Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat tamil nadu Page 3 of about 5,494 results (0.143 seconds)

Jun 23 2008 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (2008)(229)ELT313Tri(Chennai)

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). M/s. Global Pharmatech (P) Ltd (Respondents), Hosur manufactured and cleared veterinary injections such as Miphocal, Calbim without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 during the period from 6/03 to 10/03. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 36,343/-, demanded appropriate interest and imposed equal amount penalty. The amount was demanded in terms of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR) which lays down that CENVAT credit is not allowed on inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods.In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority on the basis that the order was inconsistent with the provisions of Sub-rule 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 6 of CCR, 2002. Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order.The grounds taken in the appeal are that ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2008 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhakya Beauty Parlour

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The short question arising in this case is whether the quanta of penalties imposed on the respondent by the lower appellate authority under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are liable to be enhanced as pleaded by the Revenue.2. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice (served on them by the Department and duly acknowledged). The appellant is represented by the learned SDR. There is no request of the respondent for adjournment of hearing.3. It is submitted by the learned SDR that this Tribunal has no power to reduce the quantum of penalty under Section 76 below the mandatory minimum as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Aakar Advertising 2008-TIOL-303-HC-RAJ-ST. Therefore, the penalty on the respondent must be Rs. 100/- per day of default as imposed by the original authority. After a perusal of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment, I have to accept the argument. As regards the penalty under Section 78, the learned S...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2008 (TRI)

S.R. Agency Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The appellants had rendered "Clearing & Forwarding Agent's Service" to their clients viz. M/s. ACC Ltd. during 2002 & 2003 but had not paid service tax. After investigations, the department issued show-cause notice dt. 29.3.2004 demanding service tax of Rs. 6,68,833/- from them under Section 73(i)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposing penalties on them under Sections 75A, 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. The notice also proposed to appropriate towards the above demand the amount of Rs. 5,86,804/- already paid by the party. The proposal for imposition of penalties was contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax and appropriated the amount already paid by the party towards such demand. Further, it imposed penalties of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 100/- per day, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 6,68,833/- (equal to service tax) under Sections 75A, 76, 77 & 78 respectively. Interest on such tax was also demanded under Section 75.Aggrieved, the p...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2008 (TRI)

Jyothi Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The captioned appeal along with stay application has been filed by M/s. Jyothi Laboratories Limited against demand of Rs. 2,76,496/- found due on finalization of provisional assessment of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006.In the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority.2. The brief facts of the case are that the duty due on the plastic bottles manufactured and captively consumed by the appellants for packing the exempted finished products, is ascertained at the end of every financial year. The assessment of the plastic bottles captively consumed is finalized after the close of the financial year and finalization of their accounts. On finalization, the appellants found that they had short paid an amount of Rs. 2,53,457.61 after adjusting the excess payment made on the material captively consumed. The lower authorities were of the view that the assessee had to pay the amount short p...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2008 (TRI)

Kannappa Corporation Vs. Cce (St)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The applicant seeks waiver of penalties imposed on it under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994, in the impugned order. The impugned order is an order in revision passed by the Commissioner. The original authority had dropped the proposal to penalize the appellants for violation of various provisions of the Finance Act, '94 including the requirement to discharge tax on the services rendered. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Kannappa Corporation handled, stored and transported fertilizer of M/s. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Paradeep, Orissa during 2003-05. The appellant did not pay the service tax for the services rendered after April, 2003. The customer of the appellant had received legal opinion to the effect that the appellant was not required to discharge service tax for the activity undertaken by it and stopped reimbursing service tax paid by the appellant. A Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 2006 proposing to demand the service tax not...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2008 (TRI)

Bsnl Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. Appeal No. S/104/2007 is against denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods amounting to over Rs. 32.00 lakhs for the period 2004 - 05 and 2005 - 06 (up to June 2005). Appeal No. S/134/2007 is against denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods amounting to over Rs. 1.10 crores as also against demand of equal amount of service tax for the period 2005 - 06 and 2006 - 07. This appeal also challenges penalties imposed on the appellants. The appellants are a PSU, who have obtained the requisite clearance from the 'Committee on Disputes' to pursue these appeals.2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the appellants viz. M/s. BSNL are rendering taxable services including telephone service to their subscribers all over India. For rendering such services effectively, they have divided the country into what are called "Secondary Switching Areas" (SSAs, for short). Some of these SSAs coming within the State of Tamilnadu are Salem, Coimbatore, Trichy and Kumbakonam. M/s...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2008 (TRI)

B.E. Gelb Consultancy Service Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The appeal arises for final hearing. It has been filed by M/s. B.E.GELB Consultancy Service, Michigan, U.S.A., represented by M/s. L.G.Balakrishnan & Brothers Ltd., represented by Sri M. Jayaramachandar, Manager (Taxation). It is against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby an appeal filed by M/s. B.E. GELB Consultancy Service through M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd. against an order of the adjudicating authority was rejected on merits but with reduction of penalty. The original authority had demanded service tax of Rs. 5,07,738/- from the appellant under Section 73(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest under Section 75 of the Act and had also imposed penalties on them under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. Its order was in adjudication of a show-cause notice dt. 24.12.2004, wherein the department had demanded the above tax with interest and had also proposed penalties. The SCN had not specifically alleged that M/s. L.G.Balakrishnan & Brothers Ltd. had be...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2008 (TRI)

Fourrts (India) Laboratories Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. The appellants are manufacturers of medicaments. During the period of dispute [January - June 1998 for the first appeal and January to December 1997 for the second], they had availed MODVAT credit on inputs which were used in the manufacture of medicaments, which were cleared for export without payment of duty. The department issued show-cause notices asking them to show cause why the credit should not be denied on the ground that the products cleared for export were appropriately classifiable under SH 3003.20 chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. These notices also proposed penalty. The proposals were contested by the party by submitting that the products cleared by them without payment of duty for export were "P or P medicaments" falling under SH 3003.10 and chargeable to duty and therefore they were entitled to input-duty credit. This plea was not accepted and, consequently, the demand of duty equivalent to the MODVAT credit came to be confirmed against the appellants by the adjudic...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2008 (TRI)

Ashok Leyland Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. This appeal is against a penalty of Rs. 1,42,022/- imposed under Rule 57I(4) and another penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department had found certain MODVAT credits on inputs to have been irregularly taken by the appellants during the period January 1994 to June 1998. But, before any show-cause notice was issued, the entire credit was reversed. However, a show-cause notice was issued on 27.1.1999 mainly for levy of interest on the amount of the reversed credit under Rule 57I(5) and penalty under Rule 57I(4). The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,42,022/- on the party under Rule 57I(4) and a separate penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on them under Rule 173Q. It also demanded interest on the credit amount under Rule 57I(5). The first appellate authority reduced the Rule 173Q penalty to Rs. 10,000/- and also vacated a part of the Rule 57I(4) penalty for the period prior to 28.9.1996. Still aggrieved, the party has preferred the present ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 2008 (TRI)

Ti Metal Forming Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

1. This appeal by the assessee has come up for hearing on the point of waiver of pre-deposit and stay. The dispute relates to the service provided by the appellant to various parties under different agreements. Sample copy of one such agreement entered with M/s.Ramanathan Metal Sections has been brought on record along with the paper book. The relevant part of the agreement runs as under: The licensee represented to TII (appellant herein) that they are fully equipped and have the relevant know-how and expertise to manufacture the products in their premises at 7, SIDCO Road, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi, Trichy - 14 and requested TII to allow them to use the Trade Mark TI Metsec on the products and to manufacture and market the same by the licensee in the territory listed below.The case of the appellant is that the service provided under the agreement - by way of permission to use the trademark - would at best fall under the definition of Intellectual Property Rights service and no...

Tag this Judgment!


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