Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat ahmedabad Page 6 of about 537 results (0.147 seconds)

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

Shilpi Crafts Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, after hearing both sides for a considerable time on the stay petition, we find that appeal itself could be disposed of as it lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant had received order-in-original in December 2012 and accordingly filed the appeal on 12.02.2013. It is his submission that the appellant was granted personal hearing and he argued the matter on merits. He would than draw our attention to the impugned order and submits that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation i.e. appeal has been filed after 5 = month from the date of issue of order. He would submit that, though the office of the Additional Commissioner, Customs indicated the date of issue of order as 31.08.2012, but on query under RTI, it was informed to them that the order...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

Nandan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Daman

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIA No. KS/350/DAMAN/2006, dt. 06.10.2006. 2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing of polyester texturized yarn and polyester grey knitted fabrics is a 100% EOU. During the period in question (August 2003 to September 2003), appellant cleared the products manufactured by him out of indigenous raw material discharging 50% of the amount of duty payable. The lower authorities were of the view that appellant could not have done so, as per provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy, issued a show cause notice which was adjudicated and recovery of differential duty was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties. Appellants appeal before the first appellate authority was also rejected. 3. Ld. Counsel at the outset draws our attention to the provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy 2002 2007. It is his submission that during the relevant period, appellant had exported th...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. P.R.V. Ramanan (Spl. Counsel)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIO No. 32/COMMR./2009, dt. 29.10.2009. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the relevant fact that arises for consideration is the appellant being refinery unit, had undertaken activity of constructing the refinery from October 1996. For construction of such a refinery, they received various capital goods, consumables, inputs, etc. which were accounted by them in the books of accounts. The said refinery was commissioned and appellant got Central Excise registration and started manufacturing activities from November 2006. Appellant availed Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the various items used and consumed by them for setting up such a refinery in the month of November 2006. On the scrutiny of the monthly returns filed by the appellant in December 2006, the lower authorities were of the view that the appellant is not eligible for availing Cenvat Credit and directed them to show cause why such credit be not denied. The appellant b...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

C.B. Mishra M/S. Creative Portico Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This stay petition is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed as duty liability, interest thereof and penalties on both the appellants. Since both the stay petitions are filed against the very same order-in-original, we dispose of them by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority to evaluate the factual matrix. Accordingly, we allow the applications for the wavier of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeals themselves for disposal. 4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that appellant has availed benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by them for home consumption while availed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-CE for the goods which were exported by them. It is the case of the learned counsel that they have voluminous re...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Sb. Engineers Vs. Cceandst. Vadodara Ii

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose the stay petition filed and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3. The First Appellate Authority has rejected /dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant only on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by him. The First Appellate Authority had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs 2.75 lacs against the confirmed demand of Rs 3,04,085/-. It is the case of assessee appellant is not required to pay any amount he has deposited entire amount alongwith interest, as regards the credit on common input service availed by the company and the First Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the merit of the case. 4. Heard both sides for some time and we find that the issue is debatable one, needs deeper consideration, which can be done onl...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Schott Glass India Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindaran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, I find that the issue lies in a narrow compass hence, the appeal can be disposed of finally. Accordingly, I allow the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the services received by the appellant from Rent-a-Cab services, for transportation of their employees from their residence to the place of work and vice-versa. I find that the bench in the appellants own case, in final order dated 22.10.2012 has taken a view which is in favour of the assessee. In an another order dated 26.10.2012, the bench has remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for appreciating evidences, if any, produced by the appellant for ascertaining non-recovery of amounts towards transportation from the employees. In the case in hand, l...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

M/S. N.K. Overseas Vs. Cc. Ahmedabad

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.188/2010/ CUS/COMMR(A)/AHD, dt.28.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration as recorded by the appellate authority is as under: (i). The Appellant M/s. N.K. Overseas had imported ICs, Transistors etc. vide Invoice No. 1HK1/5182/10/98 dated 07.10.98 at Air Cargo Complex Ahmedabad and the said goods were cleared vide Bill of Entry No.6757/98 dated 27.10.1998. The said consignment was detained by the Customs officers on the ground that the prices shown in the said bill of entry and invoice were very low. The inquiries were made with Directorate of Valuation, Mumbai and other ports of imports to obtain the contemporaneous import prices (ii). The appellant had also imported another consignment of similar goods vide Bill of entry No.201/99 dated 1.1.99 and same were also detained for further inquiry. (iii). The detained goods were released provi...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

Cceandst, Ahmedabad Iii Vs. Tec Papers Pvt Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

H K Thakur, J. 1. The present appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the Order in Appeal No.167/ 2006 (Ahd-III) CE/ DK/ Commr (A) dated 29.09.2006, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Preventive Officers intercepted one truck carrying Ordinary Duplex Board on 20.03.2004 under the cover of invoice number 173 issued by the respondent. As the original serial number of the invoice was found cancelled and a new serial number 173 was written on the invoice, the Preventive Officers visited the factory premises of the respondent to ascertain genuineness of the invoice. On verification, the officers found that the pre-authenticated invoices bearing serial number from 172 to 177 were still lying blank and unused in the records of the Respondent. During the course of physical verification of finished goods in the respondents factory, a shortage of 15,000 Kg of Ordinary Duplex Board, involving central e...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

Cceandst. Surat Ii Vs. Shabanam Synthetics

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

H K Thakur, J. 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against Order in Appeal No. SKSS/ 193/ SURAT-II/ 2010 dated 02.11.2010 in respect of M/s Shabnam Synthetics (Unit-2) (100% EOU), Surat (Respondent). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (100 % EOU) paid an amount of Rs. 9,36,037/- towards excise duty during the course of an investigation on 03.07.2003, consequent upon detection of shortage of 28,028 Kg. imported POY by the Central Excise Officers on 24.06.2003. However, the adjudicating authority held vide his order dated 17.02.2009 that actual shortage of imported POY was 7,703 Kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,57,253/-. On 26.08.2009, the respondent filed refund claim of the excess deposit of Rs. 6,78,784/- made with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, who rejected the same vide his Order in Original dated 12.01.2010 on the grounds that the respondent failed to prove that the incidence of duty paid had not been passed on to another person....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Ronald Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Vs. Cceandst Vadodara I

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

HK. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. Commr (A)/ 89/ VDR-I/ 2012, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara on 16.02.2012 and issued on 21.02.2012. 2. The issue involved in these proceedings is non-payment of interest on alleged delayed payment of rebate claim made by the Revenue to the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed rebate claim of Rs. 10,27,242/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Vadodara on 29.04.2010, which was sanctioned but appropriated towards the appellants arrear liability of Rs. 51,87,010/- (Duty Rs. 25,93,505/- + Penalty Rs.25,93,505/-) plus interest vide Order-in-Original No. Reb/ 200-280/ Ronald/ Div-I/ 10-11 dated 28.07.2010 despite the appellant having filed Appeal along with Stay Application with the CESTAT against Order-in-Appeal No. Commmr. (A)/ 253/ VDR-I/ 2009 dated 28.10.2...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //