Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the lower authorities have demanded service tax of over Rs. 38 lakhs from the appellants in respect of "Commercial and Industrial Construction Service" for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.09.2005. They have also imposed a penalty of Rs. 77 lakhs on the party under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants had paid service tax under the above category on an amount of Rs. 3,30,86,956/- less 67% calculated under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. In adopting the above amount of Rs. 3,30,86,956/-, they did not include the cost of cement and steel supplied free by the clients. According to the Revenue, the cost of these materials also ought to have been included in the gross amount by the service-provider, before claiming the benefit of the said notification. In this dispute, which has been extensively agitated before us by the learned Counsel and the learned JCDR today, an amendment to the above notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be disposed of summarily.Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.2. The appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods. During the period Jan'05 to March'07, they availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on certain input services and utilized the same for payment of service tax on "Goods Transport Agency's Service" (GTA Service, for short) received by them. This credit was to the extent of Rs. 62,812/-. The department issued a show-cause notice to them proposing to recover the above amount with interest as also to impose penalty on them on the ground that input service tax was not available to be utilized for payment of service tax on GTA Service, which was also an 'input service'. The party contested the proposals by submitting that, by virtue of the Explanation to the definition of "output service" given under the CENV...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Arjay Apparel Industries Limited, Tiriupur. Facts in brief are that the appellants paid duty on goods removed against invoices dated 13.8.03 and 14.8.03 on 30.9.03 instead of on or before 5.9.2003. The payment was made from CENVAT account utilizing the credit earned during September 2003. Proviso to Rule 3(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) 2002 prohibited credit earned in the subsequent month for discharging duty liability in a month. On the legal provision being brought to the notice of the assesse, it paid an amount of Rs. 78,440/- involved in clearance of goods against the two invoices mentioned above on 23.6.04 from PLA. There was a delay of 292 days in making payment of duty and the assessee paid the interest for the delay amounting to Rs. 78,440/- in terms of Rule 8(3) of the CER, 2002. The appellants claimed refund of the interest paid. The original authority rejected the claim. Before the lower authorities it was claimed that duty due was paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the lower authorities have demanded a total amount of over Rs. 8.7 lakhs towards service tax (under the category of GTA Service) and education cess for the period January 2005 to March 2006. They have also demanded interest on tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994 and have imposed penalties on the assessee under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act.An amount of Rs. 2,51,794/- has already been paid by the party towards the demand of tax. It appears, this payment is on 25% of the taxable value of the service in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004. The authorities have denied the benefit of the Notification to the party on the ground that this benefit cannot be claimed by a service recipient and, that too, without the service provider's consignment note containing declaration as required in the CBEC's Circular No. B1/6/05-TRU dated 27.7.2005. The Consultant for the appellant submits that what was exempted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal is by the Revenue. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment.2. After a perusal of the grounds of this appeal, and hearing the ld.SDR, I note that the short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the respondents were liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount of service tax paid by them on the services received from abroad for the period 28.2.1999 to 16.8.2002. It was only w.e.f. 16.8.2002 that a person receiving taxable service in India from abroad (where the non-resident service-provider did not have any office in India) became liable to pay service tax on such service vide Notification No. 12/2002-ST dt.1.8.2002, which amended Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 w.e.f. 16.8.2002. Before 16.8.2002, such service-recipients like the respondents had no liability to pay service tax on any service received from a non-resident service-provider havin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.2. The appellants had got themselves registered with the department as "Mandap Keeper" as early as in the year 2001. The department noticed that, for the period September 2003 to March 2005, they had not filed returns in time, nor paid service tax. They effected payment of tax during 23.8.04 to 27.5.05 and subsequently filed returns on 27.6.05.The department issued a show-cause notice on 7.10.05 to the appellants proposing penalties on them under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The noticee contested this proposal. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,210/- on the party under Section 76 for the delay in payment of service tax and a separate penalty of Rs. 3000/- under Section 77 for the delay in filing returns. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. There are two applications before me, both by the appellants, one for condonation of the delay of the appeal and the other for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of service tax and penalty amounts. I take up the first application.2. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the appellant-company on 5.5.07 (date noted in the memo of appeal and not in the present application or the accompanying affidavit). An appeal against the same ought to have been filed before 5.8.07. The captioned appeal was filed on 17.3.08, with a delay of over 220 days (the extent of delay mentioned in column 10 of the memo of appeal is 215 days and the one mentioned in the present application is 220 days).3. It is submitted by the ld. counsel that the delay has been explained in the Managing Director's affidavit filed in support of this application. This affidavit states (a) that the M.D. had to travel to Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta often for purchasing machinery, arra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. G.T. Exports against the Order-in-Appeal No. 6/06-CE dt. 31.1.06 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics from the input cotton yarn. They also get fabrics manufactured on job work basis. The appellant is a manufacturer exporter. During February 2005, the appellants claimed refund of Rs. 4,12,400/- being the unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated on account of exports by them. The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had exported bought out material without subjecting them to any manufacturing process.Therefore, the CENVAT credit accrued on account of export under bond of such fabrics was not admissible. As no manufacture was involved, the appellants had exported materials procured as such. As there was no manufacture, the goods received were not inputs and the assessee was not eligible for refund ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The appellants in the captioned appeals seek waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the amounts of service tax demanded from them as well as penalty imposed on them. Common prayer of the parties is that the appellants did not pay the service tax due from them under the category of "Tour Operator Service" for the period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2001. On 30.4.2001, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants challenging constitutional validity of the impost. On 5.9.2001, the jurisdictional range officer wrote a letter to each of the appellants asking them to pay up the service tax not paid for the year 2000-2001. The appeal of the parties against the communication dated 5.9.2001 was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis that the letter did not constitute an appealable order. In September 2005, the Assistant Commissioner issued Show Cause Notices to the appellants invoking Section 73A alleging not filing of return and non payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The appellants had imported secondhand machinery with spare parts from a related supplier viz. M/s. Wrigley C.O.S.A., Spain and had filed a Bill of Entry on 28.4.2006 declaring the value of the machinery as EURO 35876.49 (FOB) on the basis of the invoice raised by the supplier.The machinery was classified under Heading 8422 44 00 of the CTA and CETA Schedules. In respect of one of the machines, the benefit of concessional rate of basic customs duty was claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 537). As both the machines were used/secondhand, the importer was asked to submit the load port Chartered Engineer's certificate but the same was not produced. In the circumstances, the goods were got examined by the local Chartered Engineers M/s. S.G.S. India (P) Ltd., who, in their report dated 2.6.2006, confirmed the declared description of the goods but reported EURO 3,19,528.80 (FOB) as the 'correct value' of the goods. This value was certified by the local Chartered Engineers...
Tag this Judgment!