA was relied upon by the lower appellate authority in the present case) was set aside, holding that M/s.APP and PPL are not “related persons” and that the demand raised on adopting sale price of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The issue in the present appeal namely as to whether the assessees (who are manufacturers of Bi-metallic strips and Copper- based powder) are entitled to suo motu take back credit which they had reversed, stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in BDH Industries Ltd. Vs 2. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I [2008 (229) ELT 364] relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order - the Larger Bench decision has followed the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s judgement in the case of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India [2005 (185) ELT 19 (Guj.)], which has been upheld by the apex court as reported in 2005 (186) ELT A117 (SC), to come to the above conclusion. In this view of the matter, reliance placed by ld. counsel for the appellants on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Shyam Textile Mills and another [2004 INDLAW GUJ 454] does not advance their case. 3. Following the ratio of the La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. The appellants are manufacturers of Diesel Generating sets. They cleared three DG sets, claiming exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.97, on the ground that they have cleared these goods to educational and research organizations, against exemption certificates obtained from competent authorities in the recipient organizations. The authorities below have not questioned the certificates. The only objection is that the impugned DG sets are not covered under the Notification as these are not “Scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment,” which alone are covered under the impugned Notification No. 10/97. The Ld. Consultant Shri K. Jain, appearing for the appellants argues that DG sets operate on scientific principle and converts diesel into electricity and therefore, qualifies to be “scientific equipment” for the purpose of exemption. He also cites the following decisions of the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The impugned order demands 10% of the value of the exempted goods whereas the appellants have, according to ld. advocate, reversed proportionate amount of credit in respect of inputs used in the exempted goods. He also argues that in view of retrospective amendment made to the Finance Act, 2010, the proportionate reversal of credit made by the appellant is in order and now there is no requirement to pay 10% of the value of the exempted products. Keeping in view the retrospective amendment made to the CENVAT Credit Rules by the Finance Act, 2010, we waive requirement of predeposit, and set aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the original authority to reexamine the matter in the light of the retrospective amendment. The appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded herein below, we dismiss the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage itself with the consent of both sides. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority enhancing the value of goods imported by the assessees and remanded the case for issue of proper speaking order with a direction to cite the relied upon documents if at all followed for enhancement, within the ambit of Valuation Rules and after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees. This order has been challenged on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand after the amendment to Section 128A (3) of the Customs Act. 3. We hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order and hence uphold the same and we remit the case for issue of proper speaking order as per the guidelines set out in the impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The appellants herein, who are providing services such as Telecommunication Service (Leased Circuit Service), Internet Telecommunication, Tour Operator, Air Travel agency, Internet Cafi etc., provided “Leased Circuit Services” to M/s.Sify Communications Ltd. which is their associated enterprise. Prior to the introduction of Finance Bill 2008, they had been remitting service tax on associated enterprise transactions on collection basis and subsequent thereto, they had been remitting the service tax on associated enterprise transactions on raising service invoice. They had raised three invoices towards providing services of infrastructure, manpower and bandwidth charges to M/s.Sify Communications Ltd. for the quarter ending 31.3.2008 on the same date and three more invoices for the quarter ending 30.6.08 on the same date. On 5.9.2008, they had remitted Rs.5,78,10,547/- towards service tax on account of associated enterprise transactions vide two challans dt. 5.9.08 under &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to payment of drawback. Hence the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this case is ousted in terms of proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable along with COD application and stay application and the papers are returned to the Revenue for presentation before the appropriate authority, namely, Joint Secretary (Revision)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides. 2. In this case, the original authority has denied the credit of service tax paid in respect of repair and maintenance services received for the staff colony, gardening service, security service provided in the wind farms, swimming pool maintenance and civil works undertaken at auditorium, shopping complex etc., on the ground that the same have no nexus with the manufacture of cement by the respondents. On appeal by the respondents, the lower appellate authority has allowed such credit citing interalia the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement - 2009 (16) STR 171 (Tri.- Mum.). The department is in appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority on the ground that the services in question have no nexus with the manufacture of finished goods viz., cement. 3. Shri A.H. Niranjan Babu, Ld. SDR appearing for the department states that the services in question are totally unconnected with the manufacturing activity and in any c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants are manufacturing pharmaceutical ingredients as well as formulations. The appellants have also sold DEPB scrips not utilized by them through a commission agent. The appellants are seeking credit of service tax paid on the services received from the commission agent for selling DEPB scips against excise duty payable on pharmaceutical ingredients and formulations manufactured by them. The credit of service tax has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the service relating to sale of DEPB scrips cannot be considered as an input service in or in relation to manufacture of the pharmaceutical goods. 3. Shri V. Ravindran, Ld. Advocate argues that the service relating to sale of DEPB scrips is an input service as the money received from such sale is utilized for buying raw materials for the manufacture of the finished goods. He supports his claim by relying on the following four case law:- a)Pan Asia Corporation Vs. CCE, Mumbai-II 2009 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides. The respondents have several units engaged in manufacture of finished goods which are partly exported and partly cleared for home consumption. According to the Ld. Consultant, the exports have been done in a consolidated manner from the appellants’ Hyderabad office and they have also paid the service tax on the input services viz., CHA services, GTA services and Banking services from their Hyderabad office. However, as provided under Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, they have filed the impugned refund claim for the proportionate amount of credit relating to the exported goods from their Mettupalayam unit with the excise authorities having jurisdiction over the said unit. There is no dispute about the exports having been made and also the use of the input services on payment of tax for the same. However, the refund claim has been rejected by the authorities below, on the ground that the documents produced do not provide a proper co-relation between th...
Tag this Judgment!