Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat calcutta Page 1 of about 2,464 results (0.187 seconds)

Apr 29 2008 (TRI)

Chhotu Lal Daga (Prop. of Rohit Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. We have heard both sides. We have also taken note of the written notes of main submissions filed on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has requested in para 9 of the written notes that for the detailed reasons stated therein, the Stay Petition as well as the Appeal should be allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose off both the Stay Petition and the Appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) originating in or exported from China under Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. dated 21.12.2001. Imposition of anti-dumping duty was made on a provisional basis pending final determination and such provisional duty was effective upto and inclusive of 20.06.2002. The Notification provided for separate anti-dumping duty on CFL without choke and with choke. The same Notification also imposed anti-dumping duty on CFL without choke originating in or exported from Hong Kong. Subsequently, defini...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2008 (TRI)

Webel-si-energy Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. Filing the Appeal with a delay of 180 days, the Appellant also moved an application for condonation of delay stating that the impugned Order was served on a Dealing Assistant of the Appellant on 23.10.2006 and that Assistant left the job in December, 2006 for which the Appellant was prevented from filing the Appeal within the statutory period. That could only be filed on 19.07.2007. To explain such delay, the Appellant also filed an Affidavit on 24.04.08 stating that the impugned Order passed on 31.08.2006 was issued on 17.10.2006. The Dealing Assistant, Shri G. Mishra receiving that Order kept the same with him without bringing the same to the notice of the Management. He having left the Organisation in December, 2006, one Shri Pratap Maity was entrusted with the job in the month of June, 2007, and he traced the Order for seeking appeal remedy. Thereafter, he was engaged for preparation of the Appeal in consultation with the counsel and appeal could be filed thereafter. It was als...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2008 (TRI)

Packwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. Heard both the sides. The Appellants used to receive inputs from their principal manufacturer for manufacture of packing materials and after completing the job-work they used to return such packing material back to the principal manufacturer. They neither took credit on the inputs received nor paid duty on the packing material as the principal manufacturer was discharging the duty liability on the finished goods.For part of the period, it was detected later on that the principal manufacturer did not pay duty on the finished goods which had become exempt. As such, the duty demand on packing material for the period was made on the Appellants since the exemption to job worker was conditional upon the principal manufacturer paying duty. The Appellants went to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission for settlement of the case arising out of such demand.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that the Appellants requested the Hon'ble Settlement Commission t...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2008 (TRI)

Indian Oil Blending Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1 .The Appellant challenging the first Appellate Order dated 088/Kol-VI/2003 dated 21.11.03 to be cryptic, prayed for setting aside of the impugned Order which had confirmed the Order of Adjudication holding as under: 8. I have carefully gone through the impugned order, the appeal memorandum and the submissions of the appellant during personal hearing. The appellant cannot take the transitional credit suo-moto without taking the department into confidence. In fact, in view of the amendment to Rule 57H inserted vide Notification No. 4/94-CE(NT) dated 1.3.94, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to allow the credit subject to the provisions incorporated in Rule 57H(1) vide the aforesaid Notification. Since the Asstt. Commissioner was not approached, the transitional credit could not be allowed as per the aforesaid Rule. Thus, I find nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order disallowing such credit. 9. The appeal is, therefore, disallowed the stay petition is disposed of accordin...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2008 (TRI)

Gati Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

2. The lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the ground that it was filed after a delay of 781 days and under the statute, he has no authority to condone the delay beyond 90 days.3. The ld. Advocate, Shri S.P. Majumdar, appearing for the appellants, pleads that there was no delay in filing the appeal as the impugned order itself was not received by the appellants. The ld. DR, Shri Y.S.Loni, appearing for the Department refers to a detailed reply from the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner. He has enclosed a copy of the receipt under which the impugned order dated 29.11.04 was handed over to the appellants on 21.1.05. The receipt also shows a signature and seal of the Department at the material time. In any case, the appellants have no explanation as to why they made no enquiry to obtain a copy of the order though they participated in the adjudication proceedings and appeared in the personal hearing on 29.11.04.4. It is clear that the appellants ha...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2008 (TRI)

Commr. of Central Excise and Vs. Advantage Media Consultant

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2008)10STR449

1. The captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue against similar orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, M/s Advantage Media Consultant & M/s Siddharth Advertising had rendered services as an advertising agency and collected commission from their clients. The respondents had collected service tax on the commission amount where the service was rendered to private parties. They did not collect the service tax separately from Government Agencies, like, Indian Railways. Before the lower authorities, the respondents had argued that they believed that the service tax was required to be paid only when the same was paid by the receiver of the service. Government Agencies did not pay service tax separately, they did not pay service tax on the gross amount received or any lower amount. Appeals were filed against the orders-in-original demanding service tax on the services rendered during the period 4/2000 to 3/2005, when the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the ap...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2008 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Electrosteel Castings Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. This Appeal involves a very small question whether inspection and transport charges realized by the Appellant shall form part of the Assessable Value while computing reversal @ 8% towards CENVAT credit of input commonly used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods.2. Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner came in Appeal basically on two grounds that the Adjudicating Authority failed to interpret statutory provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 1/2 and reduced the Assessable Value allowing transport charge and inspection charge to be admissible deduction as a result of which 8% factor apply for reversal of CENVAT credit resulted with gain to the Respondents. There was suppression of fact by the Respondent in the document filed before the department without revealing the fact that separate commercial Bills were issued for realisation of the inspection and transport charge. Therefore Appeal of the Appellant may be allowed r...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2008 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Globe Trotters Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. Heard both sides in respect of MA & Appeal filed by the applicant/appellant Commissioner and the Appeal filed by the appellant importer.2. In the Miscellaneous Application, it has been stated by the applicant Commissioner that the submission made by the appellant importers before the Tribunal regarding non-drawal of samples by Customs officials, is not true and factually correct and that the appellant importers have misled the Hon'ble CESTAT to get a favourable Stay Order. He further states that the samples were drawn in presence of the authorised CHA of the appellants and forwarded to the Assistant Drug Controller, which was duly acknowledged by him. He has also stated that in respect of importation of drugs it is a mandatory and statutory obligation on the part of Customs Authorities to ascertain as to whether the drugs under import comply with the standards laid down in the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. No clearance is allowed until and unless that procedure i...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2008 (TRI)

Narnolia Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. Heard both sides. Shri Dipak Bharti, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that for the month of December, 2004, the Appellants have paid Service Tax on behalf of four other Service Tax providers to the extent of Rs. 92,000/- (Rupees Ninty Two Thousand only), but later on they came to know that those Service Tax providers themselves have separately paid the Tax amount. Under the circumstances, the Appellants adjusted the amount of Rs. 92,000/- (Rupees Ninty Two Thousand only) paid in excess in December, 2004 while paying tax amount for the month of February, 2005. The learned Advocate states that necessary returns were filed with the Department reflecting the adjustment. The Appellants adjusted the amount under the belief that their case is covered under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The learned Advocate states that this is a mistake made by the Appellants only once and there was no mala fide intention as the entire amount of tax due from the Appellants h...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2008 (TRI)

Pebco Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2008)10STR463

1. Heard both sides. The Appellants are providing space and other facilities to banks in their premises and promoting marketing of car loans for which they receive a commission from such banks. Their activity is of the kind fully described in paragraph 4 of Board's Circular No. 87/06-06-ST dated 6.11.06. As clarified thereunder, such Service is liable to Service Tax as business auxiliary service. Shri Chakraborty, learned Consultant appearing for the Appellants states that under Notification No. 13/03-ST dated 20.6.2003 business auxiliary services provided by a commission agent were totally exempt and hence, the Appellants were under the impression that the services provided by them to the banks is exempt from Service Tax. He states that however, soon after the Appellants come to know about their tax liability they have paid the tax amount entire by before issue of the show cause notice on 30.1.2006. He states that the Appellants are eligible for exemption under the said Notification ...

Tag this Judgment!


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