2018-TIOL-250-CESTAT-BANG

CCE, C & ST Vs Rangsons Electronics Pvt Ltd

CX - Assessee are manufacturer of parts of medical equipment, parts of exhaust systems and printed circuit board - They also avail the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of inputs and capital goods - It was noticed that assessee had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on rent, manpower recruitment/supply services and security services - On pointing out by the department, assessee had reversed the same under protest - However, they had not paid the interest - The lower authority also demanded the interest and also imposed the penalty under Rule 15(3) of CCR, 2004 for the period up to 27.2.2012 and under Rule 15(1) for the period from 1.3.2010 and penalty under Rule 15(2) for the period from 1.3.2010 - On appeal, Commissioner (A), allowed the appeal of assessee, hence the present appeal by Revenue - Assessee has a centralized accounting system and other units, where the job work is being carried out, is nothing but an extended unit of main unit - Movements of materials from the main unit to job work unit were on strength of Delivery Challan-cum-Material Gate Passes and job worked items were returned by job work units under their own Material Gate Pass - CENVAT credit in respect of input and input services used by the main unit as well as job work unit are availed by main unit and are reflected in ER1 monthly returns filed by main unit - There is a common and single Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet for all the units and single consolidated income tax returns - It is also seen that assessee vide letter dated 21.4.2009 intimated the department regarding setting up of job work Unit-III at Belgagola Hobli, Mandya District and intimated that Unit-III would not be registered under Central Excise and further, vide letter dated 4.2.2002 intimated the department regarding the setting up of job work plant at Manandavadi Road, Mysore - Case laws relied upon by assessee are squarely in favour of assessee and by following the ratio of said decisions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-249-CESTAT-ALL

Secur Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of varieties of Cylindrical and Mortise locks of brass, steel and stainless steel and parts thereof - They were also engaged in manufacture of locks and parts with brand "Godrej" for M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., for which no exemption from payment of Duty was availed - Further, on manufacture and clearance of secur locks they were claiming benefit under notfn 7/97 -CE - They were also availing Modvat Credit on raw materials used in manufacture of above locks - No separate inventory was maintained by them in respect of raw materials used in manufacture of above brands of locks and parts thereof - During visit, officers conducted physical verification of stocks of finished goods, as a result of which, it was found 2629 nos. of cylindrical/mortise locks were unaccounted for, of Godrej, Secur and Plaza brands collectively valued at Rs.5,52,926/- in the store room of factory premises, details of which were given in Panchnama - Officers noticed that there were no records, whether statutory or private, showing the accountal of 2629 nos. of aforesaid locks - Considering that said goods were liable for confiscation and entire stock of finished goods i.e. 2629 locks of various brands collectively valued at Rs.5,52,926/- were seized by the officers.

Reliance placed by Commissioner on statement of Shri Lal Singh is not tenable in view of provisions of Section 9D of the Act read with Section 14 of the Act - There is failure on the part of Commissioner in ensuring the attendance of witnesses, statement of which have been relied upon in SCN - Save and except issue of summons, Commissioner have not done anything else - In spite of all the powers of a civil court vested in authority for ensuring the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence - Save and except presumption as to double removal of the goods on the parallel set of invoices, no case of actual removal have been made out, save and except based on the statement of the said Shri Lal Singh - No question have been put to Shri Lal Singh even in the course of investigation as to who were the buyers of such clandestinely removed goods, as alleged - Further, no study have been made with respect to capacity of production whether the assessee had such capacity to produce such alleged clandestine quantities - As relied upon by assessee on the ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ambika International and others 2016-TIOL-1238-HC-P&H-CX, High Court have laid the guidelines to be followed by judicial authorities with respect to reliability of statements in evidence.

Minutes of meeting is prepared by Godrej, is prima facie not admissible and further observe that there is no specific allegation and/or admission on the part of assessee with respect to clandestine manufacture and clearance by assessee of Godrej brand products - In said minutes only doubts have been raised by officers of Godrej - Further, prior to that meeting assessee have also vide a separate letter informed Godrej regarding availability of spurious locks in the name of Godrej in the market, expressing concern - Thus, SCN is presumptive and also the impugned order are unsustainable as Commissioner have selectively relied on the evidence on record - Allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal is not established - Save and except that assessee were dodging the Revenue by paying the duty after a few days of removal, which they were required to debit at the time of removal - In this view of the matter penalty of Rs.5000/- both on the company assessee and its Managing Director Shri Ashutosh Agrawal imposed - The penalty and interest as directed to be deposited within a period of 30 days: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-248-CESTAT-KOL

Variance Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of printing ink - During audit, it was observed that assessee had availed cenvat credit in the month of January, 2007 on the basis of 16 Nos. of invoices as shown in RG-23A Part II alleged to have been issued by M/s Micro Inks Ltd. - It has been alleged that aforesaid amount of cenvat credit was irregularly taken and utilized by assessee and therefore, the same was payable along with appropriate interest in terms of Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 - Demand confirmed along with interest and penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Substantial benefit of credit cannot be denied so long as it can be proved that the good are duty paid and received in the factory and are used in the manufacture of final product - These are all procedural and technical lapses, which are curable in nature - Accordingly, matter remitted to Adjudicating Authority to verify the documents and decide the issue in accordance with law: CESTAT - Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT