Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the appellants against letter dated 10.2.12 signed by the Dy.Commissioner of Central Excise on behalf of Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of chemicals falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have manufacturing facilities at two units one situated at Plot No.E-90/E-93/E-94/E-95 and another at Plot No.E 131 of MIDC, Tarapur Industrial Area, Tarapur, Boisar Dist.Thane, Maharashtra. Both the units are duly registered with Central Excise Department and fall under the Central Excise Division-Boisar II of Thane.II Commissionerate. Both the units are separated by a public road. Though the Central Excise Registration of Unit II was taken on 16.6.2010, the actual manufacturing activity at this unit started much later as civil construction and installation of machinery was not complete. The two premises of the appellants’ unit are p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order dated 13.2.12 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were availing Cenvat credit on inputs received from 100% EOU. As per provisions of Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs received from 100% EOU with effect from 1.3.2006, Cenvat credit is admissible equal to the amount calculated by the formula X x [ 1+BCD/400) x (CVD/100) ]. However, the appellants were availing full Cenvat credit of CVD, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess. In view of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the appellants were entitled to Cenvat credit as per this formula prescribed in Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. But the appellants were wrongly availing the Cenvat credit in excess of amount admissible to them as per the provisions of Rule 3(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly a show-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appeal and stay application are directed against the of Order-in-Appeal No: PKS/406/BEL/2010 dated 27/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - II. 2. The facts relevant for this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant M/s. YG1 Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of drills/tools falling under Chapter 82 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services such as courier charges, internet, manpower supply, job-work for grooving, technical testing, labour for making punches, machinery reconditioning, consultancy, insurance, photocopier services, advertising, etc. The original adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit totaling to Rs. 3,44,603/- against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority allowed CENVAT credit on various services such as courier charges, internet, labour for maki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang The applicant filed this application for restoration of appeal. The appeal was dismissed as none appeared on the date fixed. In view of the reasons explained, i.e. due to illness of the counsel, appearance could not be made. In these circumstances, the order dismissing the appeal is recalled. The COD application, stay petition and the appeal are restored to their original numbers. 2. The applicant filed application for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal along with stay petition. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the adjudication order was communicated to the appellant on 13.8.2010 and the appeal was filed on 10.12.2010 beyond the condonable period prescribed under the Central Excise Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Central Excise Act. 3. We find that as per the provisions of Section 35(1) of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appeals and stay applications are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: 208-209/MCH/ADC/GR.VB /2012 dated 09/03/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals, Mumbai Zone - I. As both the appeals arise from a common order, they are taken up together for consideration. 2. The facts arising for consideration are as follows: 2.1. Two bills of entry, namely, No. 453053 dated 16/04/2004 and 451272 dated 08/04/2004 were filed by Mr. Ismail Kanbir Abdulla and Mr. Chadragiri Rangaiah respectively for the import of Toyota RAV 4 and Toyota Prado cars respectively. The department seized these cars on the ground that the bills of lading pertaining to these imports were issued on a date different from the date of shipment and as per the documents issued by the shipping companies in these cases, the date(s) of arrival of the vessel carrying these shipments were much later. Since the cars were second-hand, for the import of second-hand cars it should have been in the possession of the im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the demand beyond the normal period of limitation as time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of IC engines and cleared certain quantity of goods manufactured to M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd. by availing the benefit of Notification 64/95 dated 16.3.1995. The Notification provides exemption from whole of duty to all the goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy/Indian Coast Guard. A show -cause notice was issued on 27.8.2001 for the period 30.8.1996 to 30.12.2000 demanding duty by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification and set aside the demand which is beyond the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. The appeal is against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai wherein the CHA Licence No. 11/205 has been revoked after initiation of proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004. 2. The facts in brief are that a report was received by the Commissioner of Customs (General) that the appellant is involved in fraudulent import of goods such as Radio Cassette Recorders and Crockery items and by resorting to undervaluation by M/s Idol Enterprises and one of their employees Mr. Dinker Ghanekar who dealt with the Customs clearance knew the fact of undervaluation. Investigation was further conducted and during the course of investigation it was found that the appellant have cleared the goods on the fake IE Code which was found later on to have been fraudulently taken by the appellant. Therefore, their licence under Regulation 20 (2) of the Regulations was suspended. After suspension of the licence, proceedings under Regulations 22 were in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant M/s Phil Marketing Services Ltd imported film rolls in bulk and filed Bills of Entry. All the assessments were made finally and the goods were cleared on payment of CVD as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Later on, it came to the notice of the Revenue that as these films are meant for retail sale, therefore, the appellant is required to make the payment of CVD as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. A Show Cause Notice dated 31.3.2006 was issued and the same was adjudicated and the appellant was asked to pay additional customs duty, the goods were held liable for confiscation and accordingly redemption fine was also imposed. Penalty on the appellant and on other three appellants, namely M/s Phil Corporation Ltd, Mr. S.H. Kothari and Mr. K.D. Bhat are also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before us. 2. Mr. Naresh Thacker, the learned counsel for the appellant before us and submitted that in this case as the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant, namely M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd, has filed this appeal against the impugned order. The same is reproduced as under: “(i) The goods covered by the 13 Bills of Entry indicated in the Annexure B to this order are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 90/94-Cus dated 1.3.1994 read with Project Import Regulations, 1986. (ii) The ‘technical service charges’ are to be added to the assessable value for charging duty in respect of imports covered by three Bills of Entry, namely Nos 13561 dt 26.7.1995, 9060 dt 18.8.1995 and 10228 dt 18.11.1995. (iii) The provisions assessments are to be finalized accordingly and the differential duty of Rs 5,39,99,069/- is confirmed on the importers u/s 18 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The security deposit of Rs 50,00,000/- submitted by the importers the time of registration of the contract is appropriated in full towards the above duty liability. The balance of Rs. 4,89,99,069/- to be paid by the imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos RT/22-29/LTU/MUM/2010 dated 26.8.2010 and No. RT/32/LTU/MUM/2010 dated 15.9.2010 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case for consideration in these appeals are as follows. 3. The appellant M/s Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai (Special Economic Zone Developer and Special Economic Zone Units) filed nine refund claims towards the Service Tax paid on services consumed within the SEZ and services which were used in the authorized operations of the SEZ units. The refund claims were considered and partly sanctioned vide the orders passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who further partly allowed the refund claims and rejected the refund claims partly. We are concerned with the refund claims rejected by the lower appellate authority amoun...
Tag this Judgment!