Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC59
1. Heard both sides. The period of dispute in this case is 1996-97 to 1997-98. The Department has alleged that the appellants have made clandestine manufacture and removal of aluminium wire out of aluminium wire rods without payment of duty. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that apart from disputing the allegation of clandestine removal, the appellants have also contended that the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture and hence, no excise duty is payable on the same.In support of his contention, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vishvaman Industries v. C.C.Ex, Delhi-I 2002(127) ELT 155 (Tri.- Del.) against which the Department's appeal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its decision reported in 2001 (131) ELT-A/151-SC. He also states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the same view in the case of C.C.Ex. v. Technoweld Industries .2. In view of the cited decisions of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)10STR271
2. The Appellants have a contract with M/s. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. for carrying out various activities. Shri Kartik Kurmy, ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that most of the activities are covered under the contract are not liable to Service tax as has been held by this Bench of the Tribunal in the following two orders:Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar-II v. B.K. Thakkar - Order No. A-1877/Kol./07 dated 24-10-2007 2008 (9) S.T.R. 542 (Tri.).Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. and G.G. Coal Transport (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar - Order Nos. A-1878-1879/Kol./07 dated 2-11-2007 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 (Tri.).3. He further states that Board's Circular dated 12-11-2007 which was not before the Adjudicating Commissioner also clarifies that excavation, coal cutting and mineral extraction are not chargeable to Service tax during the impugned period. He states that at the most the hiring out of pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(125)ECC274
1.1 The Appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2000 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal case No. 1608/92-B and E-219/93 carried its grievance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4213-4214/2000 and consequent upon direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dt. 29.9.05 this matter is again before Tribunal to rehear on the issues meant for decision by that order.1.2 The dispute by the Appellant all along was relating to classification of various goods declared by it in the classification list filed before the Department seeking effect thereof from 20.3.90.Revenue not being satisfied with the Classification adopted by the Appellant issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13.7.1990 seeking reason as to: (1) Why the classification of products declared in the Form-I No. 1/MMCW/U-1/89-90 effective from 20.3.90 should not be considered for approval according to their constituent material and in the process why the products declared under 7308.00 should not be classified u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC153
2. Shri Amalendu Chakraborty, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the matter had earlier come before the Tribunal and it was remanded to the Adjudicating Commissioner for considering the reconciliation statement. He states that the Reconciliation Statement along with the supporting gate passes was submitted to the Adjudicating Commissioner. But he has ignored the same and without cross-verification of the veracity of the statement and the supporting documents, he has confirmed the duty-demand which was confirmed in the earlier Order.3. Heard the learned S.D.R., Shri J.K. Jha who supports the impugned Order. We find that the following Order was passed on the earlier occasion (vide Tribunal's Order No. A-1397/KOL/2991 dated 27.11.2001): 6. On going through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, I find that he has not considered the evidences produced by the appellants in the shape of gate passes and the invoices issued by other Co-bottle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC126
1. Appellant was in appeal before this forum against the order dated 19.12.03 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur confirming duty demand of Rs. 11,67,532/- with an equal amount of penalty and interest payable as per law. While passing the order, ld.Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Vice President of the Appellant-Company. However, we did not find any appeal petition of Shri Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Vice President, while disposing of the appeal of the Appellant. Neither side also mentioned whether any such appeal was pending. Therefore, appeal of the Company-Appellant was taken up for hearing by this order. (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,67,532/- should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of 1^st proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act and Rs. 12,00,000/-already paid by them should not be appropriated against the said demand. (ii) Interest at appropriate rate should not be charged and recover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)12STJ332CESTAT(Kol.)kata
2. The appellants have a contract with SAIL for reclamation of High Grade Iron Ore Fines and removal of rejects subsequent to blasting of the mining area by SAIL. The activities undertaken by the appellants have been charged to Service Tax under the category of cargo handing service.3. Shri S.K. Goyal, Ld. C.A. appearing for the appellants states that the entire work is done in a mining area and the appellants are not engaged in handling of any cargo. He also states that in a similar case, the same Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the activities undertaken by M/s. B.K. Thakkar on a contract with M/s SAIL do not come under the purview of Cargo Handling service vide order No.30/ST/B-II/2006 dated 25/08/2006.4. We had an occasion to examine the issue earlier in respect of a Departmental appeal filed against the above cited order of the said Commissioner (Appeals) and for detailed reasons recorded in the said case, we have held that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not requ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)13STJ244CESTAT(Kol.)kata
1. Heard both sides. The appellants are authorized dealers of Tata Motors. In respect of cars sold by the appellants, the Excise duty is paid by Tata Motors on the value of cars less the dealers' discount.The appellants sell the cars at the full price to the customers and pay sales tax on such price. They also provide free after sales service to the customers by charging only the material cost and not labour charges. Shri Amalendu Chakraborty, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that it is an admitted fact that Tata Motors does not reimburse the cost of free after sales service provided by the appellants in respect of cars sold by them. He states that the Ministry issued a Circular No. 62/11/2003 dated 21.8.2003 under which it was clarified that if the value of service provided free of charges is zero, the tax will also be zero even though the service is taxable. He further states that under Circular No. 28/2006-Cus dated 6.11.2006, it was clarified as under: 3. As rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. Ld. Consultant appearing for the Appellant submitted that the ld.Appellate Authority below committed an error by coming to the conclusion without any material documents in record to hold that the show-cause notice was rightly issued for sustainable proceeding.According to him, without any evidence of the classification list before him to come to the conclusion whether the goods in question shall fall under Sub-heading 4016.99 or Sub-heading 4016.11, he arrived at the conclusion which was subjected to proper laboratory test report.Therefore, the ld. Appellate Authority below was without any material evidence on record, but had arbitrarily gone beyond the scope of the material in controversy. At no stage, the Appellate Authority sought any chemical test report nor provided particulars to the Appellant to argue on the issue which he proposed to deal. Therefore, natural justice being violated, such an order shall not sustain.2. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC47
1. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue-Appellant submitted that the Revenue came in Appeal having been prejudiced by Order passed by ld.Appellate Authority. The ground on which Appeal has been filed is that the ld. First Appellate Authority erroneously considered bar of limitation.2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the Respondent submitted that how the entire aspect was examined, is patent from page 4 & 5 of the first Appellate Order. The ld. Appellate Authority categorically found that the proceeding was initiated by Show-Cause Notice on 18.2.2000 while holding for recovery of duty related to the period 1994-95. Such Authority was also fair enough to state that a portion of the period was also beyond five years. Show-cause notice did not allege any suppression of facts or any other ingredient to invoke longer period.Therefore, the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from legal infirmity and sustainable. He also submitted that the provisional assessment was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC58
1. Ld. Advocate, Shri K.P. Dey, appearing for the Appellant submitted that all along they were deprived of justice by both the Authorities below, without consideration of the work-in-progress found by investigating authority on 19.8.99. There was no further investigation made by them after that date to come to the conclusion that the Appellant was involved in clandestine removal of such work-in-progress converted into finished goods. Only ignoring the work-in-progress, they have examined the facts and figures on record and the relevant statement recorded at the date of inspection. An unilateral decision was taken by ld. Appellate Authority below. The ld. Appellate Authority without examining that the work-in-progress resulted finished goods subsequent to the stock verification made on 19.8.99, decided the issue against the Appellant holding that there was a clandestine removal calling for imposition of duty of Rs. 86,052/-. The Appellate Order passed by the ld. Authorities below does ...
Tag this Judgment!