Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat kolkata Page 5 of about 96 results (0.384 seconds)

Mar 20 2014 (TRI)

M/S. B.S.N.L. Vs. Appearance

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. None present for the applicant despite notice. 2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. 3. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12.10 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty. 4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant on the ground of limitation. He submits that even though the Order-in-Original dated- 27th August, 2010 was communicated to the applicant on 31/08/2010, they have filed the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) on 16/08/2011. The Ld. A.R. submits that the statutory appeal is required to be filed in case of service tax matters under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of three months before the Ld. Commr.(Appeal). The Ld. Commr. (Appeal) can condone the delay by a further period of three months.-In the present case, the appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of three months and the co...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Info Softdata Services Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.14.98 lakh and penalty of Rs.15.00 lakh imposed under Section 78, and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, ld. Authorized Representative for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit. He submits that they have worked as a sub-contractor for M/s. RITES Ltd. and the Principal Contractor have discharged the service tax for rendering the services under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods against the Work Order issued by the Inspector General of Jails, Government of Bihar. It is the submission of the ld. Authorized Representative that they have installed their own computers etc. at various jails, without transferring the right of possession and effective control on the said computers. The purpose of establishing the co...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Pollar Industries Ltd and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants has submitted that this Tribunal, vide Stay Order No.S-339-341/KOL/2011 dated 17.11.2011, dismissed the Applications of the above-mentioned Applicants for waiver of predeposit of duty, interest and penalties adjudged, vide De Novo Order dated 31.03.2009 of the Adjudicating Commissioner for non-prosecution. Subsequently, vide Tribunals Final Order No.A-85-87/KOL/2012 dated 14.02.2012, all the Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the Predeposit Order. The Applicant firm, M/s. Polar Industries filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall/modify the above Tribunals Orders. Miscellaneous Application was dismissed by this Tribunals Order No.M-598/KOL/2012 dated 25.10.2012. Being aggrieved, the Applicant firm filed a Writ Petition No.27(W) of 2013 before the Honble High Court, vide its Order dated 16.01.2013, the Honble Court directed the Tribunal to consider the impugned Miscellaneous Applic...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2014 (TRI)

Jayesh AmIn Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and Service Tax-ranchi

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,77,426/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the stay order dated 5/9/2011. He submits that the applicant had rendered services as a sub-contractor and the entire amount of Service Tax had been discharged by their principal contractor. The Ld. Advocate submitted that in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Auto Flash Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore- 2008 (9) STR 462 (Tri-Bangalore), the applicant, a sub-contractor is not required to pay the Service Tax once the principal contractor has discharged the service tax on the same set of services rendered. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has fairly accepted that the issue h...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2014 (TRI)

Md. Mosarraf HossaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B.

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 penalty of Rs.1.50 lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. At the outset, the ld.Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 as they failed to deposit the directed amount. The ld.Consultant has further submitted that the Applicant Company is facing acute financial hardship, accordingly, predeposit of the said amount as directed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), would result in undue hardship. However, he has made an offer to deposit 10% of the penalty amount pending disposal of appeal and has prayed that the appeal be remanded to the ld.Commissioner (Appeals).3. The ld. A.R. for the Department, has reiterated the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He has submitted that since the ld. Commissioner (App...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-ii ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. I.P. LAL 1. Heard both sides. 2. This misc. application is filed for condonation of delay of 338 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate has given a detailed chronology of the events from the date of passing of the Order-in-Appeal and the date when the appeal is filed before this forum. In support of the contention, the Ld. Advocate had submitted the affidavit of the applicant/appellant and a supplementary affidavit filed by them alongwith the affidavit filed by Shri Ajit Roy, looking after the tax matters of the Engineering Divn. of the applicant. The Ld. Advocate submitted that order dated-April 12, 2012 passed by the Commr. Central Excise (Appeals-I) confirmed the demand of Central duty of Rs.12,23,369/- alongwith interest and equivalent penalty was imposed on April 17, 2012 on the applicant/ appellant and handed over to Mr. Ajit Roy, employee. The contract period of Shri Roy came to an end on April 30, 2012 and he was also suffering from many ailments an...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2014 (TRI)

Primex ResIn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-v

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

DR. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant for waiver of the duty of Rs.4,02,052/, interest (not quantified) and penalty of equal amount imposed on the assessee penalty of Rs.5,000/- on Shri Pawan Kr. Gupta, Director of the applicant company. 3. The Ld. Advocate has submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the applicant as he failed to make pre-deposit of Rs.3.00 Lakhs and submit the compliance report by the given date. It has been submitted that out of the total duty involved in this case, they have already paid Rs.92,871/- which has been appropriated in the order itself. The Ld. Advocate has submitted that the company is undergoing the acute financial stringency and in support thereto, he invited attention to copy of review and renewal agreement between the bank of Maharashtra and the application granting cash credit allowing facility of Rs.25.00 Lakhs only. The Ld. Advocate however made an offer to make a furth...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Shree Madhab Ispat Pvt. 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 cenvat credit of Rs.19.33 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merit, but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.9.00 lakhs. He submits that the issue involved in the present case, relates to eligibility to the extent of cenvat credit availed on GTA services on the iron ore fines emerged during the course of manufacture of sponge iron ore. He submits that this issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, BBSR II reported in 2013 (30) STR 532 (Tri.-Kolkata). 3. The ld. A.R. for the Department, does not dispute about the above facts advanced by the ld. Advocate for the Applicant. 4....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2014 (TRI)

M/S. B.R. Singh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed seeking condonation of delay 536 days in filing Appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Shri Arvind Modi, Ld.C.A. for the Applicant explaining the delay submits that they have received the order-in-original on 05.04.2011 and handed over the same for preparation of Appeal to one Shri R.N.Sarkar, Advocate. Though the Appeal was prepared on 30.05.2011, the same could not be filed by the Advocate. They could come to know about non-filing of the Appeal only in September, 2012 on receipt of a letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur for recovery of the dues confirmed. Pursuant to that they have approached the office of Shri R.N. Sarkar, Advocate, and the papers were handed over to them on 30.11.2012. Consequently, a new consultant was appointed on 02.12.2012 who filed documents along with Appeal on 24.12.2012. The Ld. C.A. submits that there has been no delay on their part, but the entire delay was caus...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata

D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.25.88 lakh and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, ld. CA for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal on the ground of failure to deposit Rs.25.00 lakh, as directed by him under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1994, as applicable to the Service Tax matters. The ld. CA also submits the Applicant Company has been incurring heavy losses, and as on 31.03.2013, they had incurred a loss of around Rs.3.47 crore, and as on date, the loss is around Rs.9.00 crore. He submits that the issue is debatable and rests on appreciation of facts. However, he makes a fair offer to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue fairly concedes that the issue has not been decided on merit. Therefore, he has no objection in remanding the matter. 4. After hearing both sides fo...

Tag this Judgment!


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