Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. Appellants have requested for adjournment of this case vide their letter dated 13/6/01 for hearing on 12/7/01, if not heard today since another departmental appeal NO.E/706/97 is slated for hearing before this Tribunal on 12.7.01.2. This issue is no longer res integra as the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenues appeal in a number of cases on similar issue. We, therefore, proceed to decide these appeals on merits.3. These revenue appeals pertain to a common issue and hence they are taken up for disposal as per law.4. The said impugned orders already came up for hearing and this Tribunal took up similar Revenue appeals and disposed of the same vide following final order Nos:-737 to 761/2001 - 24.5.01- CCE Vs UNIVERSAL HEAT EXCHANGERS806 to 840/01 - 1.6.01- CCE Vs GEC Alsthom & Others849 to 859/01 - 4.6.01- CCE Vs K.S.B.Pumps878 to 893/01 - 6.6.01- CCE Vs Servall Engg Works P.Ltd.898 to 911/01 - 7.6.01- CCE Vs Sree Venkateshwara Industries & Others.5. The ground taken is the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra
Reported in : (2001)73TTJAgra624
The appeals under consideration are cross appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue. Both the appeals have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1990-91.There are two main grounds of appeal. In case of appeal of the assessee, the first ground is relating to confirmation of Rs. 1,38,492 out of total addition of Rs. 1,74,123 on account of non-charging of interest from certain parties to whom interest-free loan was provided.The second ground related to non-charging of interest on debit balances of partners as a result of which the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 9,083 and the same has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of the revenue is against the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).The status of the assessee was a partnership firm. The assessee was engaged in the business of financing. The books of accounts were subjected to tax audit and requisite report was submitted along with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Respondent absent and unrepresented. It has requested a decision on merits. We have heard the departmental representative.2. The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, after hearing the departmental representative on the application, the bench proposed to take up the appeal itself and dispose it of for reasons that would become apparent.3. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the exemption contained in notification 155/58 of the goods imported by Lohia Starlinger Ltd., the respondent to this appeal. The claim was rejected in the first instance by the Asst. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter came up before the Tribunal on appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Asst. Commissioner had not furnished any reason for not accepting the claim of the importer. It therefore remanded the matter to him for considering the plea of importer that by application of note 2 to Chapter XVI of the Tariff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
2. The appeal in which the application has been filed in against the order of the Commissioner passed in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to him.3. The questions for consideration in this appeal are whether the appellant could import, without payment of duty in terms of notification 204/92, fabric, which did not correspond in terms of denier with the specifications in the DEEC, and whether the fabric was covered by the description in the import licence. The Commissioner has held against the appellant on both counts.4. On considering the stay application in the appeal that the applicant first filed, the Tribunal, finding that the issues were arguable, granted waiver of deposit of penalty, noting that there was no application for waiver of deposit of duty. Since there is no change in the circumstances, it would be equitable for us to come to the same prima facie conclusion. In addition, the fact that the department has accepted the same import licence for clea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(148)ELT838Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant of Rs. 18 lakhs, imposition of penalty of the same amount under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), and demanding interest. There is no ground in the appeal questioning the liability to duty or to interest. The counsel for the appellant confirmed that the appeal was limited to imposition of penalty.3. The appellant is a textile processor its liability to pay duty had been determined under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The penalty has been imposed on the ground that the appellant did not pay, in August, September and October 1999, the duty which it was required to pay.5. Counsel for the appellant does not deny that the duty in question was not paid. He however contents that since the determination of the duty payable was provisional, penalty cannot be imposed for that failure. He relies upon the decision of this Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(132)ELT691Tri(Chennai)
1. By this appeal, the importer is challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7.7.95 by which he has partly allowed Revenue's reference with regard to enhancement of price on import of 65 mm tinted float glass of Philippines origin US $ 0.5570 per square feet as against the declared price of US $0.5390 per Sq. ft. by the importer.The Commissioner (Appeals) has given para- 29 to 32 which is extracted below :- "29. As regards pricing of 6mm tinted float glass of Philippine origin, it has been submitted by the Learned Counsels of the respondent that according to the price-list of M/s. Asahi Glass Corporation dated 28.7.93 which was relied upon the department, the prices indicated was US $ 0.5570 per Sq.ft. The price of the same company for the same goods vide price list dated 10.8.93 was US $ 0.5390 per sq.ft. I find that the price list dated 10.8.93 indicates the prices as C & F while the price-list dated 28.7.93 shows the prices as C.I.F. Hence there is a reason why above p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(148)ELT1138TriDel
1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 14,14,702/- on the goods in question as detailed in the impugned order itself, of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 13.10.97. The appellants took Modvat credit on those goods by projecting as capital goods but the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of Asstt. Commissioner that these were not capital goods.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not under Rule 57Q read with Explanation 1 appended/thereto, requires re-examination in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT.817, wherein guidelines have been laid down in that regard. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of disallowing Modvat credit of Rs. 48,14,702/- to the appellants, is set aside, while the rest of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)LC156Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the distillation to which Venkatesh Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal subjects benzene raffinate amounts to manufacture and hence the product of the distillation processes liable to duty. Adjudicating on the notice issued to the manufacture, the Asst. Collector said that the product which was subjected to distillation benzene raffinate also known as C-6 raffiante was different from the product of the distillation which is naphtha reformat, which the manufacturer refer to as "solvent NR". In the light of this and the fact that distillation should be considered a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product, and hence covered by the definition of "manufacture" in section 2F of the Act, he held the process to be manufacture and the product liable to duty. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted the claim that the purpose of the distillations was to remove impu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(136)ELT1410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The two applicants before me are engaged in recruitment of manpower.Each of them was required to pay service tax on the activity of manpower recruitment. By the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed penalty imposed on them and interest demanded from each of the appellants before me by the Deputy Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise, Mumbai. The Deputy Commissioner imposed penalties and demanded interest on the ground that the appellants did not pay service tax payable by them in respect of the manpower recruitment in which they were engaged upon.2. The tax in question by each of the appellants and there is no claim in the appeal with regard to the interest. These appeals are limited to imposition of penalty. Counsel contends that there is no reasonable cause for imposition of penalty. Upon the introduction of service tax on the activity of appellants, they, through their association and various persons having position in Central Government rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel submits that for hearing the appeal filed by M/s. Stericat Outstrings (P) Ltd., they were request to pre-deposit duty of Rs. 2,44,029/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and that when the matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal, the appellants had already deposited Rs. 2,99,102/- on 7.3.94 and this amount is still with the Department with regard to the present proceedings and the appellants will not pray for withdrawal of this amount and that the present appeal be heard without insisting for any further pre-deposit.3. In view of the submissions made by Ld. Advocate, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount subject to the condition that the amount already will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal, deposited earlier in terms of Tribunal's order dt.19.2.96. The appeal to come up on its own turn....
Tag this Judgment!