Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.09/Kol-VII/2011 dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeal-I), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the goods were damaged/lost due to a fire broke out in the Appellants godown No.LS-3 on 18.12.2006 for which the Appellant had requested for remission of duty involved on such goods under the relevant Rules. The said remission application was rejected by the department on 16.03.2009. Consequently the demand notice has been issued proposing recovery of duty on the lost/destroyed goods in fire. 3. On the commencement of the proceeding the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue Shri S.Chakraborty raised a preliminary objection submitting that since this is a case of loss of goods, during storage in the factory, therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal against the order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) by virtue of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. MISRA, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.22,873/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The Ld. Advocate at the outset, submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided issue on merit but dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. He submits that they manufactured MS Bolts and screws and purchased Nuts from the market and the same were supplied alongwith M.S. Bolt and Screws to make it a complete set. He submits that CENVAT Credit on Nuts were denied on the ground that no manufacturing activity was involved in relation to MS Nuts. He submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 488 (Tri.-Mumbai). He submitted that they have a strong prima facie case on merit. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue accepted that the issue has not been dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. Misra, Advocate. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.42.42,925/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri Bhattacharyaya for the applicant submits that during the period January, 2008 to March, 2008, Ferro Manganese Slag generated during the course of manufacture of Ferro Manganese. He further submits that the same were duly accounted for in their Daily Stock Account (DSA) and used in the factory in the manufacture of Silico Manganese falling under Chapter 7202.00 of CETA, 1985 and since there was no columns in the ER-1 during the respective period, requiring an assesse to show the opening balance (OB) and closing balance (CB), therefore, they did not mention its OB/CB in the respective Return. He has categorically submitted that this Ferro Manganese Slag have been duly accounted for in their DSA and subsequently used in the manufacture of Silico Manganese, also fallin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.18.88 lakh and penalty of Rs.51.26 lakh. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that initially, the demand was issued for a total amount of Rs.51,26,000/- which comprises of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit of Rs.32.37 lakh and short payment of Service Tax of Rs.18.88 lakh. He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), even though in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, their plea on disallowance of the CENVAT Credit is allowed, but no finding had been recorded on the short payment of service tax, in spite of the fact that in the memorandum of appeal, they had explained about the said issue of short payment of service tax. He also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had also not recorded finding on the imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Authority, even though he has reduced the demand substantially from Rs.51.00 lakh to Rs.18.00 lakh. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue fair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.6,70,289/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the Appeal has not been decided on merit by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the demand has been confirmed against them alleging that they have issued 16 (sixteen) Nos. of Debit Notes in favour of the customers in addition to the prices charged against respective invoices. He submits that the said allegation of the Department was incorrect inasmuch as the said Debit Notes were issued for short realization of the amount paid by the customer against each invoices. He has placed reliance on a Chartered Accountants Certificate dated 06.04.2011 in support of his claim. However, he has fairly conceded that the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs.24.35 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri S.P. Siddhanta submits that during the relevant period 1986-87 to 1991, January, 2001 to June, 2001, October 2002 to October, 2006, the applicant had used broken bricks received free from the raw materials supplier and recycled it and supplied refractory bricks to the raw materials suppliers. The value of the raw materials received free viz. broken bricks had been determined adopting comparable prices of other manufacturer without considering the actual prices, therefore, the valuation arrived at by the Department is incorrect. He further submits that the Ld. Commr.(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for default in payment of pre-deposit amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs. He subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.2.22 crore and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e.August, 2010 to December, 2010, the Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on various itmes viz.,angles, channels, beams etc. as inputs, being used in the fabrication/manufacture of various machineries, which are capital goods, and in turn, installed and used in the factory for processing/manufacturing the finished goods namely, Sponge Iron. He submits that they had furnished a Chartered Engineers Certificate dated 10.04.2011, whereby they had furnished a detailed working of receipt, use of the said angles, channels, beams etc. in the manufacture of capital goods in their factory and also its use in the structurals. He submits that they had themselves calculated the quantity of such steel items that were used in the structura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
1. This misc. application is filed for early hearing of the stay petition. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri A.C. Tikadar for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the present stay application, the Department has recovered an amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs (approx.) from the applicant by way of adjusting the sanctioned rebate claims. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. The Ld. Consultant brought to our notice that the present issue involves classification of the manufactured products and the dispute has been set at rest by the Circular issued by the Board bearing No. 950/1/2011-CX dated-01.08.2011. He submits that the stay application be heard early. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has not disputed about appropriation of the said amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs against outstanding dues adjudged in the impugned order. He also agrees that the issue has not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.57.90 Lakhs and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant submits that the entire service charges on which demand has been confirmed relates to Repair and Maintenance of Roads/High Ways. He submits that the period involved in the present case is from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007. He submits that in view of the retrospective amendment, vide Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012, no Service Tax is leviable on the Repair and Maintenance service of roads. 3. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the applicant had not presented himself during adjudication proceedings. He has no objection in remanding the case to the Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre deposit of Service Tax of Rs.6,32,048/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri Devaraj Sahu for the applicant submits that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.4,04,295/- before issuance of show cause notice. He submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. Explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals), he submits that the applicant had handed over all the papers to him in December, 2009. He submits that as there was shifting of his residence and in the process of such shifting, the Appeal papers were bundled with some other files and therefore, could not be traced and the appeal was filed late resulting into delay of two months and twenty days. He submits that in support he has filed an affidavit before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals)...
Tag this Judgment!