Latest Cases

City Gold Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2007)(120)ECC215

.....had voluntarily discharged the demand much before that was raised by an order of adjudication.according to him, visit by the excise authority to the factory premises was made on 21.03.2004 and allegations made by them. the appellant came forward to deposit the duty liability on 05.10.04. show cause notice was issued on 08.02.2005. order of adjudication was passed on 08.06.2005. without having demand on 05.10.2004 the assessee was not liable to any interest. so also he submitted that there was no deliberate intention nor willful breach of law resulting with evasion of duty for which penalty of rs. 1,69,935/- (rupees one lakh sixty nine thousand and nine hundred thirty five only) imposable. he submitted that for the inadvertance, allegations were made and there was no material to form basis of charge. therefore, the appellant may be exonerated from penal consequence of law.2. contention of the appellant was repelled by revenue on the ground that had the department not detected the evasion, the assessee would have escaped unnoticed. therefore, the ld. commissioner (appeal) has passed appropriate order dismissing appeal of the assessee before him.no interference to such order is.....

Agarwal Colour Labs Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

.....7,000/- as imposed by the adjudicating authority and which has been raised under the impugned revisionary order to rs. 100/- per day, is the subject matter of the appeal which has been filed against the order of the commissioner (appeals). it is stated that the commissioner (appeals) should have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit and thereafter, the tribunal directed the amount of rs. 72,980/- to be deposited and the deposit has been made.3. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhanced penalty under the impugned order of the revisionary authority is stayed and there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of such enhanced amount of penalty during the pendency of this appeal. this application is accordingly disposed of. the appeal will now come up for final hearing in its due course.

Window Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2007)(119)ECC40

.....revenue would suffer. but what sri reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual mal fides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the collector (appeals) and the other of the tribunal. the high court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the assistant collector and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate heirarchy. it cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. the order of the appellate collector is binding on the assistant collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the tribunal is binding upon the assistant collectors and the appellate collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the tribunal. the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate.....

Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2007)8STR296

.....value on the services received by the applicant. if the applicant's version which is not commented upon by the commissioner is correct, the service tax liability if any, would work around rs. 2,19,13,243/- and not rs. 14,07,93,981/-.4. having considered the fact and circumstances, and noticing that the definition of know-how as appearing in technical assistance agreement dated 22.08.1995 includes a broad spectrum of processes bordering the realm of intellectual property, viz., knowledge, data, experience, skills, know-how, methods, inventions, patents, models, formulae, recipes and specifications of materials, technical information, procedures, techniques besides, of course services relating to such property, it is hereby directed that on the applicant's depositing a sum of rs. 25 lacs (rupees twenty five lacs only) within six weeks from today, there shall be a waiver of pre-deposit of the rest of the amount of tax and penalties raised under the impugned order. if the amount is not so deposited, the appeal shall stand dismissed. post the matter for compliance on 22.06.2007.

Man Structural Limited Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

.....for the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998 on goods transport operator. he submits that their case is covered under section 71a of the finance act, 1994 and, therefore, show cause notice issued under section 73 is not sustainable as held by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cce, meerut-ii v. l.h. sugar factories ltd. 2006 (3) s.t.r. 715 (s.c.).4. on perusal of the record, i find that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that the applicants are required to pay service tax at the applicable rate of 5% along with interest and also required to file st-3 return in the manner as prescribed under section 71 of the finance act, 1994. therefore, the applicant failed to make out a prima-facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax. accordingly, the applicant is directed to pre-deposit rs. 40,000/- within 8 weeks and to report compliance on 9.7.07. on deposit of the said amount, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance service tax and penalties is waived till the disposal of the appeal.

Harayana Sheet Glass Ltd., K.S. Vs. C.C. and C.E.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2007)(120)ECC70

.....order in original no. 10/mp/2003 dated 24.10.2003 by which, the demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on the appellants.2. the relevant facts, that arise for consideration, are that the appellant company m/s haryana sheet glass was a 100% eou, engaged in the manufactured of sheet glass. the appellant company had been granted industrial licence by the department of industrial development under eou scheme. the appellant was availing the benefit of exemption notification no. 1/95-ce dated 4.1.1995 as eou. the appellant procured furnace oil, hsd and ldo under notification no. 1/95 after following the proper procedure as laid down in the said notification. show cause notice was issued to the appellant in june, 2001 directing them to show cause as to why the benefit of notification no. 1/95 be not denied to them on the ground that the items like furnace oil, ldo, hsd do not fall in the category of consumable for which they had sought ct-3 certificates. the appellant contested the above show cause notice on the ground that these goods were consumed in the factory premises and proper accounts have been maintained for consumption of these goods and used for manufacture by.....

Krishna Steel Industries and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC94

.....both these appeals are filed against the order passed by the commissioner (appeals) of central excise, pune. the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely m.s. round bars, cold twisted bars falling under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985. the central excise officers of sangli division intercepted a bullock cart loaded with 1015 kg. of 6 mm c.t.d. bars on 07.09.95. the consignment was not accompanied by duty paying documents. the said bullock cart was loaded in the factory premises of the appellants. thereafter, the officers searched the factory premises of the appellants and took over certain documents. the consignment was, thereafter, seized under the panchanama. the statements of partners of the appellants were also recorded.2. show cause notice dated 01.03.96 was issued to the appellants and their partner calling upon them to explain as to why: (i) central excise duty amounting to rs. 2,23,979/- as specified in annexure b (ii) in relation to duty allegedly short paid in the year 94 -95: central excise duty amounting to rs. 710/- and rs. 46,742/- on the alleged clandestine removal in the financial.....

Bharat Industrial Works (Bhilai) Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2007)(120)ECC41

.....commissioner (appeals) also dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. the contention is that in the present proceedings, the applicants were manufacturing parts of wing operated electricity generators and supplied the same to bhilai engineering corporation and the commissioner of central excise in the impugned order held that they are not entitled for the benefit of notification no. 214/86 on the ground that the goods which were manufactured on job work basis are not entitled for the benefit of this notification, as the final product manufactured out of the job work goods is exempted from payment of duty. the contention of the applicant is that as in the case of bhilai engineering corporation, the commissioner (appeals) allowed the benefit of notification no. 6/2000, therefore, the applicants are also entitled for the benefit of notification no. 3/2001 and 6/2002-ce which exempt from payment of duty in respect of parts of wind operated electricity generator. the contention is also that these towers etc. which are supporting structures for wind operated electricity generator are parts of wind operated generator as held in the case of cce v. techno fab manufacturing ltd. ,.....

Tnt India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in : (2007)10VST56CESTATBlore

.....it is not correct to say that the transportation is merely incidental in providing courier service as held by the adjudicating authority. in fact transportation is very crucial to the courier service and courier agency rendering taxable service is entitled to cenvat credit on the duty paid on motor vehicles. the adjudicating authority cannot go simply by the clarification of the ministry, which is contrary to law.ministry's clarification ignores rule 3(2), according to which when a service is partially performed outside india, it will be deemed to be performed outside india. the fact that the service provider and service receipt are in india is not relevant while considering whether there is export of service in the light of the deeming provision in rule 3(2).all the other points, such as contractual relationship between service provider and service recipient, the status of the person receiving the courier, the fact that transportation is merely incidental in providing courier service are not at all relevant in the light of rule 3(2). in our view, the clarification dated 3-10-2005 issued by the ministry with regard to international courier agency is contrary to rule 3(2).....

Veveka Nand Mehta @ Viveka Nand Mehta and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court : Patna

.....in the torch light or in the moon light, as claimed by p.ws. 2 and 3, is difficult to be accepted. the fardbeyan gives sufficient indication of the fact that these related witnesses were called by the informant after the accused persons had left the scene of crime. according to informant he was terrified and he did not expose himself to the accused persons out of fear and when they had fled away, he went to his house and called these witnesses and informed them about the occurrence. no doubt, it has further been claimed in the fardbeyan that these witnesses came and saw the accused persons while fleeing away but that part of the prosecution case is found to be doubtful and not acceptable.8. now it remains to be seen whether on the basis of evidence of the informant alone wherein he has claimed to have seen the entire occurrence and to have identified all the accused persons, the charges against the accused appellants can be believed and finding of guilt can be recorded without any reasonable doubt or not. in this context, learned counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out that the night of occurrence was a dark night without moon at 1 o'clock and the informant has not.....