Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: recent Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.220 seconds)

Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

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...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Pauls Engineering Industries

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)13STJ262CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No.PII/BKS/45/07 dated 29/03/2007 vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original which sanctioned the refund of the respondents, but credited to the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were manufactures of engineering goods and utilized the services of Goods Transport Operators and had to pay the Service Tax for the period 16/11/97 to 01/06/98 as service receiver after the retrospective amendment were made. While paying such service tax, the respondents did not realize that they were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 43/97-CE dated 05/11/97, which, exempted a SSI unit, registered with DIC from payment of Service Tax on receipt of services of GTO and filed refund claim. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim and credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund under the provisions of Section 12C of the Centr...

Wns Global Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)13STJ156CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. These are three appeals against order of Commissioner (Appeals).Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is one and the same they are being decided in a common order. The appellants are engaged in providing business auxiliary services and the export of the said services. They were availing benefit of Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in respect of input services used by them in the export of auxiliary services. Since the appellants were unable to utilise the Cenvat credit in respect of the input services availed by them they filed refund claim in respect of un-utilized credit for the period April 2005 to June 2005 July 2005 to September 2005 and October 2005 to December 2005 respectively as per provisions of Notification No. 4/2006 dated 14.3.2006 by which Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was substituted. Since Rule 5 prior to its substitution by Notification No. 4/2006 dated 14.3.2006 did not provide for refund of un-utilized credit to the producer of ou...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Adhesive Enterprise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. According to the Revenue an error apparent on record arises in Tribunal's Final Order No. A-1253/C.IV/SMB/2007 dated 23.8.07 in setting aside the levy of interest under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and Rule 571(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ground raised in the application is as under: (a) It is true that going by the language of Section 11AB that has been substituted with effect from 11.5.2001, no interest can be recovered on the duty that has become payable prior to 11.5.2001. But as per the provisions of Section 11AB that existed prior to this date, recovery of interest was very much possible with effect from 28.9.1996 where the short levy or short payment had occurred by reason of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement etc. The only difference between the provisions of Section 11AB that existed prior to 11.5.2001 and the one introduced with effect from 11.5.2001 is that while the present Section 11AB provides for recovery of interest i...