Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh This appeal has come up before this Bench for hearing and disposal pursuant to CESTAT Misc. Order No. M/434/CSTB/WZB/ 2009/C.II dated 7.10.2009. This appeal arises out of the Order-in-Original No.18/P-III/STC/COMMR/2007 dtd. 22/11/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III. 2. Background of the case. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Suzlon Infrastructure Limited (in short M/s. SIL) formerly known as M/s. Suzlon Developers Limited is an associate company of M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited (in short M/s. SEL). It is engaged, interalia, in erection, commissioning or installation of windmills or wind turbine generators for its customers on contract basis. The Wind Turbine Generators (in short WTG) are manufactured and supplied by M/s. SEL. It had taken Service Tax Registration for installation and commissioning services on 18.7.2003 which was subsequently amended to endorse other services also. 2.1 Based on intelligence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per : P.Karthikeyan Appeal No.E/849/07 is filed by the Revenue.Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner dropped proposals to disallow credit of Additional Excise Duty under Goods of Special Importance Act, 1957 [AED (GSI) for short] taken by the respondent CEAT Ltd (CEAT), on payment of equal amount of BED on tyres in PLA which had been initially discharged using accumulated Cenvat/Modvat credit of AED(GSI). M/s Balakrishna Industries Ltd seeks relief by way of appropriate orders of this Tribunal against the impugned order which demanded such AED earned prior to 1.4.2000 and utilized for payment of BED in terms of rule 3(6)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2002 (CCR) as amended vide Notification No.13/03NT dated 1.3.03. This appeal No. E/92/05 assails the order of the Comissioner confirming demand of duty paid on tyres using credit under AED (GSI) . After filing the appeal, M/s Balakrishna Industries Ltd paid the duty along with interest as per the order impugned. Revenue seeks to deny the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(119)ECC222
1. The brief facts of the case that the appellants M/s Hotel Leela Venture filed a bill of entry for 168 units declared as Daikin Air Heat Pumps for space heating and space cooling application and claimed assessment under Chapter Heading 841868 of the Customs Tariff read with Notification 30/88 dated 01.03.1988 as amended. They also produced three additional licenses for clearances of the goods. The goods were examined on percentage basis and appeared to be air-conditioning machines and not heat pumps and on importer's request a 100% examination was carried out and as per the re-examination report the units imported by them were held to be air-conditioning machines classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 without benefit of Notification 30/88. For the purpose of countervailing duty also they appear to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 8415 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. In view of this a show cause notice was issued seeking to classify goods under Chapter Heading 8415 denying exem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)8STR254
1. The above appeals arising out of the two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise involve common issues and are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In Appeal No. ST/206/06, the Commissioner has levied service tax of Rs. 4,04,23,400/- on Castrol Ltd., UK, for the period 1997 to 2001 on the ground that as per the agreement of transfer of technology and know-how, services rendered by them were covered under the category of "Management Consultancy Services" and, therefore, being the provider of services, the UK company was required to discharge service tax liability. In Appeal No. ST/207/06, which covers the period 2002 to 2003, the Indian company i.e., Castrol India Ltd., being the recipient of such services has been held liable to pay service tax of Rs. 1,11,46,800/- + Rs. 1,81,68,000/-. In the first appeal penalty of amount equal to service tax amount has been imposed on the UK company under the provisions of Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC431
1. The issue referred to this bench is whether the goods which are cleared by 100% EOU clandestinely and without any permission are eligible to full exemption under Notification No. 125/84-CE and whether such goods are to be assessed under the provision of main Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act or under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act as it has been brought to our notice that there are conflicting decision on the same in the case of Modern Denim Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T.1174 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. C.C. & C.E., Aurangabad 2. The learned advocate for the appellants took us through the provision of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act which reads as under: SECTION 3. Duties specified in the first schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.- (a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per: P.G. Chacko: This case is being taken up pursuant to the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 776 of 2007, dated 18/08/2008. 2. Finalising provisional assessments of the goods cleared by the assessee (respondent) from October 1992 to March 1998, the Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 16/01/2006, wherein short-payment of duty of Rs. 83,37,896.17 was found in respect of certain clearances and also excess-payment of duty of Rs. 13,82,22,628.76 was found in respect of other clearances and the latter amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) on the ground of unjust enrichment. The order was passed under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Before the original authority, the assessee had sought adjustment of the short-paid duty against the excess-payment of duty and for refund of the net amount of duty paid in excess. This plea was rejected on the ground that the incidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT896Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-697/B.III/94, dated 5-12-1994 whereunder he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Belapur Divn. I and granted the refund application filed by the respondent before us and the appellant before him.2. The respondent before us is a claimant of a refund claim of Rs. 1,48,830/- claiming the said amount to have been excess excise duty borne by them on the goods viz. "super centrifuge" purchased by them from M/s. Pen-wait India Ltd. (manufacturers of the said goods) on payment of Central Excise duty @ 15% ad valorem vide GP-1 No. 32, dated 16-9-1992. The aforesaid refund was claimed by the respondent purchaser on the ground that the goods were partially exempted under Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-1990 and were chargeable to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem, if the same were intended for pollut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)9STJ112CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to payment of service tax, penalty and interest. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The Revenue has taken the following grounds in their Memorandum of Appeal: (I) In this case, the main issue is related to the question -whether the notice had provided any service - which was coming into preview of service tax or not. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the noticee's submission that since the agreement was terminated without providing any service, the appellants not liable to pay service tax However, a close look of termination agreement reveals that noticee's claim is factually not correct. It is clear from para 1.b of Preamble of termination agreement that "LKCA" has completed draft conceptual design, though there are different viewpoint on the scope of its completion between WRBPL and LKCA". Thus, it is quite clear that before agreement of termination the service of "Draft Conceptual Design" was provided by M/s. LKCA. Thus Commissioner (Appeals)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC193
1. All the above appeals arise out of separate Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai involving common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue relates to levy of anti dumping duty on imports of vitrified/porcelain tiles from China/UAE under the provisions of Notification No. 73/03 Cus dated 1.5.03.3. By Notification No. 50/02-Cus dated 2.5.02, anti dumping duty was imposed in respect of vitrified/porcelain tiles exported /originating from China/UAE, and the levy was effected upto and inclusive of the 1^st day of November, 2002. M/s. Harsh International and Abhinav Ceramic imported one consignment of tiles prior to 1.11.02 while all the other appellants imported tiles subsequent to 1.11.02 and no imports subsequent to 1.5.03 took place by any of the appellants.Notification No. 50/02-Cus was issued by the Central Government pursuant to the provisional findings dated 3.12.2001 of the Designated Authority in th...
Tag this Judgment!