Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR(25)25/STC/2005 dated 9.9.2005, vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is covered under the service of "Port Services" and upheld the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein was providing services of chipping, painting and repairing of ships and vessels under authorization of Mumbai Port Trust under Dry Dock Licence No. 336 dated 1.7.2004, which appeared to fall within the meaning and definition of 'Port Services' under Section 65(67) of the Service Tax Act. These activities were carried out in the premises of the appellants and in the case of inadequacy of facility in their premises, they carried out these activities in the premises of Mumbai Port Trust. The premises of the appellant are situated in the jurisdiction of Mumbai Port Trust and are leased out to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 4,39,620/- and equivalent amount of penalty.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the liability to pay Service Tax in respect of amount paid by them to foreign company from whom they received technical know-how for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing of "Acetylene Carbon Black". It is the contention of the Revenue that the applicant is liable to pay Service Tax as they have received the services of Consulting Engineer. On the other hand, the applicant submits that the issue is prior to 16.2.2002 and series of judgments including the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, AurangabadB Footwear (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Noida 2006 (2) STR 46 (Tri-Del) and Essel Propack Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai 2006 (1) STR 150 (Tri-Mum) will cover this case, in their favour.4. On perusal of the record...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This stay application is directed towards waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Rs. 1,22,160/-. Confirmation of this amount of service tax has occurred on the ground that the applicant is providing service under Business auxiliary services but did not discharge the Tax. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is regarding the amount received by the applicant from the Franchiser. It is his submission that the amount is actually a rent received under the agreement.2. Ld. Jt. CDR on the other hand, drew our attention to the Clauses 14 and 15 of the agreement and submits that the applicant has sold goods from his premises. It is also his submission that the services as rendered would be covered under the Clause (1) of the definition of the 'business auxiliary services'.3. It is seen from the records that the agreement is franchisee agreement. We also note that in an identical issue in respect of Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading, who gave an identical fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The application is filed by the applicant for granting waiver of pre-deposit of amount on service tax confirmed and the penalties imposed.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. Confirmation of the demand has arisen on the ground that the applicant is providing "Market Research Agency Services". It is the allegation by the Revenue that the applicant is providing services regarding research of the product for the foreign company and reporting him the results which has been arrived at by them, hence services are falling under 'Market Research Agency Services'. We find the payment received in India is in convertible foreign exchange may get covered under Notification No. 6/99. We find that the ld. Commissioner's order seems to indicate that the applicant have been providing the services of Research of the products marketed by the client and they were submitting the report regarding the joint venture between the upcountry party and owner of the compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This application is directed against the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of the Service Tax of Rs. 40,99,449/- and equivalent amount of penalty under the provision of Section 76 and also under Section 78 of the Act.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the service of applicant for the period September 2004 to September 2006 under the category of "Tour Operator". The adjudicating authority has came to the conclusion that the applicant is covered by the definition of the tour operator as amended from 10.9.2004.3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant assailed the order on two counts. It is his submission that the show cause notice dt. 21.1.2007 does not invoke the amended definition. It is his submission that the entire tenor the show cause notice indicates that the said allegations are based on the un-amended definition of 'tour operators'. It is his submission that the applicant herein is not engaged in the business of planning, schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.P-II/BKS/15/07 dated 31/01/2007.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil falling under chapter heading No. 1503 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said edible oil are exempted from payment of duty. The appellants manufactured packaging materials like jars, tins, etc. used for packing of refined edible oils. The assessee availed Cenvat credit on the inputs i.e., HDPE granules and tinplates. After an investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants directing them to reverse 10% of the amount of value of the exempted products cleared by them during the period September 2004 to February 2005 for utilizing duty paid inputs for the manufacturing of exempted final products without maintaining separate books of accounts. The appellants contested the show cause notice on various grounds. One of the grounds that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. These two appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No.P-I/71-172/2000 dated 22.9.2000. Since these two appeals are arising out of common order-in-appeal and the issue being same, they are being disposed by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein during the period December 97 to March 98 and July 98 to September 98 presented cheque to the local bank for raising credit in the PLA, by presenting the same with the TR6 challan. On presentation of TR6 challan the appellants took credit in the PLA without waiting for acknowledgement receipt on TR6 challan. After scrutiny of the records the revenue came to the conclusion that the appellants have availed credit on the date of the cheque when it was issued and not on the date of realization of the cheque. Show cause notice was issued for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants contested the show cause notice on the ground that there w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The issue in dispute in this appeal relates to classification of M.S. Tanks and vats fabricated by the respondents herein in their factory - whether, under Chapter Heading 84.19 as claimed by the assesses and accepted by the Commissioner in the impugned order or under Chapter Heading 73.09 as contended by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) whose order is challenged before us has entirely relied upon the earlier order of Dec. 2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the same assesses holding that M.S. Tanks fall for classification under Chapter 84.19. The relevant finding is reproduced herein below: Ms Ida Gonsalves, Sr. Account Officer of the Company appeared for personal hearing. She said that the issue relates to the classification of M.S. tanks manufactured from mild steel plates of 8 to 12 mm thickness. She said that there was specific entry available for their product in the HSN. The process of manufacture is also relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s RPG Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.9.2005 by which the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, Zone I, confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 23.2.05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division K III, Mumbai IV. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 23.2.05, confirmed the demand notice issued to the appellants amounting to Rs. 4,89,65,321/- under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994: Me imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A of the said Act for failure to obtain registration under Service Tax; Me also levied interest @ 18% p.a. from 16.10.98 to 16.8.01, @24% upto 16.8.02 and 15% p.a. w.e.f. 17.8.02 for the period by which the credit of the said Service Tax is delayed as provided under Section 75 of the Act ibid; The appellants were also directed to pay in addition to paying Service Tax. and interest as above, a penalty of Rs. 200/- for every day during which such failur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses which were being cleared by them on payment of duty. The appellant were having a distillery plant and part of the molasses were being cleared to this distillery plant on the basis of comparable price of some other units which was disputed by the department and consequently demanded duty amounting Rs. 29,68,106/- for the period January 1995 to September 1996. In the earlier round of proceedings, the matter has gone up to the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was remanded to the original adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,77,971/-.Thereafter the matter again reached up to the Tribunal and the demand was finally reduced to Rs. 8,53,079/- for the period January 1995 to April 1995. During the intervening period the appellants have paid an Amount of Rs. 11,77,791/- along with interest of Rs. 6,46,899/-. As a consequence of the Tribunal's order the appellants have filed a refund claim for an amount of R...
Tag this Judgment!