Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. At this stage, it is deemed fit to make reference to the stay order. In this appeal filed by the appellant, there are three issues at dispute. (i) The credit of service tax on the services provided by a security agency to the appellant (ii) service tax on invoice value that has not been realized (iii) interest on delayed payment of service tax on the above two counts. 2. In respect of Item No.(i), the submission of the appellant is that as per the contract between them and the service provider for providing the impugned service, the service provider should have paid the service tax. They presume that service tax has been paid and they are asking for credit. The invoices produced from the service provider shows that the applicable service tax has been paid. It does not show the amount of service tax actually paid. 3. The learned DR submits that initially the service provider was not registered. Amount of serviced tax is not in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of copper wire falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Their factory was visited by the officers on 17.10.06 who conducted various checks and verification. As a result 41.51 kg. of scrap (PB, 200 kg of brass scrap and 694.03 kg of PB wire) was found in excess to the recorded balance. On a reasonable believe that the same was meant for clandestine removal, officers seized the same u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Apart from excess, officers also detected shortages of 499 kg. of copper and 405 kg. of zinc and 145 kg. of phosphorus then the recorded balance in the statutory records involving duty of Rs.3,50,915/-. 2. On the above basis, Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the excess found material, confirmation of demand on the short found inputs as also for imposition of penalty. The said order culmi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. After hearing both sides, I find that officer of Customs (Prev) containing 15 bags of Cut betel nut on 1.9.09 lying with the parcel office, Railway Station, Mugal Sarai for further investigation. Said goods were examined by officers on 4.9.09 and were found to be 1200 Kg. of betel nut totally valued of Rs.60,000/-. The officers obtained a trade opinion on 5.9.09 which revealed that the seized betel nut were of foreign origin. Further, inasmuch as nobody claimed the ownership of the said betel nuts, a show cause notice was issued to the ‘whomsoever it may concern’ proposing to confiscate the seized betel nuts and to impose penalty. 2. Subsequently, a letter dated 21.12.09 was addressed by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner owning the said 15 bags of supari. It was also submitted that the same is a produce of West Bengal and were duly assessed by market commodity. In response to the said letter, the appellants were summoned to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
ORAL ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. The issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as under:- (i) Whether the beneficiation of coal activity carried out by the appellant is covered by the category of Business auxiliary services, thus making the appellant liable to pay Service Tax. (ii) Whether the activity of loading /unloading of the coal carried out by the appellant for bringing the coal into washery fall under the category of cargo handling services. (iii) Whether the show cause notice issued on 7.9.06 for the period 16.8.02 to 31.3.06 is barred by limitation. 2. The Commissioner vide his impugned order has confirmed the demand of Rs.16,53,19,593 (Rupees Sixteen crore fiftythree lakh nineteen thousand five hundred nintythree only) against the appellant by holding that the activity of washing the coal falls under the Business auxiliary services. Another amount of Rs. 85,97,773/- (Rupees Eightyfive lakh ninetyseven thousand seven hundred seventythree o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Oral Order No Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter to Asstt. Commissioner with direction to await the order of Commissioner on respondent’s remission application. Revenue’s application is on the ground that Commissioner has no power to remand. 2. Without going into the above legal question, I find that Tribunal has admittedly the power to remand. The Asstt. Commissioner has confirmed the demand against respondents without awaiting the decision of the Commissioner on remission application. Confirmation of demand was directly linked with the remission application. As such, it was clearly on the part of the adjudicating authority to await the decision and matter needed to be remanded back. As such, I direct the Asstt. Commissioner to decide the issue after the outcome of remission application. 3. Revenue’s appeal disposed of in the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Mr M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: 8.1 Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the record of above said case. 8.2 Direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant since date of suspension 29.12.82 till date of acquittal 14.08.06. Further up to 31.12.09 when the applicant has been dismissed for last time by Disciplinary Authority which was quashed by Board of Inquiry Decision dated 10.06.2010 and has made entitled the applicant will all consequential benefits as demanded by Annexure A-11 and A-15 i.e. noticed dated 01.03.2011. 8.3 That direct the respondent to comply their order dated 10.06.2010 Annexure A-19. 8.4 That any other or further relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Oral Order No. Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. There head office is located at Allahabad and registered as input service distributor. The factory is located at Raibareli who is also registered with the Service Tax department for payment of Service Tax. The appellant was availing the credit on various input services used in the manufacture of paper as also on the basis of credit distribution document and utilising the same for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of their final product. 2. The appellants availed the credit of Rs.5,70,423/- on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., which was distributed by their head office. The said Cenvat credit was availed in respect of Service Tax paid by M/s. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., under the category of consultancy engineering services. Such services were used for modernisation of their p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Order Per Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke (oral): 1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Thermoplast Rubber Compound Polyamides, HIPS etc. which are subject to excise duty. The appellant has three manufacturing units located at 1121, M.I.E. , Bahadurgarh, Haryana; Lane No.5, EPIP Kartholi, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana Industrial Complex, J and K and D-29, 30, 31-SIPCOT Footwear Components Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur. The appellant availed cenvat credit on duty paid inputs, capital goods as well as input services. On scrutiny of records of the appellant unit it was found that the appellant unit had availed cenvat credit of input service amounting to Rs.23,47,826/- during the period July 2006 to February 2008 on the basis of invoices issued in the name of Head Office of the appellant located at Delhi. The Department was of the view that since the invoices were issued in favour of the Head Office of the company the appellant was not entitled to avail cenvat credit in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Order Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 38/RPR-I/2012 dated 5.3.2012 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea of the appellant for condoning delay of 29 days for filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal. 2. Along with the appeal, the appellant has moved an application under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of condition of pre-deposit of duty demand , interest and penalty. 3. Matter was listed today for argument on stay application. Since a small issue of limitation is involved we are of the view that appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the condition of pre-deposit is waived and we have heard the arguments on appeal. 4. Undisputedly, the instant appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order in original. Proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confers power...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Oral Order No. Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pet jar falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were registered for their unit located at C-254, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. Their factory was shifted to E-174, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi on 16.3.2009, in the jurisdiction of the same Range. The appellant filed an intimation to their jurisdictional proper officer on 13.4.2009, for change of address in their registration certificate. Such request was accepted by the Revenue and their registration certificate was amended with new address on 1.5.2009. 2. The appellants were issued two show cause notice. First show cause notice dated 9.2.2010 proposed to deny the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,05,345/- involved in the inputs and capital goods shifted from the earlier address to the subsequent address. The notice also proposed recovery of Central Excise dut...
Tag this Judgment!