Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar (Oral): The Appellant are manufacturer of zinc and its products chargeable to central excise duty. During the period of dispute, they availed cenvat credit of Rs.64,47,317/- in respect of rent-a-cab services availed for transportation of workers/employees from their factory to homes and back, credit of Rs.48,617/- in respect of rent-a-cab services for sending sick employees to hospital and besides this, cenvat credit of Rs.62,435/- in respect of rent-a-cab service for transporting children of employees/workers to school/tuition centres and back. 2. The Department being of the view that appellant are not eligible for cenvat credit in respect of rent-a-cab services availed for the above three purposes, issued a show cause notice dated 4.9.2009 for recovery of allegedly wrongly taken credit amounting to Rs.65,58,369/- during the period from July 2004 to January, 2009 along with interest and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant. This show cause notice was adjudicate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by the authorities below, Revenue has filed the present appeals. As all of them involved the identical question, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. After hearing the learned DR, it is seen that original adjudicating authority as also Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents. The issue revolves around fixation of annual capacity of production in terms of Pan Masala Rules, 2008. The capacity was fixed in respect of 59 machines. However, as some of the machines were sealed by the Revenue during the relevant period 9different numbers in different months), the lower authorities have held that Pan Masala Rules are for determining the capacity and fixation of duty liability in respect of operating machines which are functioning and not for the machines which are not working. Inasmuch as the machines which are sealed by the department, and proved to be sealed on physical checking, duty liability cannot be fixed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa ( for the Bench): After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar mill machinery, heavy gears and steel casting, diesel engine and parts thereof falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also undertaking the job work / processing of old and worn out sugar mill rollers supplied to them by various sugar mills. The process involved on the said old and worn out rollers is deshelling i.e. braking of old shells, reshellinig i.e. mounting of C I shell on the old steel shafts by shrink fitting and subjecting the same to some further processing like machining and growing etc. Inasmuch as the activities of reconditioning of old and worn out rollers does not amount to manufacture, the appellant was not paying any Central Excise duty on the same. 2. Revenue by entertaining a view that such activity amounted to providing services falling under the category of maintenance and repair, initiated proceedings agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mathew John : The issue involved in this appeal is the Cenvat credit taken on plate, shapes and sections of steel used in the factory of the manufacturer. Revenue argues that these goods cannot be considered as capital goods. The assessee-appellant is contesting that the denial of Cenvat credit taken on the impugned goods and Revenue is contesting the impugned order, to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue whether Cenvat credit can be availed on such goods was in dispute for quite some time and only a Larger Bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of Revenue in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB). The Counsel submits that M/s Vandana Global Ltd. is challenging the order before the Chattisgarh High Court and the High Court has admitted the appeal. 3. He further submits that it has been consistently held by the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa: The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints, which are being packed in drums. Their factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 23.11.09 and various checks and verifications were conducted. As a result, finished goods were found in excess as also some of the drums were found having not been entered in their RG 23A Part I records. The officers seized the same. 2. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated proposing confiscation of finished goods as also confiscation of drums for the packing material and for imposition of penalties. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the excess found goods as also drums with an option to the appellant to redeem the same and also imposed penalties. 3. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation of finished goods but uphold the confiscation of packing material i.e. drums as also imposition of penalty. 4. The appellants contention is that these drums were purchased as old and used ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 241/CE/ALLD/2011 dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) , Central Excise, Allahabad whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the order in original dated 29.1.2010 on the ground that appeal was barred by limitation. 2. The case of the Department is that order in original was dispatched to the appellant through speed post on 2nd February 2010. The aforesaid order was not received back undelivered. As such there is a legal presumption that the order in original was duly served on the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) raising aforesaid presumption took the plea that the appeal was filed by the appellant sixty days after steh service of adjudication order. As such it was time barred. 3. The case of the appellant is that appellant did not receive the order in original allegedly sent through speed post and he actually received the matter on 5.5.2011 and the appeal was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa: Cenvat credit stand denied to the appellant on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of invoices which are either in the name of their another unit, located in the close vicinity or are not disclosing the address of the appellant or have given the wrong address of their head office. 2. I find that the appellants relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal before Commissioner (Appeals), who has not referred to same on the ground that all the three units are of the same company, similarly named, are located in nearby areas, and as such, in the absence of proper address identification, there is every chance of mis-use of documents. However, I find that the Cenvat credit is available subject to the condition that the use of the inputs is in the appellants final product. If there is no dispute about the fact that other units have also availed credit in respect of same raw materials covered by the same invoices, the denial of credit may not be justified bas...
Tag this Judgment!