Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order. None appears on behalf of the appellants. Ld. A.R on behalf of Revenue submits that the matter was adjourned on several occasions at the request of the appellants. On perusal of records, I find that the matter is adjourned on 1.11.2013, 20.12.2013, 7.2.2014. Today also, no body turned up on behalf of the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The learned counsel submits that the adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that, by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the department's appeal without determination of duty along with interest and penalty. He submits that there is no determination of duty and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R on behalf of Revenue submits that appellant had not clearly stated as to whether they have challenged the penalty as proposed in the SCN. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that by show cause notice dt. 17.2.2011, it was proposed to recover wrongly availed credit of Rs.40,26,495/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with stay order in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that no appeal is maintainable before Tribunal against the dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of stay order. He relies upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (a).Aakash Cable TV Network Vs CC and Excise, Jaipur-II 2013-TIOL-1807-CESTAT-DEL (b).Venus Rubbers Vs CCE, Coimbatore Final Order No.40596/2013 dt. 22.11.2013 He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs CCE (A) Chennai - 2006 (202) ELT 591 (Mad.). He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs Collector of Customs - 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC) held that Section 129E of the Customs Act provides a conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant paid service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service from Cenvat account during the period July, 2005 to Mar. 06. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.8,37,108/- along with interest which is to be paid in cash through TR-6 challan instead of payment through Cenvat account. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R.26 (Tri.-Del.) held that there is no restriction for utilizing of Cenvat credit by the manufacturing units towards payment of service tax as service provider on G.T.A. service as per CBEandC Manual of Supplementary Instructions and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of 57 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the delay of filing appeal would be 65 days. None appears on behalf of the applicant despite issue of notice. The learned AR submits that the matter was adjourned on several occasions but nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. 2. After considering the submissions of the learned AR and on perusal of the records, I find that the matter was adjourned on 2.8.2013, 10.1.2014 and 7.3.2014. It seems that the applicant is not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, the COD application along with stay and appeal are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. After hearing the Ld. A.R. and on perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved is levy of CESS on export of Shrimps and Prawns under the Agriculture Produce CESS Act,1940. It is seen that the Tribunal held that in the case of CC Tuticorin Vs Edhayam Frozen Foods 2005 (190) ELT 72 (Tri.-Chennai) held that no Cess is leviable on Shrimps and Prawns under the Agriculture Produce CESS Act, 1940 which is upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 2008 (230) ELT 225 (Mad.). In view of that, I do not find any reason to differ with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that he has no instruction from the clients in respect of these appeals. On a query from the Bench, Ld. advocate submits that he has filed Vakalatnama which is kept on record. In this context, Ld. AR submits that appeals are old one and no initiative is taken by the appellant. 3. After hearing the submission of both sides and on perusal of the records, it seems that the appellants are not interested to proceed in these appeals. Therefore, all the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents were exporting marine products namely prawns/shrimps through Chennai Sea Port. Department was levying and collecting cess as customs duty @ 0.5% on exports of prawns / shrimps under Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. The respondent challenged the levy of cess and the assessment orders in the Shipping Bills before the Honble Madras High Court vide Writ Petition No.12097 98/1999. The Honble Madras High Court vide order dated 16.12.2006 directed the respondent to file appeal under Section 5A of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 before the appellate authority. In pursuance of the order dated 16.12.2006, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order holding that cess is not leviable on export of prawns/shrimps and the cess paid by the respondent would be refunded to them. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. After hearing this matter at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant is engaged in providing services such as "Share Transfer Agent", "Registrar to an issue" and "Renting of Immovable Property". The appellants made excess payment of tax by cash in the month of April 2009 against tax liabilities which they have adjusted in the months of May 2009, June 2009 and July 2009. A show cause notice dt. 15.11.2010 was issued on the ground that adjustments of tax liability in the subsequent months were not in conformity with Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Hence it was proposed to demand an amount of Rs.14,54,726/- towards tax short paid due to excess adjustment under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules. It was also proposed demand of interest and imposition of penalty. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. They have not maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs meant for used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods. They paid 10% on the value of total price of exempted final product in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and collected the same from their customers. A show-cause notice dated 22.5.2007 was issued proposing the demand of an amount of Rs.12,54,998/- in the month of December 2004 under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of Rs.12,54,998/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!