Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these three stay petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arising against the order-in-original passed which confirmed demand of Rs. 1.59 Crores and Rs. 11.62 Lakhs, interest thereof and penalties on all the appellants. 2. The said amount of Rs. 1.59 Crores has been calculated as an amount of 10% of the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared by availing CENVAT credit of common inputs while the demand of Rs. 11.62 Lakhs is in respect of ineligible CENVAT credit availed. 3. After hearing both sides at length for sometime on the stay petitions, we are of the view that appeals themselves could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, considering the amount already deposited by the appellants as enough deposit, we take up the appeals for disposal after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these Stay Petitions are being disposed of by a common order as these are concerning the same issue and are from the very same assessee. 2. After hearing both sides for some time on the Stay Petitions, we find that the appeals themselves could be dispose at this juncture. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for disposal after disposing of the Stay Petitions. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding differential duty payable by the appellant as regards valuation of the final products cleared by them. It is the grievance of the appellant that they were not effectively heard by the adjudicating authority before passing order in all these appeals. On perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has granted them one date in respect of 4 appeals and 2 dates in respect of other appeals but did not wait for some more time as the appellant in their response to P.H. notice had claimed that Board is issuin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This Stay Petition seeks waiver of pre-deposit of the amount confirmed as in-eligible CENVAT Credit, interest thereof and penalties imposed. 2. We propose to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue involved lies in narrow compass, in as much as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the pre-deposit ordered by him. Accordingly, we dispose of the Stay Petition and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that vide Stay Order passed by the first appellate authority which is annexed at Page No.236 (Stay Order No.SRP/120/STAY/VAPI/2013-14, dt.24.10.2013), the first appellate authority has recordedWhile the case is prima facie in favour of the applicant on the basis of the case laws relied upon by the applicant in respect of period prior to amendment in Rule 7 of CCR, the interest of Revenue also needs to be kept in mind. 5. Having recorded the clear-cut fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant tried to justify the condonation on the ground that they were not aware of the provisions of Service Tax; were not aware as to where to approach for filing the appeal; they were informed by various persons that they have to pay the entire amount then only the appeal can be filed. It is also the reason given in the application that they had to believe the consultants or professionals to whom they approached; that they have no resources or income other than the service receivers given the job; that they had no intention not to pay the Service Tax and have paid approximately Rs.5.97 lakhs. Ld.Counsel also would try to justify that they have a good case on merit. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were represented before the first appellate authority by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in providing taxable service falling under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation services. In addition, the appellant is also engaged in rendering taxable services under the category of Management, Maintenance and Repair services as defined under Section 65 (108)(zzg) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant failed to get the later category of service registered with the Department and also belatedly filed ST-3 returns for the period October 2007 to March 2008 on 17.07.2008. Appellant on their own paid the Service Tax of Rs.2,75,365/- along with interest of Rs.60,477/-. On receipt of ST-3 returns, Revenue issued a show cause notice for penal action and penalties under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were imposed upon the appellant. In the appeal filed before the first appellate authority, penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were upheld. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dt.19.12.2011/20.02.2011, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This stay application and appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SUR-EXCUS-002-APP-247-13-14 dated 27.11.2013. 2. Shri Avinash Poddar (Chartered Accountant) appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the first appellate authority has rejected their appeal on the ground that there was delay of 4 months and 20 days in filing appeal, which is beyond the condonable period of three months under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was his case that due to inevitable circumstances the appellant could not file appeal before the first appellate authority as the appellants son was having poor health and hospitalized during the relevant period and due to mental disturbance appellant could not hand over the order-in-original to his consultant in time. 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is no provision in the Service Tax provisions to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit provided under Section 85(3A)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No.E/185/2013-DB to E/187/2013-DB have been filed by the appellants against common Order-in-Original No.27/MP/VAPI/ 2011, dt.28.12.2011 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Vapi. Miscellaneous application No.E/EH/10708/2014 for early hearing has been filed by the Revenue on the grounds of high revenue involved. As the facts in all these appeals/application are same, these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the office as well as the factory premises of the main appellant M/s Jaydeep Tubes Pvt.Ltd. (Appeal No.E/185.2012-DB); manufacturer of drawn/re-drawn copper pipes, brass pipes and cupro-nickel pipes; were simultaneously searched by the Central Excise officers on 29/30.03.2007. During search operations, certain incriminating documents, including four diaries, showing purchase of raw materials and sale of finished goods, were recovered from the factory premises. Two diaries numbered a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No. C/472/2006 has been filed by M/s Gujarat Adani Port Ltd against Order-in-Original No. 58/Commissioner/2005, dt.27.12.05, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and under a licence from the Government of Gujarat is engaged in the business of operating port at Mundra. The appellants have also been designated as Custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 22.04.2004, shipping line viz. M/s Sea World Shipping and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. filed prior Import General Manifest for 5,221.00 M.T. before arrival of cargo at Mundra Port. On 26.04.2004, vessel named M. T. Argoat Voy. 024 carrying cargo arrived and declared the cargo as condensate Crude Peroleum Oil (CPO). The vessel was berthed at 12.06 Hrs. On 27.04.2004, the Customs and Surveyor formalities were completed and the discharge of the cargo commenced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J.1. All these appeals are disposed by a common order as the issue raised is same. 2. We notice that the appeal filed by M/s Green Village Agros Pvt.Ltd. is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal while other appeals are filed against Order-in-Original. The relevant facts that arise for consideration in all these appeals is, that all the appellants had filed shipping bills for export of basmati rice/pusa basmati rice. The said consignments were examined by the officers of dock examination and representative samples were drawn and forwarded to Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai for analysis to ascertain whether the samples meet specifications of the basmati rice; as the appellant had sought the benefit of DGFT Notification No.55(RE-2008)/2004-2009, dt.05.11.2008 as amended by the Notification No.57/2009/14, dt.17.08.2010. The requirement for analysis arose as the said notification laid down the conditions as to the grain of rice sought to be exported. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran; These two stay petitions are filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed as ineligible cenvat credit, interest thereof and penalties imposed. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of approximately Rs. 21.19 Lakhs, interest thereof and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the ground that appellant has availed ineligible higher cenvat credit on the materials purchased from an Export Oriented Unit. We propose to take up the appeals themselves as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the pre-deposit ordered by him of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards duty liability and Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petitions and take up the appeals for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. We find that the issue involved in this case is being contested by the main appellant inasmuch as, they are stating that the cenvat credit is availed by them on the documents provided by Export ...
Tag this Judgment!