Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by Department against the Order-in-Appeal No32-33/CE/CHD/2006 dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand allowing the appeals of the respondents-assessee, setting aside the order of adjudicating authority confirming demand of Rs.16,39,289/- also equal amount of penalty under section 11AC and also personal penalty of Rs.15 lakh imposed on Shri Ramesh Gupta under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Swati Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.44-45, Sector-i, Industrial Area, Parwanoo, H.P. are engaged in the manufacture of water storage tanks, plastic pipes and non dutiable product i.e. sprinkler and drip irrigation systems falling under chapter 39 and 84 respectively of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The appellants availed benefit of Notification No.49-50/2003 dated 10/6/2003 as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J.1. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of manmade yarn chargeable to Central Excise duty. They avail Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of their final product. For manufacture of spun yarn, the appellant received manmade/synthetic fiber on which Cenvat credit is taken. On 3/2/04 and 12/2/05, there was fire accident in the blow room, in which the raw materials in the blow room were destroyed. The appellant received insurance claims of Rs. 16,11,601/- and Rs. 38,43,080/- from M/s. United India Insurance in respect of loss of raw material suffered by them in the fire accidents on 3/2/2004 and 12/2/2005 respectively. Since, intimation regarding these fire accident had been given by the appellant to the department, departmental officers conducted enquiries and found that in these fire accidents, the Cenvat credit availed inputs/fibers had been destroyed on which Cenvat credit involved was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has preferred the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, learned AR appearing for the revenue, and Shri H. Bajaj learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Premier Color Cartons. Their factory was visited by the officers on 23.08.2006 and verifications were made. It was found that another factory in the name of M/s. Pearl Pact, being proprietor unit of Smt. Ramesh Gupta, mother of the director of the respondent company was also engaged in the manufacture of identical goods. It turned out that M/s. Pearl Pack stopped their manufacturing operation in the year 2005-06. 3. Based upon the statements recorded during the course of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the respondent alleging that they were clearing their final product in the name of M/s. Pearl Pack. As such duty was proposed to be confi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute relates to the refund of Service Tax paid on various services like clearing and forwarding agency, test analysis warehousing storage and CHA service in terms of provision of notification No. 17/2009 -ST dated 7.7.09 3. On going through the impugned order, I find that lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that CHA should not have paid the service tax on the entire amount including the statutory levies and the reimbursable expenses etc. as also on the ground that whereas services stand provided by various agencies, invoices stand issued by other agencies acting on behalf of the service provider and the service recipient. 4. I find that the legal issue are no more res integra and stand decided by following decisions of the Tribunal: 1. Neelav Jaiswal vs. CCE Allahabad [AIT-2013-135-CESTAT]; 2. D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents are providing renting of immovable property services and are discharging their Service Tax liability accordingly. However in the month of March, 2012, they were required to pay service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,96,032/- which they paid. In addition, as per the appellant, by mistake they took into consideration some bills of the service provider and inadvertently paid service tax of Rs. 12,60,145/- which they were not required to pay. Subsequently on realizing the said mistake they claimed the refund of the same. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner but on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. It is seen that Revenues contention is that said deposit of Rs.12,60,145/- by the respondent was on account of some inadmissible Cenvat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Cannulae and Needles were imported duty free by the appellant availing exemption granted under Notification No. 53/97-CUS dated 03.06.97 for use in the manufacture of Disposable syringes with or without needles. On enquiry, it was noticed that the appellant had imported 20,72,50,000 pcs of Cannulae and 20,49,03,815 pcs of Needles during the period November, 96 to April, 2003 and issued 12,16,50,000 pcs of Cannulae and 20,49,03,815 pcs of Needles for the manufacture of finished goods. Out of such issue, 65,52,285 pcs of cannulae and 3,26,64,788 pcs of needles were claimed to be waste and scrap. 2. Repeated requests were made to appellant to provide year-wise details of Needles and Cannulae imported duty free and waste and scrap generated in manufacturing of finished products for the period 1996-97 to April, 2003. But appellant provided details in respect of Cannulae only for the period 1997-98 to 2001-02 and no details were provided in respect of needles. Summons dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. All the six appeals filed by revenue are being disposed of by a common order as these arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal NO. 23-Cus/Alld/2012 dated 16.03.2012 vide which he set aside the order of original adjudicating authority and allowed all appeals of the respondents. 2. Going through the facts briefly, it is observed that the Customs officers intercepted one truck bearing registration number HR 69-2157 at a place near Raja Talab at Varanasi-Allahabad High way. The Truck was carrying Betel Nuts claimed to be imported from Bangladesh. The driver Santosh Singh on demand showed following papers namely - transit Declaration Form (Govt. of U.P.), - lorry Challan of M/s Manglam Parivahan Pvt. Ltd Kolkata, - bill of Entry having serial number 06530 dated 3-11-2010, - lorry Challan No. nil dated 14-11-2010 issued by M/s. Chandra Roadways, - tax invoice issued by M./s S. Krishna and co., - consignment note no. 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Revenue has filed this application bunching appeals involving substantially similar matrix and facts of law and seeking early disposal of the appeals filed by the several appellants assessees in 2012, on the ground that the appeals are covered against the /assessees and in favour of Revenue, vide the final order of this Tribunal in M/s Neelav Jaiswal and Brothers Vs. CCE, Allahabad vide Appeal No. ST/2648/2012-CU(DB) 2. Shri Laxmikumaran and Sreedharan are the Counsel representing the several appellants/assessees. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Counsel representing the Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that position that the issues presented in all the appeals are covered against the appellants by the judgment of this Tribunal in M/s Neelav Jaiswal and Brothers Vs. CCE Allahabad, vide the judgment dated 22.7.2013 in ST/2648/2012-CU(DB). In the light of the assertion by ld. DR Shri Dixit and the statement on behalf of the appellants that the issue is covered in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. The impugned order dated 29.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vide Order-in-Original No.57-58/2012-2013 dated 30.03.2013 disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs.24,34,70,614/- allegedly wrongly availed by the appellant and distributed by IOC-AFS during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012, in contravention of Rule 2(l), 2(m) and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; directed recovery of this amount; and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 of the Rules, for contravention of specified rules. The petitioner is an input service distributor. Cenvat credit was distributed to the manufacturer of High Speed Diesel viz. M/s. IOC, Panipat Refinery. 2. Identical proceedings were earlier initiated by way of two show cause notices, dated 21.09.2010 covering the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. These proceedings were however dropped by the Commissioner by the order dated 27.08.2012 on the ground that the demand for recovery of cenvat credit cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the ld. Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad confirming service tax of Rs.10,42,626/-; late fee of Rs.2000/-; penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77; and penalty of an amount equivalent to service tax, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad on 9.4.2012. 2. The appellant received the primary adjudication order on 10.10.2011. An appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay, pleading that the appellant was incapacitated from filing the appeal due to urgent work which required going out of station. Thereafter, he fell ill and could not contact its Counsel for seeking advice, and when he became well he contacted Counsel and filed the appeal. 3. The Appellate authority rejected the appeal, declining to exercise discretion to condone the delay, since the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!