2018-TIOL-18-CESTAT-DEL

Gwalior Sugar Co Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of Sugar and during February 2009, they had removed excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty within stipulated time frame - While scrutinizing ER-1 returns, assessee was informed regarding such irregularities - Thereafter, assessee had partly deposited the duty amount through TR-6 Challans for non-payment of remaining amount of admitted duty liability, department proceeded against assessee for confirmation of such demand - Redemption fine and penalties were confirmed under Rule 25(1) of CER, 2002 r/w Section 11 AC of CEA, 1944 - At the time of filing ER-1 return for relevant period, assessee had sated the reason of non-payment on admitted tax liability within the stipulated time - Assessee has also produced the acknowledge copy of ER-1 return, indicating such reason before the Bench - Further, assessee had deposited the interest amount for delayed payment of duty - Thus, it is evident that there is no element of suppression, mis-statement or fraud on the part of assessee in defrauding the Government Revenue - Applicability of Rule 25 ibid in identical situation, came up for consideration before Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 2010-TIOL-889-HC-AHM-CX, wherein upon analysis of the statutory provisions, Court held in the absence of intention to evade payment of duty, the provision of Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC ibid cannot be invoked for imposition of fine and penalty - In view of settle position of law, impugned order, so far as it confirmed confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalties on assessee are set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-17-CESTAT-MAD

Deepak Cables (India) Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of E.C. Grade Aluminium Wire Rod and are having two more units at Tumkur and Kunigal, Karnataka - On scrutiny of records, it was noticed that assessee's Chennai unit and Pondicherry units were clearing E.C. Grade Aluminium Wire Rod to their sister units at Tumkur on stock transfer basis - Scrutiny of records revealed that the value adopted for stock transfer was not based on CAS-4 read with Rule 8 of CEVR, 2000 - SCNs were issued alleging undervaluation of product while stock transferring to their sister concern and after due process of law, original authority confirmed the duty demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty - Assessee is not contesting the liability and would like to submit only on the ground that entire transaction would give rise to a revenue-neutral situation - Thus SCN issued beyond the normal period is not sustainable - Even if the duty has to be paid by assessee as alleged in SCN, their sister concern would be able to take credit - In case of Special Steel Ltd. Apex Court had upheld the decision of Tribunal wherein department appeal was dismissed on the ground of revenue-neutrality since the duty paid on goods cleared to sister unit was available as modvat credit to it and the allegation that such clearances were made at a lesser value was not relevant and only of academic nature - Following the said dictums, confirmation of demand, interest and the imposition of penalty is unsustainable and impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-16-CESTAT-MUM

Savera Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C

CX - Valuation - Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - Appellants are manufacturing physicians samples on job work basis on behalf of the various principals and had valued the same at 110% of the cost of manufacture - Revenue alleging undervaluation and demanding differential duty - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: In case of manufacture of physician samples, valuation is not governed by Section 4(1)(a) but under Section 4(1)(b) read with Valuation Rules - appellant has correctly valued the goods at 110% value of the manufactured goods, therefore, differential duty demand does not sustain - Impugned order set aside and appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 5] - Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT