Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: BC/254/RGD/2011 dated 18/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III. 2. The facts relevant to this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Excel Industries Ltd., filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,91,800/- on 22/12/1998 which was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The matter came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order No. A/983/WZB/05/C-IV dated 22/07/2005 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority and the original adjudicating authority vide order dated 25/01/2011 sanctioned refund of Rs. 3,91,800/-. However, he did not sanction interest on the delayed payment of refund. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority claiming interest on the delayed payment of refund from the date of expiry of 3 months from the date on which the original refund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal along with stay applications against the impugned orders wherein differential duty has been demanded on the charge of undervaluation as they have not cleared goods by valuing the same under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of motor parts. These motor parts are cleared by them to their customers who are manufacturers of automobile. Some parts were cleared to the manufacturing division and some parts are cleared to the spare parts division. The appellants are paying duty on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The department is of the view that the clearances made to the spare parts division are liable to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as these goods are to be cleared on MRP basis. Therefore, show cause notices were issued for demand of differential duty along with interest and proposal of penalty under Section 11AC of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. The appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 2/2011/CAC/CC(I)/APS/GR.VB dated 30/12/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Custom House, Mumbai. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant, M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd., Medapalli Open Cast Project, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh (appellant importer in short) filed a B/E No. 960349 dated 30-7-2010 for the import of ‘Off Road Refuelling Truck ATZ’ with accessories classifying the goods under CTH 8704 declaring an assessable value of Rs.94,83,900/-. On examination of the goods, the department was of the view that the vehicle under importation is not ‘off road vehicles’ as claimed by the importer and therefore, the licensing notes of Chapter 87 will apply. Since the vehicle under import was ‘left hand driven’ and type approval certificate/ARAI certificate as per the conditions of the licensing notes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appeal and the stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: US/114/RGD/2012 dated 22/02/20112 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - II), Mumbai. 2. The appellant M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,74,118/- on the service tax paid on the outdoor catering service. The department was of the view that outdoor catering service is not an ‘input service’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 20/12/2010 for denial of the credit taken on the outdoor catering service during the period November, 2006 to October 2009. The same was confirmed by the adjudicating authority who ordered recovery of the CENVAT credit wrongly taken along with interest thereon and also imposed penalties of equivalent amount under Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.1. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appeal and stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: SB(50)50/MI/2010 dated 27/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I. 2. The facts relevant for consideration in this case are as follows: 2.1. The appellant, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., procured base oil from the refinery at Mahul and received the same at their Terminal at Mumbai and thereafter, the same was stock transferred to their depot at Silvasa. When they stock transferred the goods the appellant reversed the credit of the duty paid by the refinery and paid the equivalent amount and from the Silvasa depot, once again it was cleared on payment of excise duty. The issue involved is for the service tax paid on the freight from the terminal at Mumbai to the depot at Silvasa, whether the appellant is eligible for the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the GTA service. 2.2. The department was of the view that as per the appellant’s averments before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No: BPS(421)/80/2003 dated 16/12/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. In the impugned order the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalties on the appellant M/s. Sark Chemicals (P) Ltd. and Shri S.S. Saboo, Director of the company. Hence the Revenue is before me. 3. The relevant facts for consideration in this case are as follows: 3.1. The respondent is a manufacturer of Ferric Alum and cleared the goods. The respondent also collected packing charges separately in respect of the same; however, they did not include the same in the assessable value of the goods. Thus, there was a short-payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 48,383/-. The respondent was also availing small-scale exemption and on the date of availing of small-scale exemption, there was duty-credit in their books of accounts amounting to Rs. 9,575/- which the respondent faile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang 1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The appeal is being taken up in view of the remand order dated 11.2.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3560 of 2007. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of motherboard and add on card. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereas the Revenue wants to classify the same under Heading 8473 of the Central Excise Tariff. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner (A.R) at length. The add-on card provides more features by adding circuit connected to the motherboard using peripherals component inter-connected. Motherboard is the central printed circuit board of the computer and holds many of the crucial components of the system providing connectors for other peripherals. We find that the sub-heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No: BC/273/M-III/2011-12 dated 24/01/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III. 2. The appellant, M/s. Nitco Tiles Limited, are manufacturers of mosaic tiles falling under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period 2006-07 they availed credit of service tax paid on outward freight i.e., freight from the factory premises to the premises of the customers amounting to Rs. 63,366/-. They also availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,076/- based on documents which were not notified under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25/05/2010 issued to the appellant proposing to deny CENVAT credit. However, they reversed the credit taken before the issuance of the show cause notice. The said notice was adjudicated by order dated 30/06/2011wherein CENVAT credit was denied on outward transportation and also the credit taken on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order along with stay application wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides. 3. After hearing both sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal itself for final disposal. 4. I have gone through the impugned order wherein the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, on the premise that on 07.2.2012 a personal hearing was taken up and in that personal hearing, it is reported that appellant is directed to make a pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax before 22.02.12. For better appreciation, the order passed while dealing with the application for waiver of pre-deposit is reproduced as under:- “Sh.Ramesh G. Joshi CA appeared for PH for waiver of predeposit and reiterated the submissions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein demand has been confirmed against them under security agency services for the period 16.10.1998 to 30.9.2003 along with interest and penalty under Section 75A, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant started security agency in the year May 1997 under the name and style as Jai Jawan Securities under the proprietorship of Shri S.N. Mahajan. In May 2002 Shri Mahajan changed the name of the security agency to Veerjawan Securities Services and applied for registration to the department on 28.11.2003. During the course of proceedings, statements were recorded. On the basis of statement of Shri S.N. Mahajan, a show-cause notice dated 08.4.2004 was issued for demanding service tax of Rs.3,54,202/- for the period 16.10.1998 to September 2003. The show-cause notice was adjudicated, demand of Rs.3,04,693/- was confirmed along with penalty under Section 75A, 77 and 78 were impos...
Tag this Judgment!