Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Heard both sides. 2. The respondents filed appeal against confirmation of service tax demand against them for the period 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The lower appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the case but has held that the demand is time barred since the Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.03.07. He also states that the Order-in-Original does not record anything which amounts to suppression on the part of the respondents. The Ld. Consultant Shri R.J Pillai, appearing for the respondents also states that there is no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice. 3. Heard the Ld. SDR, who supports the appeal of the department and reiterates the grounds of appeal taken therein. 4. I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The case of the department is that the assessees did not reverse the correct credit amount of CENVAT involved on the closing stock of inputs and inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock, after opting to full exemption in terms of Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.03 w.e.f. 1.4.05 - according to the assessees, the CENVAT credit required to be reversed was only Rs.16,636/- which was done by them, while according to the Revenue, they were required to reverse an amount of Rs.2,79,578/-. The difference arises as a result of assessees valuing the closing stock at Rs.13,83,437/-, while the department has arrived at the value of Rs.17,47,361/-. 2. I have heard both sides. The assessees make submissions both on merit and time-bar. They submit that certain elements such as freight and sales tax, which are not required to be included in the assessable value, have been added and this has resulted in the increase in value to Rs.17,47,361/-. The second submission is that the demand is barr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside adjustment of refund of Rs.2,86,416/- due to the respondents herein against the higher amount owing to the Revenue from M/s. Sudharsana Spinners. The adjudicating authority had carried out the above adjustment, on the ground that M/s. Sivamani Spinning Mills Ltd., leased out the premises to M/s. Sudharsana Spinners and one Ms. Hema Ramanathan was the Managing Director of the respondent Public Limited Company as well as the Proprietrix of the Proprietary concern M/s. Sudharsana Spinners. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order as it has been rightly held that the respondent s mills have not been taken over by M/s.Sudharsana Spinners and there is no change in the ownership of the respondents and therefore, order of appropriation of the refund towards arrears recoverable from M/s. Sudharsana Spinners is not sustainable. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This Contempt Petition came to be filed for the alleged disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006, dated 20.09.2006. 2. The contempt petitioner filed the original Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006 before this Court seeking for a direction to the third respondent therein to initiate action against the sixth respondent therein for running an unauthorized school in the premises at Door No.1, Periyannan Chettiar Street, Vedasandur and for closure of the said school. 3. In the Writ Petition, after notice to the present contemnor, who was represented by a counsel, this Court found that the contemnor was running the school in the address stated above and the premises was owned by the original writ petitioner and the school was functioning with 112 students and 7 teachers. Therefore, the learned counsel for the present contemnor requested the Court that if all of a sudden, a closure is ordered, the children would be put up to a great hardship. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The demand of duty on samples taken for in-house quality control test was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), against whose order the Revenue has come in appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that steering column assemblies and components were tested at random by cut open for studying the tensile strength etc. and the remnants of the test samples were cleared on payment of duty as scrap. In this view of the matter and in the light of the Tribunal s decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is accordingly upheld and the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, for the period between 30.10.1987 and 31.12.1988, units registered with the DGTD were not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. For the period, both prior and subsequent to the period in dispute, benefit was available to such units. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the assessee-unit was registered with the DGTD. 2. On hearing both sides against the demand, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in CCE vs. Gorakhpur Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (158) ELT A280 (SC). The Apex Court has upheld the Tribunal’s decision reported in 2002 (149) ELT 987 holding that even though the assessee-company was registered with DGTD, it was entitled to the benefit of the exemption even during the period when such units were excluded from the coverage from the notification. 3. Following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision, we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 to diesel engines cleared by the assessees to educational organization against exemption certificates obtained from the competent authorities in the recipient organization has been denied to the assessees on the ground that the goods in question are not covered under the notification as they are not - scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment which alone are covered under the notification. 2. Heard both sides on the appeal against such denial. We find that the issue in dispute stands settled in favour of the assessees by Tribunal’s decision in M/s.Jackson Generators Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Pondicherry - Final Order No.1169/10 dt. 10.11.10, following the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara [2007 (218) ELT 217] extending benefit to transformers and UPS systems. Following the ratio of Jackson Generators order cited s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal, namely admissibility of credit on explosives (inputs) for blasting mines to produce limestone for use in the manufacture for cement / clinkers in the factory of the assessees stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Vikram Cement vs. CCE - 2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC) holding that credit is admissible. The Apex Court has overruled the contrary opinion in Commissioner Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. - 2004 (171) ELT 289 (SC) and approved its earlier decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. Commissioner - 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC). 2. Following the ratio in Vikram Cement decision cited supra, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram A demand of duty of Rs.30,329/- was confirmed on 8.574 MTs of crude sunflower oil lost in transit. The demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the loss was only to the extent of 0.19% of the total quantity of 4556.124 MTs of crude oil imported by the assessees; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the light of the Larger Bench decision in CCE Chennai Vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. [2010 (249) ELT 218] and note that, admittedly, it was case of transit loss and the loss percentage is a minuscule one, namely only to the extent of 0.19%. We also note that the loss was due to natural causes. In this view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the appeal of the Revenue and is hence also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessee herein is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the duty demand of Rs.4,07,808/- on 200 computer systems supplied to M/s.Sri Sarathy Institute of Engineering Technology, on the ground that the essentiality certificate granted to the assessee for the purpose of clearance of the goods without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 had been subsequently cancelled. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that although the essentiality certificate, as per the notification above mentioned, was granted initially, it was subsequently canceled on 26.6.02. The cancellation also specifically states that the Form-B for availing customs and excise duty exemption issued earlier also stands cancelled. In this view of the matter, we agree with the ld. SDR that the demand has been rightly confirmed and, accordingly, uphold the impugned order. However, the prayer of the assessee for extending the benefit of cum dut...
Tag this Judgment!