Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat kolkata Page 3 of about 96 results (0.159 seconds)

May 01 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Se ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.4.78 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset Shri J.P.Khaitan, Ld.Sr.Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the period from October, 2004 to March, 2008, the Appellant had rendered services to M/s.NTPC against three contracts. Broadly, the said contracts relate to supply of imported/indigenous material and supply of services. It is his submission that the supply of services, could also be bifurcated, namely, installation and commissioning services and civil construction services. He submits that on the basis of a letter dated 23.11.2011 by M/s.NTPC during the course of adjudication proceeding, copy of which was not handed over to them, the Ld.Commissioner had concluded that the entire amount of Rs.52,15,40,000/- related to installation services only and there were no civil construction services re...

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Parag Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D.M. Misra, J.1. Vide Order No.SO/71464/2013 dated 10.12.2013 this Tribunal directed the Applicant, after hearing their Counsel to deposit 25% of the Service Tax confirmed within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 18.02.2014. On 18.02.2014 the matter was adjourned to 19.03.2014. On 19.03.2014 the proprietor of the Applicant company Shri Pankaj Singh appeared and sought time up to today to report compliance. 2. None appeared today nor there is any report of compliance. 3. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that in absence of compliance of the direction of pre-deposit, the Appeal is liable for dismissal. 4. Since the Applicant has failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit dated 10.12.2013 in spite of repeated adjournments, their Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax cases by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Appeal dismissed....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2014 (TRI)

Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Haldia Comm ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.59,73,849/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76(not quantified) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant for the applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, the applicant had received services of goods transport agency(GTA) at their unit at Kharagpur. The Ld. Consultant submits that the said service tax liability on GTA services had been discharged at their Pune unit as at the relevant point of time, the Kharagpur unit had not obtained service tax Registration, which they took only w.e.f. 1st July, 2007. He submits that in support of the fact that they paid service tax on account of availing GTA services at Kharagpur Unit from their Pune unit, submitted a Chartered Accountants Certificate before the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the adjudicating authority had ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Tuscon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolka ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.4.71 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. 2.At the outset, the ld.C.A. appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that during the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, they have rendered services under the category of Industrial and Commercial construction services to various clients by way of erection, commissioning, installation of cement plants. He submits that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. It is his submission that in execution of the contract of various cement plants, the Applicant purchased the raw materials for the clients and later got it reimbursed ; also the major portion of the material involved in execution of contract, are purchased by them and used in the execution of work. The ld. C.A., in support, placed the bills, invoices relating to purcha...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, B ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. Vide Order No.SO/71401/2013 dated 20.11.2013, while disposing of their Stay Application, the Applicant were directed to deposit 50% of the Service Tax and report compliance by 21.01.2014. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Applicant preferred a Writ Petition before the Honble High Court at Calcutta, and the Honble High Court by an Order (WP. No.50 of 2014) dated 24.01.2014 remanded the case to this Tribunal with a direction to consider the said Application, afresh. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing, today. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that inadvertently, the counsel who appeared earlier before this Tribunal, had advanced some wrong submission, and accordingly, vide the Stay Order dated 20.11.2013, the Tribunal had passed the Order directing the Applicant to make the predeposit of 50% of the Service Tax. He, however, submits that even though they were in possession of necessary documents to show that the receipts during the period prior to...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.63,981/- and penalty of Rs.2,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The period involved in the present Appeal is June, 2008 to December, 2008. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the issue relates to payment of duty on additional performance bonus (heat guarantee bonus) received from their customer, namely, M/s RSP, M/s BSP and M/s RINL as additional consideration and inclusion of this amount in the assessable value of fire bricks supplied by the Applicant to these customers. In support of his contention, the ld. Consultant has referred to the Tribunals judgment in the case of MPR Refractories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2010 (262) ELT 474 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it has been held that the performance guarantee bonus received from the customers cannot be added to the assessable value for the period prior to and afte...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Tata Motors Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), K ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. These Applications are filed by M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. seeking waiver of Customs duty of Rs.21,88,78,406/-, penalty of Rs.2.00 Crores imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscation of the imported goods with option to redeem the said goods on payment of the redemption fine of Rs.10.00 Crores under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd. for waiver of penalty of Rs.1.00 Crore imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. imported dies and fixtures against the EPCG licence No.0330020330 dt.12.06.2008 and EPCG licence No.0330021693 dt.24.10.2008 claiming benefit of concessional rate under Notification No.64/2008-Cus dated 09.05.2008. It appeared from the investigations conducted by the officers of DRI that the said dies and fixtures were removed at the premises of M/s.Caparo Engineernig India Ltd. as per letter of intent dated 2...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2014 (TRI)

Commr of Customs, Patna Vs. M/S. J.J. International

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. D.M. Misra, J, 1. This is an application filed by the Revenue seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal No.122/PAT/Customs/Appeal/2012 dated-25/05/2012. 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Ld.Commissioner(Appeal) has passed the order without allowing time to the Department, to place evidences, even though a specific request had been made in this regard resulting into violation of Principles of natural justice. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Order, is contrary to the specific circular issued by the Board Circular Nos. 4/2004-Cus dated-16 January, 2004 and 36/2010-Customs dated 23/09/2010, on the subject. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri K.K. Sanyal for the respondent submits that they have a strong case on merit but since the Departments plea is violation of natural justice, he has no objection, to remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) for consideration of the issue afresh. He requests that a time frame may be fixed as they have been deprived of ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Metacon Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.06.2007. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, communicated to them on 04.12.2006, they had preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.12.2006. The ld. Advocate submits that instead of deciding the appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has communicated to them, vide letter dated 13.07.2007, that the appeal filed against the said Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, was barred by limitation, as the same had not been filed within the time-limit of sixty days and the extended period of thirty days, as prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The ld. Advocate submits that the Order No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006 had been received by them on 04.12.2006, and the appeal had been filed on ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Seaking International Vs. Commr of Customs Kolkata

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/195/2006 dated-28/09/2006, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Chowdhury for the applicant submitted that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but rejected their appeal as time barred. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the relevant Bill of Entry No. 263382 dated-14/12/2005, though assessed on 7/2/2006, and consequently the dues ware paid by them on 01/03/2006 to avoid demurrage etc., however, they had requested for a speaking assessment order. The Ld. Advocate further submits that in view of the Board Circular No. 16/03-CUS dated 17/03/2013, the detail speaking order was issued to them on 6th July, 2006.Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the Commr. of Customs (Appeals) on 30/08/2006, i.e., within 60 days of the communication of the Order as prescribed under Section 128 (1) of Customs Act, 1962. Therefor...

Tag this Judgment!


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