Tribunal Court April 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Pavai Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period January 2005 to June 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Ben...
M/S. Nahar Colours and Coating Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, after hearing both sides for sometime on the stay petition we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we allow the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. On perusal of the records, it transpires that adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands on two grounds, one, clandestine removal of the goods and second, ineligible availment of cenvat credit on the imported inputs. 3. We find from the records that appellant had given detailed reply to the show cause notice as to how the demand has been worked out in the show cause notice is erroneous inasmuch as, the demand is based upon only the batch numbers allotted and theoretical batch size taken and that the imported inputs were sent to job workers and received back. We find that the adjudicating authority has not addressed any of the grounds taken by the appellant in ...
M/S. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, we find that appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a very narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appeal is against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellant. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant herein has not filed any reply to the show cause notice nor did he appear before the lower authorities on the summons served upon him to make his side clear. All the arguments made by the learned counsel should have been put up before the adjudicating authority so that adjudicating authority could have come to a conclusion. We also note that appellant has not filed reply to the show cause notice which was issued to him. In our view, the attitude of the appella...
M/S. Puri Oil Mills Ltd., Vs. Haryana Power Purchase Centre and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. against the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 passed by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) rejecting the Petition of the Appellant for re-determination of tariff of their two canal based Mini Hydro Power Plants and amendment of the concluded Power Purchase Agreement entered into with Haryana Power Purchase Centre for sale of power. 2. The Appellant is a generating company which has set up two small Canal based hydro power plants with installed capacity of 1.4 MW each. Haryana Power Purchase Centre which is responsible for procurement of power for the distribution licensees and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee are the Respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively. The State Commission is the Respondent no.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Haryana Renewable Energy...
Cce, Chennai Ii Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2005 to July 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Bench...
M/S. Amol Dicalite Ltd. Vs. Cst Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This stay application and appeal have been filed by the appellant against OIO No.STC/53/COMMR/AHD/2013, dt.28.11.2013 passed by Service Tax Commissioner, Ahmedabad under which a credit of Rs.82,31,651/- inter alia, has been denied to the appellant. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant is having one manufacturing unit at Kadi and is also a Service Provider registered at Ahmedabad. Appellant is taking CENVAT Credit of inputs at the manufacturing unit. However, for Service Tax purposes, all Service Tax credit, both with respect to services pertaining to manufacturing unit and the service providing entity is taken at Ahmedabad. That out of the total input CENVAT Credit denied, an amount of Rs.3,85,551/- actually pertain to services availed at Ahmedabad which is correctly available to the appellant. That for common input services, the credit could be proportionately used or the same could be used entirely for Ahmedabad Se...
M/S. Rolite Synthetics Pvt. Limited and Another Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these three stay petitions are filed against Order-in-Original No. SUR-EXCUS-002-COM-060-13-14 dated 31.12.2013. Since all these stay petitions are interconnected, arising out of the same order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order. After hearing both sides on the stay petitions, we find that appeals themselves could be disposed of at this juncture accordingly, we dispose of the stay petitions and take up the appeals for disposal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the entire argument of the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that adjudicating authority has not granted them an effective personal hearing and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Various correspondence entered into by the appellant with the authorities indicates the same. We also find that adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellants have not filed the reply to the show cause notice. In our view, appellants are required to file reply to the...
Outlook Communications Pvt Ltd, Kerala Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. The details of this case are as under: Service tax of Rs.8,80,030/- has beended confirm ed. Penalties of Rs.8,80,030/- under Section 78 and Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of Finance Act have also been imposed. The Commissioner(Appeals) has made a clear finding in the order passed by him that the appellant should be eligible to discharge tax liability by debit in the CENVAT credit account if sufficient balance was available. The appellant was however denied the availment of credit because the address of the appellant at Kalamassery and the address furnished on the invoices did not match. The non-matching of the address was because the address on the invoices and Bill of Entry was the address before the shifting of the office from Kaloor to Kalamassery. The appellant shifted his office from Kaloor to Kalamassery in August 2008. The previous office of the appellant was at Kaloor from 2003. All the documents for import and invoices for purchase bore the earlier (old) a...
Sanmati Electro-sinterings, Karnataka Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Both sides agree that on the very same issue, the mater had come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 934/2010 dated 07.06.2010 had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. After hearing both the sides, we find that the matter has to be remanded as done earlier. Therefore we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for final decision. 2. The issue involved is eligibility of the appellant for abatement of the value of goods sold while executing the contract for M/s. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (GESCOM). It is the claim of the appellant that appellant had paid VAT on this portion and as per the contract, the items are specified which are required to be supplied. However in the order-in-appeal there is a finding that the appellant had actually raised invoices to M/s. GESCOM for gross amount and have submitted different set of invoices to the department. This is a serious matter. Nevertheless ...
M/S. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.63,981/- and penalty of Rs.2,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The period involved in the present Appeal is June, 2008 to December, 2008. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the issue relates to payment of duty on additional performance bonus (heat guarantee bonus) received from their customer, namely, M/s RSP, M/s BSP and M/s RINL as additional consideration and inclusion of this amount in the assessable value of fire bricks supplied by the Applicant to these customers. In support of his contention, the ld. Consultant has referred to the Tribunals judgment in the case of MPR Refractories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2010 (262) ELT 474 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it has been held that the performance guarantee bonus received from the customers cannot be added to the assessable value for the period prior to and afte...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »