Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)11STR289
1. In the case of M/s. Fifth Avenue, the challenge is against a demand of service tax of over Rs. 1.8 crores in the category of "Business of Auxiliary Service" (BAS, for short) for the period 01.07.2003 to 18.04.2006 as also against a further demand of service tax of over Rs. 9 lakhs in the same category for the period 09.07.2004 to 30.09.2006.This party has also challenged the penalties imposed on them. In the other case of M/s. Fifth Avenue Wind Mill Pvt. Ltd., the appellant challenges total demand of service tax of over Rs. 89.5 lakhs. This demand includes an amount of over Rs. 13.6 lakhs for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 and the remaining for the period 15.03.2005 to 30.09.2006. They also challenge the penalties imposed on them. The present applications seek waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of service tax, interest and penalties.2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that a major part of the demand raised on each of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(228)ECC374
1. The captioned appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL), challenges the classification of its product 'New Creamy Ponds Moisturising Face Wash' (NCPMFW) as a skin care preparation under CSH 33.04 of the CETA '85 and consequent demand of differential duty affirmed in the impugned order. An amount of Rs. 3,13,17,442/- has been demanded as differential duty for the period 1994-95 to 2001-02 (upto July 2001). In passing the orders the lower authorities relied on the test report of the subject product claimed by the appellants to be a washing preparation of CSH 3402.90. On test by the Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist, the product was found not to satisfy the prescription in Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 34 for Organic Surface Active Agents (OSAA).2. HUL has obtained test reports on samples of the product from the Tamilnadu Government Test Laboratory and Vimta Labs, a private lab.Both the test reports certified that the impugned product satisfied the above definition for OSAA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)14STJ54CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the issue arising for consideration in this case is already covered by orders of this and other Benches of the Tribunal. The issue is whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. They had received the said service during the said period but had not paid any service tax thereon.However, the service tax returns for the said period were filed and the tax paid within the period of time prescribed for the purpose under the Finance Act, 2003. Such payment of tax was made under protest. Later on, it appears, the party filed a refund claim, which is not a part of the subject-matter of the present case. In a show-cause notice dated 09.07.2002 (issued prior to the aforesaid payment of service tax), the department demanded service tax for the aforesaid period and proposed to impose penalties on the party. The demands were contested. The original authority in adju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(131)ECC68
1. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal of the Revenue is whether, under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, interest is payable to the respondents on the amount of duty refunded to them in terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The claim for refund of duty was filed on 14.10.2004 and the same was rejected by the original authority. In the appeal filed by the claimant, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim with interest under Section 11BB from the date after expiry of three months from the date of the claim. In the present appeal, the Revenue submits that interest should have been ordered to be paid only from the date after expiry of three months from the date on which the refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned SDR has reiterated this case of the Revenue. This case is not sustainable inasmuch as it is settled law that, where a refund claim is rejected by the original authority and subsequently allowed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(129)ECC235
1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal of the Revenue is whether a claim of the respondents for refund of duty consequent upon finalization of provisional assessments made for the period 1.4.1999 to 24.6.1999 is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.According to the appellant, such a claim for refund is governed by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended by Notification No.49/99-CE (NT) dated 25.6.1999. A proviso was added to Rule 9B by the above Notification to the effect that, if an assessee was entitled to refund upon finalization of provisional assessment, such refund should not be allowed except in accordance with the procedure established under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This would mean that the limitation and unjust enrichment provisions of Section 11B would be applicable to a refund claim arising out of finalization of provisional assessment. This provision, however, had only prospective operation, i.e., wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(129)ECC236
1. M/s. Pepsico Holdings India Private Limited (PEPSI) manufacture dutiable aerated water and exempted soft drink SLICE. PEPSI availed MODVAT credit on inputs. They availed credit of duty paid on common inputs viz. furnace oil, sugar, activated carbon etc during the period 9/96 to 2/97. They did not maintain separate accounts for the receipt, issue and inventory of common inputs used in dutiable and exempted final products except sugar. Adjudging the notices issued to the assessee proposing to recover credit appropriate to inputs relatable to exempted final products or to recover 8% of the sale price of the exempted products in terms of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the original authority demanded above Rs. 18 lakhs towards 8% of sale price of exempted final products cleared during the material period. As regards the credit availed in respect of furnace oil the original authority dropped the proceedings on the ground that PEPSI had already expunged credit relatable exem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(129)ECC171
1. These appeals of the assessee are against demands of duty on what is called 'demineralized water' [DM water, for short], for the periods August 2000 to March 2001 and April 2001 to September 2001. During the periods of dispute, DM water was prepared by a process of purification in the assessee's factory, used in boilers for generation of steam, this steam was used to run a turbine for generation of electricity, a major part of this electricity was captively consumed in the manufacture of final products in the factory and the remaining portion of the electricity was supplied to the TNEB (Tamilnadu Electricity Board) grid. On these facts, the lower authorities classified DM water under SH 2851.19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act after rejecting the assessee's claim for classification of the item under SH 2851.11. The impugned demand of duty is consequential to this classification. The relevant part of the text of the Tariff entry is extracted hereunder: 2. Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)14STJ52CESTAT(Chennai)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the appellants pray for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of service tax of over Rs. 53 lakhs as also in respect of penalties imposed on them by the Commissioner. The demand is for the period January, 2002 to April, 2006 and in the category of "Advertising Agency's Service" covered by Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand is on the gross amount collected by the appellants from various clients for the service of providing space and time for display of advertisements in various parts of the premises of Satyam Cinema Theatre Complex, Chennai. The subject advertisements were displayed in motion pictures, cinema tickets, hoardings and other parts of the theatre premises. The appellants have been paying service tax in relation to 'sale of space or time for advertisement' after 01.05.2006, the date on which this activity was recognised as taxable service and introduced as such in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)(120)ECC57
1. The appellant M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. (Titan) imported horological raw materials for the manufacture of components of wrist watches in terms of Notification No. 36/96 (Cus) dated 23.07.96 and from 01.03.97, under Notification No. 11/97 (Cus) dated 01.03.97. The imports took place during the period 01.09.96 to 30.03.97. The notifications extended a concessional rate of duty to raw materials and components imported for manufacture of watch parts subject to the condition that the importer followed Customs (Import of goods at concessional rate of duty of manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996 (IMGR). As per the IMGR, the importer is required to register the manufacturing unit with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy.Commissioner, execute a bond with him to secure the differential duty in case of failure of utilization of imported goods for the intended purpose, periodically intimate the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner anticipated quantity of good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)11STR302
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we come across a challenge by the assessee to a demand of service tax of over Rs. 81 lakhs and Education Cess of about Rs. 1.6 lakhs as also to penalties imposed under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The above demand of service tax is in respect of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service availed by the appellants for transportation of their inputs viz. salt, coal and lime to factory. Among these inputs, salt was indigenously procured while the other two were imported. It is the case of the appellants, reiterated today by their counsel, that, in respect of transportation of salt, they did pay service tax with interest after availing the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 35/2004-ST. It is submitted that the relevant TR.6 challans evidencing such payment are available on record. Nevertheless, in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notices, ld. Commissioner has demanded service tax in respect of the GTA service...
Tag this Judgment!