Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent/ Revenue. At the interlocutory stage since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in M/s Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. vs. C.S.T., Delhi reported in 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri-LB) we dispose of the substantive appeal itself. 2. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, confirming service tax demand of Rs.1,20,84,695/-, apart from interest and penalty as stipulated. The demand arises consequent on denial by the adjudicating authority of the benefits claimed by the assessee under abatement Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006, on the ground that the assessee had failed to declare the gross consideration received from the service recipients, including the value of goods freely supplied to the assessee/service pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. Appeal is of four years old. 2. When the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that the appeal came on record on 10.2.2009, while Order- in-Original was passed on 4.8.08 and served on the appellant on 7.8.2008. There was no evidence before him as to the filing of appeal duly for which he concluded that appeal was barred by limitation in view of delay of 127 days. When there was no reason given to the Commissioner (Appeals) as to the delay, he dismissed the appeal. Law is well settled that statutory authority cannot be compelled to pass order beyond limitation. 3. There is an affidavit on record. There is no dispute by the appellant as to the date of service of order-in-original. Only plea of the appellant is that appeal papers were sent on 17.09.2008 by courier. Courier receipt is available on page 19 of appeal folder. That revealed that the date is not mentioned correctly in the courier receipt. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for the respondent. Revenue is in appeal against order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who did not examine the contents of the bill of entry, relevant document accompanying such bill of entry as well as the concerned invoices to reach to his conclusion as to whether there were three machines imported or one machine imported. He simply went by Chartered Engineer's Certificate saying that either the adjudicating authority should have accepted the certificate or rejected the same. So also whether bill of entry disclosed import all three machines or one machine and the intension behind such disclosure in the bill of entry was not examined by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Revenue's grounds of appeal brought out that when three machines came and those were liable to duty the respondent was duty bound to pay duty on all the three machines. In the grounds of appeal, Revenue submits that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without examining the provision of section 28 of Cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. Appeal is of 2006 and has been rolling on board. Notice was issued on 9.1.2014 but no one caused appearance from the appellants side. Since the matter is of 2006, I proceed to decide the matter with the assistance of learned JCDR. 2. While going through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.67(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2006 dated 24.1.2006, I find that the issue for consideration was whether cold rolled stainless steel patta subjected to rerolling process will amount to manufacture or not. It is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 and 9 has dealt with matter in detail. 3. Learned JCDR points out that the judgment of the Tribunal in Indian Strips vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-2004 (173) ELT 265 (Tri.-Mum) wherein after following amendment in the chapter 4 to chapter 72, it was held that cold rolling process will amount to manufacture and duty was demandable. For the purpose of clarity, para 20 is reproduced as under:- 20. The Commissioner relies on Chapter Note 4 of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for both appellants nor is there any adjournment application. Notices have been returned back un-served. 2. When there was smuggling of goods as per panchnama dated on 19.7.2006 and resulted in discovery of offending goods, proceedings were initiated against both appellants. While appellant Sri Harinder Singh was found to be master mind and was principal smuggler, he had engaged Azizur Rehman Hamid Hamidani, a conduit to be carrier of smuggled goods. Both were implicated in the proceedings. Rehman Hamid Hamidani faced penalty of Rs.10 lakh and Sri Harinder Singh was faced penalty of Rs.25 lakh. 3. Customs has brought out allegation in para 23 of adjudication order as appearing in pages 44 to 47 of the appeal folder. Ld. Adjudcating authority has also categorically brought out how goods covered by panchnama were valued at Rs.1,29,55,750/- and assessable value thereof was determined at Rs.88,88,877/- were liable to confiscation being prohibited goods. Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty, interest and penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that the adjudication is made against the appellant that they are receiving the invoices, but physically, goods were not received by them. Therefore, they are taking the CENVAT credit on the strength of fake invoices. In these circumstances, appellants are not entitled to take the CENVAT credit. Accordingly, impugned proceedings were initiated and impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, appellants are before me. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants drew my attention to both the orders passed by the lower authorities. With regard to adjudication order, it is submitted that the appellants were given opportunity to appear on 16.07.2010 and 19.07.2010. It is submitted that they have received the notice on 16.07.2010 itself for the hearing on 16.07.2010. Therefore, they could not appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal along with application for stay. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant received the adjudication order on 03.12.2012 and thereafter appeal was filed on 01.03.2013 before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with the delay of 27 days. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred on the premise that he has not satisfied with the reasons stated for filing the delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the delay was caused because of two reasons (a) the file was mis-placed and (b) the concerned person was having acute pain in stomach later it was detected as kidney stone, which was operated upon. In these circumstances, he prayed for the delay be condoned and the matter be remanded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein inputs credit has been denied on the premise that they have received the credit on the basis of fake invoices. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods i.e. super enameled copper wire. During the course of their manufacturing activity, they were procuring the inputs and taking the input credit. The investigation took place wherein it was found that the appellant has taken input credit on certain invoices which were not genuine as the person who had issued the invoices was fake as the supplier of the goods having not procured the goods from the person whose name as manufacturer was shown in the invoice, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant which resulted in duty demand along with interest and equivalent penalty confirmation. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that appellant has procured the inputs along with invoices and they have tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,12,134/- under Rule 25(l) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is second stage dealer who procured the goods from M/s. Rajdhani Industrial Corporation and Bajrang Steel Traders, who are also first stage dealer who procured the goods from M/s. Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. During the course of investigation, statement of Shri Ramesh Rawat, Director of M/s. Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. was recorded that they have issued invoices without actually supply of goods. Therefore it was alleged that as the manufacturer of the goods have admitted the fact that they have not supplied the goods and transporters also made statement during the investigations that they have also not transported the goods from M/s. Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. to Rajdhani Traders or Bajrang Steel Traders. As the goods have not been received at first stage dealer, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Revenue has come in appeal challenging discharge of liability using Cenvat credit earned on GTA services. Such a contentious issue having been settled by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (09) LCX0293 and CCE, Chandighar-II Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 193 (PandH) and all the three matters being related to a period prior to April, 2006, all the three appeals are dismissed. 2. Copy of this order be placed in all the three records for reference of record....
Tag this Judgment!