Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on welding electrodes and gases used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that the said activity cannot be held to be an activity associated with the manufacturing process and as such cannot be called as cenvatable input.2. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and also by Hon'ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka. In the latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samruddhi Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore [2013 (297) E.L.T. 562 (Tri. Del.)] has considered an identical issue and the entire case law including the contra-judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and has come to the conclusion that the duty paid on the items used for repairs and maintenance would be available as CENVA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After rejecting the Revenues prayer for staying the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I proceed to decide the appeal itself in as much as a short issue is involved. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of aerated bottled for which they have received the new bottles and crates as also the old re-used bottles and crates. In respect of new bottles, the appellants are availing the CENVAT credit. However, the old and used bottled received by the appellants, the same are reflected in a separate record maintained by them. 3. The respondents have another sister unit engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. Sometimes, on requirement basis, the old and used glass bottles and crates are transferred by the appellants to their sister unit. Revenue by entertaining a view that the respondents are liable to reverse the CENVAT credit in respect of such bottled so transferred by them to their sister unit, initiated proceedings them, res...
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 duly represented by Shi B.B. Sharma, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Kamal Khemka, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, I find that the respondents were engaged in providing telecommunication services as also inter-connecting usage charges (IUC) services. They were availing the credit of Cenvat credit of various inputs and capital goods etc. During the period of demand i.e. February 2006 to May, 2006 they availed the credit to the extent of 100%. 3. Revenues objection is that inasmuch as respondents was providing taxable services with the telecommunication services as also exempted services i.e. inter connection usage services, they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit to the extent of 20% only in terms of Rule 6(3) and in view of decision in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Roh...
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 mould steel ingots and runners and risers under an agreement entered into by them with M/s. DSM Sugar Asmoli. Under the said lease agreement dated 26.09.2002, the facility of land and machinery stands provided by M/s. DSM Sugar, Asmoli and the capital goods were received by them are required to be installed by the appellant and the duty on the final product required to be paid by the appellant. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availability of CENVAT credit of Rs.10,26,070/- on the ground that the invoices issued by the supplier of the inputs are in the name of M/s. DSM Sugars, Asmoli, though there is no dispute that the said capital goods were received by the appellant and were duly erected and installed in their premises and were used for the manufacture of dutiable and excisable goods. M/s. DSM Sugars, Asmoli has endorsed the said invoices indicating as certified that the goods covered under these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Notice had gone in this case on 17.12.2013 fixing the matter for hearing today. Earlier when that matter came up on 1.10.2013, in absence of the appellant issuance of notice was directed fixing date of hearing on 19.11.2013 following direction of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in customs appeal No. 9 and 10/2012 disposed on 21.3.2013. The appellant did not turn up on 19.11.2013. Accordingly, notice was further issued fixing the hearing today. 2. Today no one is present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application. 3. Customs appeal No. 736/207 arose out of adjudication order dated 7.9.207 where learned Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had imported 226800 kgs. of goods declaring that to be Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (Vanaspati Ghee) from Nartha Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka in terms of Bill of Entry No. 1203 dated 11.7.2007 availing exemption under notification 02/2007-Cus dated 5.1.2007. Upon testing the sample of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appeal No. E/141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 is one batch of appeal which covers the period 1.12.1998 to 31.03.2004, arose out of common adjudication. The other batch of appeals No.972/2012, 988/2012 to 992/2012 covers the period April, 2004 to April 2006 arose out of common appeal order. 2. Revenue is in appeal registered as E/3044/2005. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES 3. Ld. Counsel Shri B. L. Narasimhan appearing for assessees submits that there are 3 issues involved in the first batch of appeal registered as appeal Nos. 141/2005, 143/2005 and 144/2005 relating to the period 01.12.1998 to 31.03.2004. MANUFACTURE NIPPLE 4. The first issue in the first batch of appeals is whether complete feeding bottles cleared, manufacturing only nipple thereof and affixing/assembling thereto other components/accessories bought out from outside or manufactured by others, amounts to manufacture. 5. On behalf of appellant it was submitted that the nipple manufactured by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard the ld. Counsel Shri J.K. Mittal for the appellant and Shri Amresh Jain, ld. A.R. for Revenue. 2. This is an assessees appeal preferred against the adjudication order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi I. This order is the culmination of two show cause notices dated 19.4.2010 and 19.10.2010, covering the period October 2008 to March 2009 and April 2009 to March 2010 respectively. The order confirmed service tax liability apart from interest and penalties for having provided Business Auxiliary Service; of Rs.39,13,729/- and Rs.1,00,31,640/-, under the respective show cause notices, in all of Rs.1,39,45,369/-; and Rs.3,41,508/- towards Management, Maintenance or Repair Service during April, 2009 to March 2010 (covered by the 2nd Show cause notice dated 19.10.2010). 3. Several contentions are urged to impeach the validity of the impugned order. Principally however, the challenge is on the ground that the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of biscuits, which are being sold by them to M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., Ghaziabad, who are marketing the same. 2. The appellants were clearing the said biscuits on payment of duty @ 10.3% prior to 24.02.2009. Vide Board Notification No.4/2009-CE, dated 24.02.2009, The rate of duty was reduced from 10.3% to 8.24% with effect from 24.02.2009. However, without realising the issuance of the said Notification bringing down the rate of duty, the appellant contributed to clear their goods till 31.03.2009 on payment of higher rate of duty. 3. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.1,59,119/- (Rupees one lakh fifty nine thousand one hundred and nineteen only) on 10.03.2010 in respect of excise duty paid by them in the month of March, 2009. They also produced a letter dated 31.03.2010 from their buyer M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. indicating that in respect of excise invoic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhawa, J. 1. Both appeals are being disposed of by common order as they arise out of same set of facts and circumstances. 2. Appeal No.E/51/2006 relates to the appellants claim of remission of duty in respect of final product which were destroyed in the fire. As the said remission application stands rejected by the Commissioner, consequent demand of duty stands confirmed in respect of second appeal No.E/2171/2006. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ceramic items. A fire broke in their factory on 1.4.2003 between 22.00 to 23.00 hours. The fire brigade was intimated about the fire at 23.45 hours and on the second day itself i.e. on 2.4.2003. Intimation was given to the appellants jurisdictional central Excise authority. As a result, appellants range officer visited their factory premises on the same day i.e. on 2.4.2003 and found that fire had taken place and goods converted into ashes. Appellant tried to control the fire by pouring water and also called fire b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhawa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that modvat credit was sought to be denied to the respondent on various grounds. The same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority alongwith imposition of penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed denial of credit in respect of certain items but dropped the confirmation in respect of credit of Rs.2,26,269/- and Rs.7,75,427/-. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. As regard credit of Rs.2,26,269/-, the same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the said material was not reflected in the material receipt voucher and the material register or purchase register of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these records are private records and it is not mandatory to maintain private records. Accordingly, he held that when the goods have be...
Tag this Judgment!