Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Mathew John, J. 1. Stay petitions in respect of the above four appeals filed by different persons, in matters arising out of the same impugned order are being considered in the present proceedings. The facts of the case are broadly that the first applicant Shri P. Ganesh, sent a consignment from Singapore to Chennai Airport. The customs officers had intelligence that there would be an attempt to remove this consignment from customs area without filing Bill of Entry and paying customs duty and therefore they kept surveillance. The officers intercepted the consignment just outside the gate of the Air Cargo Complex when the goods were actually removed without filing Bill of Entry and paying duty. The goods were seized. On investigation, the DRI found that the goods were sent by Shri P. Ganesh describing it as Auto spare parts. On examination of the goods the consignment was actually found to contain various electronic goods like Handy cam, Video camera, Battery charger, USB port conn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
P.K. Das, J. 1. Both the appeals are arising out of common order and therefore taken up together for disposal. After hearing the stay petition at length, we find that the appeals can be decided at this stage. Accordingly, after disposing the stay petitions, we take up the appeals for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Tax was demanded under the category Maintenance and Repairs Service for the period from October, 2004 to March, 2010. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubber lined goods. Apart from that, they undertake the process of rubber lining of steel tanks/vessels, steel pipes/fittings/flanges etc. supplied by the customers. In some cases the appellant rendered similar services at the customers premises. In both the cases, the appellants paid service tax on the labour charges. The dispute relates to the demand of tax on material portion. 4. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the Honble Delhi High Court in the recent decis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Mathew John, J. 1. After hearing the stay petition for some time, we decided that both the stay petition and appeal may be taken up together for disposal because there is requirement of more detailed information for deciding the matter and the need for a denovo consideration by adjudicating authority was felt. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, appeal itself was taken up for hearing. 2. The appellant is providing General Insurance Service. They provide such insurance service directly to their clients and also through intermediaries ie., through insurance agents like Banks, NBFCs, Motor Vehicle Dealers, Garage Owners etc. 3. While selling insurance policies, Regulations laid down by the IRDA requires that for a prescribed period after receipt of the policy document by the insured, the insured should be given the right of refusing the policy. The appellants claim that in cases of such refusal, the appellants refund the insurance premiums along with the service tax c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that this appeal needs to be remanded for the reasons being recorded in this order. So after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit under section 129E of Customs Act, I take up the appeal itself for hearing and decision. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal filed before him for non-compliance with provisions of 129E of the Customs Act. 3. The counsel submits that an application for waiver of predeposit was posted for hearing on 01-02-13 before Commissioner (Appeals). On that day, the appellant could not appear because the earlier advocate did not get the notice. In the meanwhile, the present advocate was engaged and he gave a letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.2.2013 requesting that personal hearing may be granted to him. But without giving such personal hearing, an interim order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.2.2013 directing the appellant to make a pre-d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case as revealed from the record, in brief, are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cement. They were availing CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. By a show-cause notice dated 19.2.2009, it has been alleged that during the period from April 2006 to May 2008, the appellant availed irregular credit on capital goods, namely MS Angles, MS Beams, MS Channels and TMT bars classifiable under heading 72, 73 and 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has further been alleged that the Chapter heading of these items were not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the said Rules, 2004. Further, these items were not used in the manufacture of finished products. The learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of CENVAT of Rs.53,23,756/- under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the said Rules, 2004 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. By Order No.507/2004 dt. 1.3.2004, the Tribunal remanded back the matter to the original authority to re-adjudicate as under :- We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Departmental authorities. In this case, the circular No.62/99-cus dt. 17.9.99 was issued by the Board clarifying the issue involved in the present appeals. In para 3 of the said circular, it is clarified that revised interest effective from 12.5.99 is applicable in respect of goods warehoused prior to that date, but only from the expiry of six months or 12.5.99 whichever is later. Wherever goods have been allowed to be removed from the warehouse on or after 12.5.99 may be reviewed and decided in the light of these instructions. In view of these clear-cut instructions, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant commissioner of Customs are set aside and matter is remanded b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dismissing the stay application, I take up the appeal for disposal. 2. This appeal is by the Department. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported 500 kilograms of L-Argenine and filed a Bill of Entry on 21.11.2011 declaring the goods as L Argenine, not for medical use, that the Bill of Entry was assessed on second check basis with a direction to obtain NOC from the Assistant Drugs Controller, Chennai before clearance of the goods, that the importer could not obtain such NOC and hence submitted a representation dated 7.3.2012 to the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport - Import) and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group - II), Customs House, Chennai seeking release of the goods in view of its limited shelf life and in the light of the Honble High Courts judgment dated 23.2.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 1559/2010 (Drugs Controller General and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
P.G. Chacko In this appeal filed by the Department, the short question is whether the Ayurvedic soap manufactured by the respondent (assessee) and cleared under the brand name MEDIMIX during the period from August 1999 to April 2001 was classifiable under sub-heading 3401.12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 directing nil rate of duty for the said period or classifiable under sub-heading 3401.19 of the said Schedule and chargeable to duty on MRP basis. 2. In a show-cause notice dated 13.6.2003, issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of the results of the investigations conducted during November 2000 to April 2001, it was alleged that the assessee had manufactured ayurvedic bath soaps with the aid of power and had cleared the goods under the above brand name without payment of duty or complying with other provisions of the Central Excise Rules, though the product was classifiable under sub-heading 3401.19 during the aforesaid period. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein conversion of their shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is denied. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a shipping bill on 2.7.2009 for export of readymade garments under advance licence cum duty drawback scheme. Thereafter, they moved an application for conversion of the part of the consignment under drawback scheme to advance licence scheme on 15.9.2009. As the appellants were given the benefit of drawback scheme before their filing of the request on 15.9.2009 and considering the fact that the appellants are not entitled for benefit of conversion as per Board’s Circular No.4/04-Cus. dt. 16.1.2004, their request for conversion from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides. On behalf of the appellants, Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate appears and su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The appellants are in appeal along with application for stay against the impugned order where input service credit has been denied for rent-a-cab service availed by the appellant on the premise that the same is not eligible as per Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the issue is of in narrow compass, therefore I waive the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SCN was issued to them on the allegation that rent-a-cab service is not input service as per Rule 2 (l) of CCR 2004 but both the lower authorities have also observed that as the appellant has not provided documentary evidence for rent-a-cab service which has been used by the appellant for bringing and dropping their employees from their residence to the place of work and other official purposes. Therefore, if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, they will produce documentary evidence showing that rent-a-cab servi...
Tag this Judgment!