Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application for staying the impugned demands under the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 194 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both the sides, we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order dated 19/12/2011 without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, considering the submissions made by both the sides, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the stay application on merits and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 3. We have gone through the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner who has adjudicated the matter, in view of the situation where they have obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of Rs.30,45,573/- is confirmed with interest and penalty is also imposed. The demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997. 3. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of cables. During the period from 1998 to March, 2002, the appellants cleared various consignments of cables to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, INSAT - Master Control facility, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre of Indian Space Research Organization by availing the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE. 4. A show-cause notice was issued on 2.5.2003 alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and for denial of the benefit of notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of mis-decla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 63,42,833/-, interest and penalty. 3. The demand is confirmed after finalization of the provisional assessments for the period in dispute. 4. Against the adjudication order, whereby the demand is confirmed with interest, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand for hearing of the appeal. As the appellant had not complied with the conditions of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that there is an excess payment of Rs. 65,37,723/- in pursuance of the finalization of the provisional assessments and there is als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) By this appeal, the appellant are challenging the service tax demand confirmed under the category Repairs and Maintenance of Roads and Goods Transport Agency Service for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. Today t he stay application is listed before us, but after hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the service of Repairs and Maintenance of Roads has been exempted from service tax vide Notification 24/09 dated 27.7.2009 and the amendment has been brought with retrospective effect through Finance Bill 2012. Therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax on this activity. With regard to GTA service, it is submitted that the appellant is a service recipient and they do not fall under the 7 category where the service recipient is to pay service tax under the GTA service. Therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant had challenged this impugned order along with application for stay. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant purchased four value based advanced licence from TISCO which were transferred under DGFT under para 67 read with para 127 of the Policy. On the basis of the licences for the import, certain imports were made and availed of benefit of Notification 203/92. As per Condition 5A of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus, one of the condition is that manufacturer shall not avail input credit on the inputs which were gone into manufacturing of the final product exported. As no evidence of this effect was available on record, therefore a show-cause notice dated 29.1.1999 was issued to the appellant on the premise that as there is no evidence with regard to the fulfilment of the condition 5A of the Notification, appellant are not entitled for the benefit of Notification. 3. Matter was adjudicated and demands were confirmed. Appellant challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal Vide impugned order, the adjudicating authority disallowed the wrongly availed credit of Rs.1,41,226/- with interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of man-made fabrics falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had opted for exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004 vide letter dated 09.07.2004. On scrutiny of records, it was found that the appellants had availed excess CENVAT credit of Rs.1,27,479/- in August 2003 and Rs.13,747/- in December, 2003, for which no document was available with the appellants. Therefore, they reversed the said amounts on 30.04.2007. As per the conditions of the Notification, the assessee reversed the entire amount of CENVAT credit from their accumulated CENVAT credit balance. The contends of the Revenue is that as it is an admitted fact by the appellants that they have taken CENVAT credit wrongly, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No.SB/107/Th-II/09 dated 10/12/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The appellant, M/s.Dicitex Dicor Pvt. Ltd., is the manufacturer of man made fabrics. For the purpose of manufacture of these final products, the appellant had imported hangers, sample booklets, etc. containing designs and drawings of the fabrics to be manufactured. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of the additional duty of Customs paid on the said inputs. After the manufacture, the appellant exported the goods under a claim for rebate of duty of the duty paid on the finished goods under Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 3. The department was of the view that the appellant is not entitled for Cenvat credit on the hangers and booklet inasmuch as they have not been used as inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and, accordingly the appellant is not entitled for the credit. The credit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P. R. Chandrasekharan 1. Both the appeals and stay applications are directed against order-in-appeal No. Th-I/RKS/20-21/2012 dated 09/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The appellant, M/s.Shree Shankar Mills Ltd., Thane, are textile processors and they availed the benefit of notification No.30/2004 dated 09/07/2004, which provides exemption on processed manmade fabrics and cotton fabrics from duty subject to the condition that no Cenvat credit is availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods. They also cleared processed fabrics on payment of duty under Notification No.29/2004 dated 09/07/2004, which provides for a concessional rate of duty and also allows the processor to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of processed fabrics. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants with regard to the claim for exemption under Notification 30/2004 on the ground that the appellant did not maintain separate re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. This appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No. No.US/120/RGD/2012 dated 24/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The appellant, M/s.Grindwell Norton Ltd., supplied samples to the customers through courier and they claimed Canvat credit of the service tax paid on courier service. The credit was denied on the ground that the appellant did not produce documentary evident to show that courier charges are part of the price charged and the ownership of the goods was with the appellant and the place of removal was the premises of the recipient. 3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the appellant has documentary evidence to substantiate their claim and submitted copies of the invoices/purchase orders in respect of the transactions involved, which clearly indicate that the courier charges are part of the price charged from the customers and the ownership of the goods remained with the appellant till such time the goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. This appeal and stay application are directed against the order-in-original No.56/2011/CAC/CC(G)/SLM/CHA (Admn) dated 18/08/2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 2. The appellant, M/s.M.K. Shipping Services, is a Custom House Agent holding CHA license No.11/958 issued under the provisions of CHALR 2004 as a proprietary concern. The appellant filed four shipping bills bearing Nos.7557073 dated 30/07/2009, 7563198 dated 01/08/2009, 7571506 dated 04/08/2009 and 7575681 dated 06/08/2009 on behalf of M/s.Chawla Trading Co., Nagpur, by declaring the goods as ‘basmati rice’ as per the export documents such as invoices, packing list and original certificate issued by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) provided by the exporter. The goods were received by the appellant at Navkar CFS, Panvel, directly from the suppliers of the exporter. After completion of the carting procedure, the shipping bills w...
Tag this Judgment!