Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.AKP/199/NSK/2011 dated 25/11/2011passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts relevant in this case are as follows: 2.1 The respondent, M/s. S.S. Engineers and Contractors, Nashik (SSEandC in short) entered into two agreements with their clients M/s.Dirk India Ltd. One agreement is dated 23/06/2001, which is for transfer of goodwill to the respondent by M/s.Dirk India Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.4,21,34,400/-. This consideration is paid @ Rs.30/- per ton of pozzocrete produced by M/s.Dirk India Ltd. over a period of sixty six months. The other agreement dated 23/04/2006 is for collection, delivery and handling of fly ash by SSEandC to M/s.Dirk India Ltd. On the consideration received in respect of service they have discharged service tax liability under the 'business auxiliary service'. In respect of royalties received from M/s.Dirk India Ltd., on account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh These are two appeals, E/1806/04 and E/1674/06 filed by MSRTC’s Central Workshop (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against order-in-appeal No. BPS(124)89/2004 dated 19.3.2004 and order-in-appeal No. PI/473/05 dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad and Pune respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of body building on new chassis and also component parts required for bus body building falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were also clearing some body components manufactured by them to their various divisional workshops for the purpose of repairing and maintenance of the old vehicles. The unit was visited by the officers of the department in 2001 and it was noticed that the assessee was not paying central excise duty on the components manufactured and supplied to their divisional office and also not paying any duty on the scrap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh These are two appeals. First appeal No. E/359/10 is filed by M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) against the Order-in-Original No. 03-04/SR (03 to 04)COMMR/RGD/ 09-10 dated 08.12.2009 and second appeal No. E/369/11 is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/844/RGD/2010 dated 8.12.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For payment of the Central Excise duty, they are availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the scrutiny of ER-1 returns filed by the appellants with the Range Superintendent, it was observed that the appellants had manufactured Zinc Dross slabs/ingots and cleared the same without payment of duty. It was further observed from the scrutiny of the invoices under cover of which Zinc Dross slabs/ingots in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.6,48,503/-, interest and penalty. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of windmills including doors of windmills and clearing the goods at nil rate of duty by availing the benefit of Notification 6/2006. The benefit of Notification is denied in respect of the windmill doors on the ground that the same are not part of wind-operated generating system. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed as time barred vide the impugned order. The applicant had already paid an amount of Rs.41,473/- and the same has been appropriated by the adjudicating authority. 4. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant received the adjudication order dated 15.10.2010 on 29.11.2010 and the appeal was filed within the normal period of limitation. The matter was argued on merit befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No: MI/AV/227/2011 dated 21/04/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Suyash Laboratories Ltd., Thane are manufacturers of drugs and chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As per the provisions of Sales Tax Act of the Maharashtra Government, the appellant were availing the benefit of deferred sales tax payment scheme under Section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under the said scheme, the assessee collects sales tax from the customers but retain such amount collected with him for a particular period and then passes to the State Government the sales tax liability over a period. In 2003-04 they opted for premature payment of sales tax deferred liability under the package incentive scheme introduced in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants have filed this appeal along with stay application and application for early hearing of their appeal as it is a case of live consignment. 2. Heard both sides at length and thereafter it was observed that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, the application of early hearing is allowed and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is also waived, the appeal is taken up for disposal today itself. 3. The appellant had imported one consignment of ‘Diclazuril’ and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said goods. The goods were examined and a doubt was raised, the goods imported are drugs and are prohibited under Drug and Cosmetic Act. Therefore, samples were drawn and the opinion of Assistant Drug Controller (ADC) was obtained, who opined that imported goods are drugs. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and directed to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,000/-. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 28,58,839/-, interest and penalty. The demand is for the period 16.12.98 to 28.2.99 and March 99 to February 2000. The demand is under the Hot Air Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. 3. We find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers vs Union of India 2001 (12) LCR 0197 (2004 (166) ELT 27 (Mad) held that Rule 3 of the said Rules to be ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 4. The Revenue submitted that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) held that the assessees are liable to pay duty of excise under Section 3 of the Act or under any other provisions contemplated for the same. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, where the Hon’ble High Court held that the rules under which the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per : Ashok Jindal One of the appellants namely M/s Calyx Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (the Exporter) filed appeal against the confiscation and penalty of the impugned goods and M/s Deekay Shipping Services (the CHA), Shri Ketan Adhia, Jitendra Shah and Shri Shailesh Sawant have filed appeals against the imposition of penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that the exporter filed two shipping bills through their CHA for export of the goods viz. ZOLEDRONATE and it was alleged against the appellants that to export the said goods they require a No Objection Certificate issued by the Asst. Drug Controller of India permitting clearance for export. The goods were brought to the export shed. On scrutiny of the documents of export submitted by the appellants, it was observed that there was difference in the signature of the Asst. Drug Controller and it was found that the signature on the No Objection Certificate was forged. Accordingly, the goods were seized and confiscated. Redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per: P.G. Chacko, M(J) In the first appeal, the assessee prays for grant of refund of central excise duty of Rs 61,752/- in respect of the goods (machines) cleared to a 100% EOU during the period from May to November ‘98. In the second appeal, the assessee challenges demand of duty of Rs 42,204/- on vacuum cleaners supplied to the EOU during the period from February to May 1997. 2. The refund claim was made on the strength of Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the benefit of a notification to the assessee. The original authority had denied the benefit of the notification to the assessee. After the Order-in-Original was passed, the assessee, in a letter dated 21.9.97, informed the Assistant Commissioner that they would be clearing the machines to the EOU by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-CE but on payment of duty ‘under protest’ in view of the said Order-in-Original. In this letter, they informed the Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per: P.G. Chacko: The first appeal filed by the assessee involves a classification dispute for the period April 1997 to March 1998 while identical dispute is involved in the second appeal filed by the department for another period (April 1998 to February 1999). In both the appeals the dispute relates to classification of two products namely: "Vitcofol Syrup with Iron" and "Vitcofol Drops". For the period April 1997 to March 1998, the lower authorities classified both the items under Heading 29.36 (SH 2936.00) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the assessee (appellant) wants both the items to be classified as medicaments under Heading 30.03 (SH 3003.10) of the said schedule. For the period April 1998 to February 1999, the lower appellate authority set aside the order-in-original and allowed the claim of the assessee for classification of both the items under SH 3003.10 and hence the Revenue's appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that "Vitcofol Syrup with Iron" and "Vi...
Tag this Judgment!