Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. This is a case where M/s Barak Ispat (P) Ltd., Silchar, had filed an application for availing the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme of 1998 and as per the certificate in from 2B issued under Rule 4 (b) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) Rules, 1998 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, the appellants were required to deposit an amount of Rs.38,734/- as a final settlement of the tax arrears of Rs.77,469/- as declared by the appellants in Form 1B with reference to show-cause notice No.V(15)14/Demand/SIL-II/97/816A dated 29.9.97. In the said certificate, the appellant was directed to make payment of the aforementioned amount within 30 days from the date of the certificate.The certificate was issued on 5.2.99.The appellant had deposited the said amount through TR 6 Challan No.014/98-99 dated 27.2.99. Instead of intimating the fact of the deposit of the said amount to the Commissioner, the appellant has made entry to that effect in PLA at Sl.No.025/27.2.99 showing it as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The prayer in this stay petition is for waiver of condition of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,58,607.55 demanded from the appellants/applicants and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- imposed on them vide Order-in-Original No.34/Demand/MDP/98 dated 11.6.98 which was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta vide his Order-in-Appeal No.111/Cal.II/99 dated 31.3.2000.2. The dispute related to the reversal of modvat credit already availed of in respect of inputs and also in respect of inputs contained in the final product lying in stock as on 23.7.96 and awaiting clearance, on the basis of Notification 16/96-CE dated 23.7.96. Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant appearing for the appellants/applicants, submits that there is a case law both in their favour as well as against the appellants. He fairly concedes that there is also a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Khanbhai Essoofbhai & Ors. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Cal. & Ors. reported in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Elcom Trading Co. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the refund claim filed by them was hit by time limit specified under Section 27 of the Customs act.2. Shri S.M. Iqbal, ld. Consultant, submitted, that the Appellants had imported trinty base system with hardware, software and its accessories and filed bill of entry for its clearance on 16-6-98; that as per the direction of the Department, they paid customs duty of Rs. 3,42,788/- by pay Order dt. 23-6-98 as advance custom duty as per procedure of the Respondents; that the Customs duty is payable as advance before examination of the imported goods; that in the course of examination of the consignment, it was noticed that the supplier had sent NTSC version instead of PAL version as ordered by them; that the consignment was re-exported on 2-1-99; that they filed the refund claim on 21-12-98 which was received by the Department on 24-12-98. The ld. Consultant, further, submitted that the claim for refund w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s S.M. Steels, the issue involved is whether M.S. Angles, purchased by them, are liable to confiscation.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Appellants are a trading company involved in the trading of M.S. angles, bars roads, channels, etc.; that on demand by M/s B.G. Trading Co., they purchased 12.075 M.T. M.S. Angles of two sizes form M/s United Steel Industries, Lucknow under Invoice No. 016 dt 10-5-1996 in their own name; that they got loaded the goods on truck NO. UML 9185 from the factory and after having segregated weight of two varieties, issued their own trading invoice No. 103 dt. 10-5-1996 in the name of their customer M/s B.G.Trading Co.; that the truck was intercepted at Station Road, Gorakhpur and the goods were seized and later on were confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine Rs. 30,000/- and imposed a penalty of rs. 10,000/-; that truck was also confiscated with an opti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2.1 On 3.8.93, officers of Central Excise intercepted a tempo loaded with 355 pairs of footwear. The driver of the vehicle produced Challan No 26 dated 3.8.93 issued by the appellants vis. M/s S.S. Enterprises Agra, which did not indicate the value of the said goods and the progressive value of footwear cleared by the party till date. The officers, on the same day, also visited the factory premises of the appellants and, in the presence of Sh. Mohd. Naseem, partner of the firm, checked the stock of goods and inspected the machinery installed in the factory. They found there a stock of 1454 pairs of fully finished footwear, 410 pairs of semi-finished footwear, 70 pairs of semi-finished bellies and 250 pairs of uppers of shoes. They also found a pasting machine installed in the factory. The officers got the goods and machine photographed and also drew samples of the footwears in the presence of Sh. Mohd. Naseem and two independent witnesses. They also recorded a statement of Sh. Mohd. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Both the matter are posted today for hearing the stay application.However, as the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I stay the recovery the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on M/s Harman Steel (P) Ltd., and take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri H.O.Arora, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had disallowed the Modvat Credit far non filing of Modvat Declaration and had imposed the penalty; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugner Order, allowed the Modvat Credit as the declaration was filed by them within 6 months of receipt of inputs in terms of provisions of Rule 57G (10) of the Central Excise Rules; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the penalty without assigning any reason; that the question of penalty does not arise as there was no contravention of any Rules.3. Shri Swantratra Kumar, Ld. D.R., opposed the prayer by submitting that as the Modvat Credit was availed of before filing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT661TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by Shri Amarjeet Singh, the issue involved is whether his truck is liable for confiscation and whether penalty is imposable on him under the customs Act.2. Shri A.C.Jain, ld. Advocate, mentioned at the outset that he is not challanging the smuggled nature of the goods carried in his truck NO.UP 78B/0266. He, further, mentioned that his truck went to deliver pulse at Motihari; that his drive Shrikant loaded the goods on return journey which were contravened and seized by the Customs Officer on 27-10-97 alongwith another Truck No. UP-78/N 8642, that the Commissioner, in the impugned Order No. 49/CCP/LKD/98 dt. 30-11-98, confiscated, interalia his truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- him, holding that Shrikant, Driver, had in his statements dt. 27-10-97 and 28-10-97 deposed that Appellant had directed him to load the impugned goods and to hand over the freight to him on return to Kanpur.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The Miscellaneous Application is for restoration of the appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed earlier, vide Order No.S-904-905/CAL/2000/A-1003, 1004/CAL/2000 dated 17.7.2000, on the ground of non-production of clearance certificate b the High Powered Committee. Inasmuch as now the clearance has been given by the High-Powered Committee, we restore the appeal along with the Stay Petition to its original number and fix the appeal on 6.2.2001....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT259Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The prayer in the stay petition is for waiver of the condition of predeposit of penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- imposed on Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta of Calcutta.2. Shri K.P. Dey, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant/applicant, submits that Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta is owner of the Transport-Company.He admits that the package containing raw silk yarn was seized from the premises of Shri Gupta. He, however, flatly denies the above allegation of the Department that the goods found in the premises of Shri Gupta were of foreign origin. He submits that Shri Gupta has nothing to do with the smuggling of the said goods. He argues that in the show-cause notice there was no mention of the piece of evidence i.e. literature showing "Blossoms-White Seeafilatory-China National Sild Import & Export Corporation- made in China" which the Department relied upon in connecting the said slip to the package under seizure. Ld. Advocate submits that this piece of evidence cannot lead to the conclusion that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The prayer in the Application is for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.2,47,339.00 and an equivalent amount of personal penalty.2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri S.K.Roychowdhury, learned Advocate and Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and were supplying the same to M/s. TELCO. In respect of the parts supplied to M/s. Auto Spare Parts Division, they were placed Order by M/s. TELCO for supply of branded goods, where 'T' was to be affixed as their buyer's brand name. These goods were cleared by the appellants on payment of duty, after filing the Classification List to that effect. However, in respect of the other goods, which were being supplied by the appellants to Auto Material Division of M/s. TELCO Ltd., as no brand name was being affixed, the same were cleared on payment of duty under Notification Nos.175/86 and 1/93. The Department, howev...
Tag this Judgment!