Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has set aside the demand of Rs.8,96,437/- confirmed against the assessees on the ground that they had rendered “Management, Repair and Maintenance Services” as well as “Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services” on the ground that the demand raised for the period July-03 to December-07 was barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued only on 24.9.08 which is after a period of 1= years from the date of recording of the assessee’s statement. 2. I have heard both sides. I agree with the Revenue that demand cannot be held to be barred on the ground on which the lower appellate authority has held so, in the light of the apex court-s decision in Mathania Fabrics Vs CCE Jaipur [2008 (221) ELT 481 (SC)]. The extended period of limitation of 5 years is available to the department, if assessees are found to be guilty of suppression or misstatement with intention to evade pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. Revenue challenges the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the demand, interest and penalty against the assessees, for appropriation of interest and penalty out of the amounts paid by the assessees out of the credit amount. 2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the Revenue that interest and penalty amounts cannot be so appropriated. I, therefore, set aside the direction for appropriation of interest and penalty and direct that interest and penalty payable by the assessees should be paid in cash. However, I accede to the assessee’s request for re-credit of the amount paid out of the credit towards interest and penalty in view of the direction that interest and penalty are required to be paid by the assessees in cash. 3. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The challenge in these appeals is to the extension of credit of service tax paid towards GTA and Custom House Agent’s services beyond the place of removal. The period in dispute is entirely beyond 1.4.2008. 2. I have heard both sides and find that in the case of M/s.India Cements Ltd. and Others vide Final Order No.855-858/2011 dt. 27.7.2011, the Tribunal has remitted the cases where the period in dispute is beyond 1.4.2008, for fresh decision, after holding that credit is admissible on post-clearance services for the period upto 1.4.2008, following the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s judgment in CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)]. Following the same route in these cases also, I set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 3. The appeals are thus allowed by way of re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. In this case, a show-cause notice dt. 15.1.93 was issued to the assessees (manufacturers of sodium silicate) proposing recovery of Rs.4,36,678.56 on the ground that they had cleared the goods without payment of duty and proposing adjustment of amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid on 29/30.5.92 and also proposing penal action. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dt. 21.2.95 confirmed the demand raised in the SCN, appropriated the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- already paid and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- against which the assessees preferred appeal to the Tribunal which vide Final Order No.315-318/2000 dt. 2.3.2000, remitted the case for fresh decision. In the light of Tribunal’s order, a claim for refund of Rs.4,36,678.56 was filed by the assessees on 4.1.2001 and was rejected vide Order-in-Original No.11/04 by the Asst. Commissioner on 17.9.2004. In the remand proceedings, subsequent to the Tribunal’s order dt. 2.3.2000, the Additional Commissioner vide order dt.27.3.2002...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The appellants herein filed four Bills of Entry in September 2002, October 2002 and November 2002 for clearance of Soga brand glassware. They were regular importers of such brand of glassware and for assessment of the Bills of Entry the Department was following the 2000 price list obtained from SIIB. Subsequently, it was noticed from the 1999 price list that the value was much higher than that of price declared in the 2000 price list. As both the price lists were purportedly issued by the manufacturer and there was difference in prices there was a reasonable doubt to reject the declared value and to resolve the conflict in the various price list, price list was sought to be verified and both DRI and the Directorate of Valuation were contacted. Vide letter dated 6.8.2002, the Directorate of Valuation forwarded the 2001 price list of Soga brand glassware and simultaneously the Commissioner (Appeals) received a copy of the 2002 price list by post, purportedly fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. Under the impugned order the adjudicating authority has confiscated items such as Panasonic video cassettes, Sony video cassettes, audio cassettes, floppy disc etc. on the ground that the importers had undervalued the same, with an option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against the above order. We find that the finding of undervaluation is based not only upon the statement of Shri R.Suresh, Proprietor of the appellant but also on the prices shown in the NIDB data. Although the learned counsel vehemently contends that valuation cannot be arrived at on the basis of a statement and that the importer had produced copies of correspondence to show proof of the negotiated prices and relied upon the NIDB data showing lower contemporaneous price for some of the items, we find that during the personal hearing when the importers relied upon the copies of correspondences regar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The common issue in dispute in all these appeals is as to whether transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from the place of removal are included in the definition of “input service” for eligibility to availment of CENVAT credit of service tax. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that this issue stands decided by recent decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)] holding that transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, upto 1.4.2008 are included in the definition of “input service”. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we allow the appeals filed by various assessees and reject the appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross-objections also get disposed of accordingly. 4. A copy of list showing the duty, penalty and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants imported the impugned consignment “nkII ultra congruent tibial insert (Implants)”. The same has been classified under Heading 90.21 but has been denied exemption under Notification No. 21/2002. 3. We find that the said Notification No. 21/02 as amended by Notification No. 66/04 as applicable at the relevant time exempts assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 41 under Sl. No. 370 of the Table annexed to the said Notification. List 41 referred against Sl. No. 370 includes instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instruments and implants including bone cement. The impugned goods being implants meant of joint replacement for persons requiring such replacement are clearly exempted under the impugned notification. Without such implants, such persons will be severely handicapped and disabled to function ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we waived requirement of predeposit and proceeded to take up the appeals themselves for final disposal as the issue in dispute stands covered by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)]. The High Court has held that transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, upto 1.4.2008 are included in the definition of “input service” and that credit is admissible till this date. Following the ratio of the above decision, which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present cases and which partly upholds the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in ABB Ltd., and noting that the period in dispute in the cases of M/s.India Cements Ltd., M/s.Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. covered both pre as well as post-1.4.2008 and also noting that the period involved in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The claim for refund filed by the assessees herein on the ground that they were eligible to exemption in terms of Notification No. 21/2002 for spares for offshore drilling jack up, rigs imported by them, has been dismissed on the ground that the assessment made without extending the benefit of the notification was not challenged. 2. We have heard both sides and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). Since the legal position stands settled by the Apex Court and it has been followed by the lower appellate authority, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. At this stage, learned counsel for the assessees states that the assessees wish to seek re-assessment. It is open to them to do so in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!