Kolkata Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commr. of Central Excise-dibrugarh Vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31/07/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh in the case of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 3. It is the contention of the Ld. A.R. that assesse had short paid the duty on Sampoo sachets falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1985 during the period from August, 2003 to December, 2003. The said assesse voluntarily paid back said differential duty alongwith interest in their PLA on 28/2/2004 and took refund by way of self-credit of the amount paid in their PLA on 01/03/2004 in the guise of clause 2 A(b) of the exemption Notification No. 32/99 dated 8/7/1999 as amended. It is the contention that the SCN was issued to the said assesse based on the CERA objection demanding Rs.73,49,525/-, taken as credit under the said Notification. The Ld. Commissioner dropped the demand as the CERA Audit officer after accepting the argument put forth by the assesse settled the obj...
M/S. First Flight Courier Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Vide Order dated 23.10.2013 this Tribunal has directed to the Applicant to deposit entire amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 27.12.2013. The order was sent to the Applicant on 25.10.2013. 2. Today when the matter was called, nobody appeared for the Applicant, nor any request for adjournment is made. 3. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Applicant has failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit hence, the Appeal is liable for dismissal for non-compliance. 4. We find that the Applicant had not complied with the direction of pre-deposit of entire amount of Service Tax, penalty and interest vide order No.SO/71288/2013 dated 23.10.2013. In these circumstances we dismiss the Appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act as applicable to Service Tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Appeal dismissed....
M/S. Hindusthan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.69/PAT/CEx/Appeal/2012 dated 04.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Patna. 2. The facts and circumstances, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages falling under Chapter 22 of CETA, 1985. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 05.04.2007 alleging suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods manufactured during the period January, 2006 to December, 2006 involving a total duty of Rs.10,51,130/-. The basis of show cause notice was that during the said period the Appellant had consumed more units of concentrates to produce the aerated water in comparison to the units of concentrates consumed during the period 1999-2000 required for manufacture of the said goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with...
M/S. Shiva Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.15.97 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Ld.Consultant for the Applicant submits that the department has confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit alleging availment of same against irregular documents. He submits that the Applicant has taken credit against 26 number of input invoices which are in dispute. Out of the 26 invoices, 5 invoices involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.2.80 Lakhs (approx.), do not bear the name of the Applicant, even though the materials were received and used in the factory, a fact not dispute. In the remaining 21 invoices, the Applicants name are invariably appearing as recipient of the goods in the said documents. The Ld.Consultant submits that the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed their Appeal for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit of Rs.10.00 Lakhs. He submits that since the Ld.Co...