Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC211
1. In this batch of appeals, there are nine appeals arising out of five impugned orders. The facts in all the appeals are common except that the period involved are different and that in the case of Order in Original No. 1,9/2005, the appellants (SMIPL) were engaged as job workers for M/s American Remedies Ltd. (ARL) for manufacture of P or P medicines for which ARL had supplied the raw materials. Appeal Nos.E/29 to 31/06 are accompanied by Stay applications also. The details of the impugned orders, the period involved, duty demanded and penalty imposed are tabulated hereunder. Dispute covers the period of six years from 2000 to 2005.5,00,00,000/-Under Rule 209A of CER 1944 /Rule 26 of CE (No. 2) Rules, 2001 Note: Apart from demand of duty and imposition of penalty, interest under Section 11AB has also been ordered.2. The facts have been Extensively dealt with in Order in Original No.17/2003. Other orders follow the same reasoning as in this order .Therefore, for the purpose of decidi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)5STR221
1. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner confirmed a demand of service tax against the appellants to the extent of over Rs. 1.38 crores under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He also disallowed to the party service tax credit of about Rs. 60 lakhs being unutilised credit lying as on September 30, 2004. The entire demand is for the period May 14, 2003 to September 30, 2004. The relevant show cause notice was issued on October 21, 2005, i.e., beyond one year from the date of availment of the credit in question. The appellants have contested the demand both on merits and on limitation. Learned Senior Counsel has extensively referred to a few provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. One of these provisions is rule 2(r) which defines "provider of taxable service" as including a person liable for paying service tax. With reference to Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, learned Counsel submits that "a person liable for paying service tax" is an assessee and that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC65
1. In these appeals filed by the department, the short question is whether the "Administrative Service Fee" collected by the respondents under the provisions of a statute of the State of Tamil Nadu from their buyers in connection with sale of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol for the period March, 1994 to October, 1996 and for the month of November, 1996 was to be included in the assessable value of the goods under Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. The lower appellate authority decided in favour of the respondents. Hence these appeals of the Revenue.2. There is nobody to represent the respondents despite notice, nor is there any realist of theirs for adjournment. We have heard the learned SDR and considered his submissions and have found that, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills , it was held that administrative charges collected under any Act [passed by State Legislature were covered by the expression "Other taxes" mentioned in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. In our stay order dated 14-7-2006, we had directed the appellants to deposit 20% of the duty amount within 4 weeks and report compliance on 31-8-2006. On the appointed date, we found a copy of T.R. 6 challan dated 28-8-2006 evidencing the deposit of Rs. 1,11,350/- by the party.The challan was also accompanied by a letter of even date, of the company. Both the documents stated that the amount stood deposited "UNDER PROTEST". We noted compliance subject to production of the Range officer's certificate of withdrawal of protest by the party. On 26-9-06, the appellants' counsel requested for time for producing the above certificate and, accordingly, we adjourned the matter. Hence the present proceedings.2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the remark "UNDER PROTEST" has since been withdrawn and that a certificate of Range officer is yet to be obtained. The documents produced by the counsel includes a letter dated 26-9-2006 addressed by the appellants to the Asst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(114)ECC340
1. M/s. Madurantakam Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (M/s. MCSM for short), appellants in Appeal No. E/1768/99 and respondents in the Department's Appeals viz. E/1753 & 1754/99, are manufacturers of sugar and molasses [Heading No. 17.01 of the CETA Schedule]. They had started their factory in the year 1960 and, over the years, certain parts of the machinery became unusable due to wear and tear, rust, repairs, etc. and such machinery parts were disposed of as scrap during the period 23.3.96 to 6.4.98. Show-cause notice dated 20.10.1998 issued by the department alleged that the above goods removed by M/s. MCSM without payment of duty were 'waste and scrap' falling under SH 7204.90 and hence dutiable. It accordingly demanded duty to the extent of Rs. 1,56,892.50 by invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act on the ground of suppression of facts and also proposed to impose penalty on the noticee under Section 11AC of the Act. M/s. MCSM replied by submitting that the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(114)ECC374
1. These are three appeals filed against the following orders, details of which are tabulated below. (i) Whether packing and labelling of refined edible oil in bulk into retail packs amount to manufacture in terms of Note 4 to Chapter 15 of First Schedule to the CETA 1985. (ii) If the answer to the above question is yes, whether such repacked and labelled goods are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/02-CE dated 1.3.2002 if the input oil was cleared under DEPB scheme availing exemption? 3. As the second question does not survive if the answer to the first question is in the negative, we take up the first question for examination.4. The facts of the case are that M/s Ruchi Health Foods (P)Ltd and M/s KTV Oil Mills had imported RBD palm oil/palmolein in bulk and resold in bulk to traders or packed the same in pouches preprinted with the description of the contents, quantity (1/2 litre, 1 litre and, in the case of KTV Oil Mills, also 15 Kg tins which bore the firm's sti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC53
1. The instant appeal has been recalled pursuant to allowing the ROM petition filed by M/s. Indian Foods Pvt. Ltd. (IFPL, for short) vide MISC Order No. 441/2006 dated 18.9.2006 passed by this Tribunal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Asst. Commissioner, Madurai-I Division. In the Order-in-Original, the Asst. Commissioner had dropped the proposal to demand an amount of Rs. 47,139.64 being the credit taken on GPls issued during December' 92 to May' 93 by M/s. Britania Industries Ltd. (BIL, for short), Madras for transport of paper cartons to IFPL. M/s. IFPL had taken credit of duty paid as per the transport documents covering paper cartons received by them, though paper cartons were exempt from payment of duty. IFPL was a job worker of BIL. M/s.BIL had received raw materials including 'ready to use packing materials' M/s. BIL had received packing materials on payment of duty and got the same converte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2006)(109)ECC158
1. In Order-in-Original No. 39/96 dt. 14.3.96, the Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 45,42,232/- against M/s. Jacs Metals Private Ltd. [JMPL, for short] (appellants in appeal Nos. 700 & 722/96) in respect of Aluminium sheets and circles found to have been manufactured by them and cleared without payment of duty during the period 1.3.94 to 17.1.95. The above demand of duty was quantified on the basis of the assessable value which was determined by the Commissioner without allowing deduction of Excise Duty from invoice price of the goods under Section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner, however, held that M/s. JMPL were eligible for Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said final products. Quantification of this credit was left to be done by the divisional Asst. Commissioner in accordance with the relevant Rules. In the above order, learned Commissioner also confiscated certain quantities ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(114)ECC359
1. This appeal is against rejection of a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 2,72,379/-. The appellants had procured certain textile made-ups (Heading 63.02 of the CETA Schedule) from the manufacturers of the said goods under cover of four invoices dated 9.10.2003, 17.10.2003, 22.10.2003 and 3.12.2003 on payment of cum-duty price. The goods were allegedly exported by them. They filed a refund claim dated 21.2.2004 for the aforesaid amount under Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 11B read with Sub-section (1) of the said Section. In that application, they claimed that they had paid the cum-duty price of the above goods to the supplier (manufacturer) and had become entitled to refund of the duty amount under Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 11B when they subsequently exported the goods out of India qua merchant-exporters. Upon receipt of the refund claim, the department issued a 'deficiency memo' to the party for production of the requisite docume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)(115)ECC62
1. In the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has affirmed the original order demanding an amount of Rs. 3,36,920/- from M/s.Sundaram Industries, Madurai and modified penalty to Rs. 1,10,686/- He has also affirmed the interest due demanded from the appellant.2. The facts of the case are that on investigation by the department, it transpired that M/s. Sundaram Industries, Madurai had cleared "moulds" of different varieties during the six years from 1997 to 2003 without payment of the duty due thereon. It was seen that the goods had been removed to the assessee's sister unit in Gurgaon without payment of duty under a set of commercial invoices. The assessee claimed that in respect of six invoices they had paid duty initially when the goods covered by them had been cleared to their Unit 11, which was closed later and the goods had been removed to Unit III at Gurgaon. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, the appellant had not advanced any acceptable explanation for n...
Tag this Judgment!