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 the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the enhancement of valuation done by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported one consignment of sports goods namely, badminton sets with craft declaring value @ U.S.$ 0.48 per set. The Adjudicating Authority was having doubts about the value of the said goods, and therefore, assessed the goods @ U.S. 1 per set. The appellant paid the duty on enhanced value, cleared the goods, and thereafter went before the Commissioner (Appeals) who sought clarification from the Asst. Commissioner who passed the adjudicating order. The Asst. Commissioner replied vide his letter dated 26th November, 2008. Thereafter, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment of Bill of Entry. Aggrieved by the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The appellant are a company registered in India and are subsidiary of M/s GAP International Sourcing, Inc., U.S.A. who are a prominent retailer in U.S.A. and other countries. The appellant entered into a service support agreement with M/s GAP, U.S.A. for rendering various services relating to procurement of goods recommending fabrics to be used for manufacture of garments, recommending vendors from which fabrics, yarn, zippers, buttons, snap fasteners etc. can be procured, reporting the status of manufacture of products by the chosen vendors, analyzing the reports of the samples sent by the vendors, giving recommendation about the product integrity, inspecting export consignments and issuing inspection certificates, screening the vendors suitability in terms of child labour norms and pollution control norms and recommending the teams to be engaged in logistic work like transportation, clearing and forwarding etc. for export of the purchased products out of India. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard ld. Counsel Shri Archit Agarwal for the appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, ld. D.R. for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-I dated 8.7.2011. This order rejected the appellants appeal preferred against an adjudication order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I. The appellate Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax, interest and penalties assessed by the primary authority. 3. Proceedings were initiated by a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2009 clearly attributing/alleging that the appellant, a housing finance Company and a subsidiary of the Bank of Baroda had provided business auxiliary service, a taxable service defined in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994 (the Act); had received consideration from its customers towards fee for permitting pre-closure of loans; had failed to disclose the consideration so rece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard ld. Counsels for the several appellants and Shri Jain ld., DR for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The appellants herein (except the appellant in ST/206/2011) are either principal agents or sub-agents of overseas entities providing money transfer services, either M/s Western Union Network Ltd. or M/s Money Gram Payment Inc; as the case may be. Other appeals are preferred by Revenue. 3. Assessees have preferred appeals against appellate orders, rejecting appeals and confirming primary adjudication orders levying service tax, interest and penalties on the ground that assessees had provided Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) to either the principal Indian agent, or wherever the assessees are the principal agent to the overseas entity which is in the business of money transfers. Revenue appeals are preferred primarily against orders of appellate Commissioners deleting penalty imposed under Section 76 and on the ground penalties were imposed under Section 78, hence penalty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Consequent upon receipt of an intelligence by DRI from China on 19.09.2005 through the consulate General of India, Hong Kong that one M/s Vikas Overseas, B-6, Arya Nagar Society, Patparganj, Delhi having IEC No. 0592009335 had exported Ketamine from India in the guise of Alfa Olefin Sulphonate (AOS) and 1010 Kgs of Ketamine was seized by Chinese Bureau of Narcotics Control, DRI investigated into the export made by Shipping Bill No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 backed by Invoice No. 465/2005-06 dated 04.08.2005 covering export of 17,500 kgs of Alfa Olefin Sulphanate (AOS) to a Chinese buyer viz., M/s Yantai High Link Import and Export Co. Ltd., 47, X inanhe Road, Yantai, China, by M/s Vikas Overseas in India. 2. According to the outcome of investigation, there was an allegation against Shri Devinder Pramod and Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta that they had exported Ketamine in terms of 3 (three) Shipping Bills No. 1494427 dated 06.08.2005 1435176 dated 02.11.2004, 1470670 dated 29....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under. 1.1. The appellant are a partnership firm mainly engaged in business of mining and related works. They are registered with Service Tax Department since 06/4/09 for payment of service tax. The appellant also provide services to M/s Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., a Government of Rajasthan Enterprise [hereinafter referred to as RSMML] in relation to mining of lignite. In this regard the appellant entered into an agreement with RSMML on 16/1/03. In terms of the agreement, the appellants job was clearing the site for mining, excavation of top soil and its dumping at a specified place, removal of the over burden and raising of saleable lignite from Matasukh Mines located at Jayal Tehsil, Nagaur District, Rajasthan. The payment for the services provided by the appellant, in terms of Section VII of the agreement, was on the basis of per M.T. of saleable ignite mined by them. Inquiry in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. The appellant is absent. There is no adjournment application. Notice has been returned back with postal remark left.2. In absence of the appellant, record was thoroughly examined with the assistance of Revenue. 3. Revenue supports the adjudication. 4. Export of rice was made by two shipping bills No. J-90804089 and J-908004090 dated 24.12.08 declaring that as of Basmati Rice valued at Rs. 30,60,256/- each totaling to Rs. 61,20,512/- in FOB and 96.6 M.T. in weight, through ICD Garhi Harsaru. It was found that rice intended to be exported was not Basmati rice for which sample was taken. Entire inventory was taken in the presence of CHA. Accompanied documents show that instead of examination report, inspection report was only issued by Range Officer. Accordingly, approval was taken for detailed examination at the port of export. 5. Inferior quality of rice contained in the container was proved by the report dated 27.1.2009 of Project Director, Directorate of Rice Researc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. When the matter was called in appeal No. C/545/2008 Shri Udit Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri K.K. Anand says that there is no instruction for him to appear today in this appeal. 2. It is an admitted fact from record that the appellant Shri Sushil Sharma was an employee as Asst. Commercial Manager and Authorised signatory of M/s. Fashion World International, Ludhiana. He was also signatory of customs and Central Excise documents. He was looking after work of import and export made by above company. 3. Investigation into the premises of appellant company made by the department revealed that Polyester Fibre did not reach to its factory. Shri Sushil Sharma had knowledge about non-receipt of the goods in the factory of the appellant. He was not found to be an innocent person nor ignorant of the fate of the goods imported when he was authorized signatory for the purpose of customs documentation. His concern over the imported goods could not be ruled out b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri RK Mishra, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, respondents are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics. Their factory was visited by the officers of DGCEI, who conducted search operations at their factory premises as also at their godown on 20.01.2004. Certain stock of finished fabrics totally valued at Rs.10,44,883/- (Rupees ten lakh forty four thousand eight hundred and eighty three only) was found in excess than the recorded balance. Similarly, the stock of P.C. suiting and PV suiting totally valued about Rs.4 lakh (Rupees four lakhs only) involving duty of Rs.40,848/- (Rupees forty thousand eight hundred and forty eight only) was found short. The respondents deposited the said duty on 30.01.2004.Similarly, at the godown, the officers detained the en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Switchgear of North-West brand falling under chapter heading 85.36 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is factory was visited by the DGCEI Officers, who conducted various checks and verifications. During the course of search, the officers recovered certain loose papers having some calculation in respect of plastic brass, M S and other scrap sold on different dates during the period 02.08.2000 to 28.11.2003. Some papers allegedly containing details of removal of finished goods were also recovered. 2. Statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Arora, the Deputy General Manager as also of Shri P.D. Aggarwal, Chairman and Managing Director were recorded. As per deposition made in the said statements, they could not offer any explanation for the enteries made in the loose papers. However, it may be mentioned here that there is no confession by the said deponents to the effect that the details and calcula...
Tag this Judgment!