Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Mr. Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants had provided the services of consulting engineers to IPCL and other parties for setting up of chemical plants. They paid service tax on the amounts billed as their charges towards providing service of consulting engineers. However, they had also incurred certain expenditure on behalf of their principals like placing advertisements for procurement of materials required for executing the project, clearing and forwarding of such material from the port to the project sites etc. They did not include such reimbursed amounts in the value of services on which tax was paid. The Revenue has made out a case that such reimbursements formed part of value of service and they issued a show cause notice demanding service tax on such value not taxed during 01.04.02 and 17.04.06 by issuance of show cause notice dtd. 27.03.08. 2. The first submission of the counsel for the appellants is that, in the case of similar contracts of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the three appeals, though arising out of two different orders, are being disposed of by a common order as they are interconnected and issue involved is identical.Appeal No.4885-4886 of 2004 2. Vide Order-in-Original No.CCE/ADJ/04-09/04, dtd. 15/22.01.04, in appeal No.4885-4886 of 2004, Commissioner has held as under:- (i) Confirmed demand of duty of Rs.83,60,821/- against M/s Thermotech under section 11A of Central Excise Act,1944; (ii) Imposed penalty of identical amount under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules; (iii) Imposed penalty of Rs.8.50 lakhs on Shri Pradeep Khanna, Proprietor, M/s Thermoking under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules; (iv) Confiscated 5 air conditioners with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- and on payment of appropriate amount of Central Excise duty. (v) Confiscated 2 air conditioners from M/s Kashi Electricals (dealer) with an option to them to redeem the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The dispute required to be resolved is as to whether conversion of motor spirit into motor spirit power and of HSD into HSD turbojet by mixing small quantities of multifunctional additives would amount to manufacture or not. 3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issues are covered in respect of the same parties by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Delhi 2009 (234) ELT 648 (Tri.Del) Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Lucknow 2009 (240) ELT 403 (Tri.Del) 4. It stands held in the above decisions that blending of duty paid unleaded motor spirit and HSD with multifunctional Additive will not amount to manufacture as there is no change in characteristics use of the resultant product. 5. As against the above, the learned DR has drawn our attention to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE Patna Vs. Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi vide which he has confirmed the Service Tax of Rs.87,70,372 and Education Cess of Rs.1,75,407 against the appellant along with interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. entered into an agreement with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., M/s. TIDE Water Oil Co. Ltd. and M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. In terms of the said agreement the BPCL, Tide Water and Savita Chemicals were permitted to use the brand name of ‘Hero Honda’ and ‘Hero Honda 40T’ on the containers of the products manufactured by them, for the purposes of marketing and promoting their said products. Further M/s. Hero Honda has reserved their right to grant the said use of the trade m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The Appellants imported two consignments of aluminium alloy billets and filed two Bills of Entry for home consumption bearing Nos. 447920 and 447923 dated 1.9.2005 for clearing the goods. The Customs EDI systems assessed the Bill of Entry showing Basic Customs Duty at the rate of 7.5%, the Appellants paid Custom duties on the said Bills of Entry based on such assessment. 2. But actually the Customs duty was reduced from 7.5% to 3.75% vide Notification No. 79/2005 which came into force on 1st September 2005 i.e. the date of filing of the Bills of Entry. When the importer went for clearing of the goods from the shed and a final print outs of the Bills of Entry were taken the Bills of Entry were seen assessed adopting the new rate of 3.75% which had come into force on 1st September 2005 itself. The importer took delivery of the goods and also the final print out of the Bills of Entry showing the new lower rate and thereafter filed an application fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondents appeal, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri A.K. Batra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents filed an application on 27.4.05 for refund of Rs.5,44,421/- on the ground that the said amount stands wrongly deposited by them as Service Tax under the impression that the said activities undertaken by them amounts to providing construction services. However, subsequently, they were advised that the activities carried out by them does not amount to construction services inasmuch as they were carrying out the various works as per drawings and blue print supplied to them by the architects and interior decorators appointed by their clients directly. 3. They were issued a SCN proposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri I.Baig, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Ravi Chopra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Though the ld. advocate appearing for the respondent has advanced arguments on the maintainability of the appeal itself in as much as the authorisation letter was not signed by the Committee of Commissioners but was signed by the Commissioner, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits in as much as we find that the issue stands covered by the precedent decision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise staff visited the factory premises of the party on 27.10.01 and it was found that the party was using the brand name ‘ZOLOTO-m’ on the Pipe Fittings manufactured by them under the SSI exemption notification in operation at the relevant time. In terms of the SSI notification, exemption to the specified goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses as also in the manufacture of special denatured spirit and ethyl alcohol denatured. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Cenvat credit of Service Tax availed by the appellant in respect of various services received by them, in relation to civil construction work in the factory. It is seen that originally show cause notice was issued denying the benefit of credit in respect of various services. However, Commissioner vide his impugned order disallowed the Cenvat credit in respect of the following: (i) Labour hutments; (ii) Kisan sheds; (iii) Vastu consultancy (iv) Dismantling for building structure of sugar house. The above credit stand denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the above services are not covered by the definition of input services as available under Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Duty of Rs.32,83,102/- stands confirmed against the applicant by denying them the benefit of Modvat Credit of service tax paid on various services. In addition, penalties stands imposed upon him under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. For sale of their final product, they availed the services of the commission agent, and are paying Service Tax on the said services under the category of Business Auxiliary services. They availed the Cenvat credit of Service Tax so paid by them on the services of commission agent. Revenue is of the view that they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit inasmuch as commission agent services cannot be considered to be eligible cenvatable services. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellants by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 01.02.10 raising demand of duty for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Bharat Bhushan, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri K.K.Anand, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. M/s Ganpati Rolling P.Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of copper wire rods falling under Chapter 7408 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain is Director of the said manufacturing unit. 3. The premises of M/s Ganpati Rolling P.Ltd. were put to search by the officers of DGCEI on 22.02.04. On verification of the stock, it was found that the raw materials and the finished goods were in excess of the quantity recorded in the statutory records. The same were accordingly put under seizure by way of a Panchnama dtd. 22.02.04.4. Statement of Shri Lalji Dubey, Manager was recorded on the same date wherein he deposed that the records maintained by them in the shape of raw materials st...
Tag this Judgment!