CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-235-CESTAT-MUM

Anshul Specialty Molecules Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - CENVAT credit - Appellant had created a temporary tarpaulin shed in their factory to store raw materials - on this renting of immovable property service recvived, appellant availed credit - Revenue denied credit and which order was upheld by Commissioner(A) by concluding that creating the monsoon shed during monsoon season does not have any direct and indirect connection with the manufacturing activity - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: If raw materials and finished goods cannot be kept safely, manufacturing process cannot take place, therefore, said activity has a clear relation to the manufacturing process - credit is admissible - Appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-234-CESTAT-CHD

Digvijay Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Penalty - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Elastic Rail Clips, Swtiches with fittings for Railways on job work basis out of raw material supplied free of cost by Railways - They were issued three SCNs proposing recovery of duty on the ground that conversion of Rails into Swtiches amounts to manufacture as a separate identifiable item stands emerged - Challenge in the present appeal is only to imposition of penalty - As per condition No. 4 of purchase order received by assessee from Railways, it was specified that no excise duty shall be payable on basic rates of fabrication - This fact, according to assessee, lead them to believe that the job work being done by them did not attract any duty of excise - There is no evidence of assessee's mala-fide disclosed in SCN and the assessee's activities of conversion of Rail into Swtiches and crossing, out of the material supplied by Railways, is capable of an interpretation that such activities does not amount to manufacture - Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to contrary reflecting upon assessee's mala-fides, imposition of penalty upon them is not justified: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-233-CESTAT-ALL

Prakash Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Whether the assessee who is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products and who was paying duty on their clearances at normal rate whether they can opt for exemption with effect from 06 May, 2006 under Notfn 8/2003-CE - Although it is mentioned in Clause 2(i) of Notfn that the option has to be made in writing for not availing the exemption, admittedly, the assessee have not filed any option not to avail the exemption prior to 06 May, 2006, when they opted to avail exemption - Further sub Clause (e) and (f) of sub-clause (ii) of Rule 2 of said notification, gives option to the assessee to specify the date from which option under notfn has been exercised and also to give details or aggregate value of clearances of services or goods till the date of exercising option - Accordingly, on the harmonious reading of notfn, the SSI Exemption is available to assessee with effect from 06 May, 2006: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft17pn053

Amendments in Appendix 4B of Hand Book of Procedures 2015-20

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-230-CESTAT-DEL

Preet Mohinder Singh Vs CCE

Cus - The appellant is the proprietor of one M/s Samay International - The DRI investigated the activities of certain syndicates operating in Delhi, engaged in transfer of remittances to entities based in Hong Kong - These syndicates would submit bogus import proforma invoices so as to remit advance payments against imports, to be made on a later date - However, no imports were made & these advance remittances were actually adjusted against the payments for undervalued imports undertaken by the importers - The DRI alleged that the appellant & his firm were a front for various such syndicates sending remittances illegally - SCN was issued enhancing value of imported goods & ordering their confiscation u/s 111(d) and (m) - Penalties were also imposed u/s 112 (a) (i) & u/s 114AA - Such demands were confirmed by the Commr.(A) -

Held - The Revenue claimed that the goods imported did not belong to the appellant, although the IEC code did belong to him - The DRI investigation established that the appellant's IEC code was being used by others, in exchange for monetary consideration - Hence contravention of the Foreign Trade Act, 1992, by allowing the misuse of IEC code stands established - Further, it is established that there was mis-declaration of the goods' description & value - Hence confiscation of goods and penalty on the appellant is warranted - Hence, impugned order upheld: CESTAT (Para 2,3,4,8) - Appeals Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-229-CESTAT-DEL

Champion Electrical Industries Vs CC

Cus - the assessee-company imported electrical items & filed Bills of Entry declaring them as parts of electrical items - On examination, they were found to be complete induction cookers but packed in knocked down condition - The Department alleged misdeclaration of goods & also alleged undervaluation - The Department held that they were to be valued under Rule 4A of the CETA on the basis of MRP for charging CVD - The goods were confiscated, with option of redemption fine & imposition of penalty - The assessee contested confiscation on grounds that the differential duty was paid before clearing he goods -

Held - The subject goods were to be assessed as complete induction cookers under Interpretative Rule 2 (a) of the Customs Tariff - Considering the misdeclaration of both description and valuation, the goods were liable for confiscation - No infirmity in the order in question - Quantum of redemption fine & penalty is reasonable, so both upheld: CESTAT (Para 1,6,7,8) - Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT