2018-TIOL-259-CESTAT-MUM + Story

CCE Vs Hyva (India) Pvt Ltd

CX - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - If the insurance cover in respect of which credit has been claimed is exclusively in respect of injuries or damages to the factory employee, then the credit would be admissible - to ascertain the facts, matter remanded: CESTAT [para 5]

CX - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Provision of canteen is a statutory requirement in large factory and thus it cannot be said that the canteen is provided primarily for personal use of employees - Credit admissible - as the assessee had already reversed the credit insofar as it pertains to the amount recovered from the employees, the demand of recovery of CENVAT credit on canteen services is set aside and consequently the penalty - Assessee appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal - matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-258-CESTAT-CHD

Shiv Shakti Earth Movers Vs CCE

CX - Assessees are in appeal against impugned order wherein demand has been confirmed against assessee and equivalent penalty is imposed - The penalty of Rs.50 lakh each was also imposed on co-assessees - Searches were made at the premises of assessee and M/s.Robot Industries (RI) - During investigation, various statements were also recorded - Even one Sh. Rupesh Verma, witness who gave statement against assessee and on the basis of statement of Sh. A.P. Malik and other documents, the SCN was issued to demand duty jointly and severely from assessee and RI and to impose penalty - The adjudicating authority held that M/s.RI is dummy unit and therefore, casted liability to pay duty on assessee and various penalties were imposed on all other assessees - Assessees specifically sought cross examination of witnesses and argued that in terms of section 9D of CEA, 1944, the statement of witnesses cannot be relied upon in view of decision of Kuber Tobacco India Limited 2016-TIOL-769-CESTAT-DEL and the decision of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Jindal Drugs Pvt.Ltd . 2016-TIOL-1230-HC-P&H-CX - Relying on said decisions, it is held that adjudication order has been passed in violation of procedure laid down in section 9D of CEA, 1944 - Therefore, matter needs examination in terms of procedures laid down in Section 9D of the Act as well as various judicial pronouncements cited: CESTAT -Matter remanded: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-257-CESTAT-CHD

Rangoli Furnishings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Terry Towels and Towelling fabrics - At the time of visit of Central Excise Officers, assessee did not produce the statutory records - It was only after the search that RG-1 register was found below old records - The reasons for the same becomes clear from the fact that assessee had not made any entries in RG-1 register for continuous period of almost 3 months - The Director of assessee himself admitted that finished goods manufactured by them were cleared without entering in RG-1 register, without Central Excise invoice and without payment of duty - From resumed records, it was found that assessee cleared the goods on simple private challans/jobwork challans without following the procedure prescribed in CX Law - The culpability of assessee is also proved by the fact that during the day of search, unaccounted stock of 3232 pcs of Towels was found - Tribunal agrees with finding of Commissioner (A) that assessee have not been able to convince as to why the goods manufactured during 30.09.99 to 22.12.2009 were not entered in RG-1 - Admission by assessee was recorded at different intervals and there is no denial of the same - As to the assertion that they were not given copies of statements, this issue was not raised before the lower authorities - Besides, from the pleadings, it is found that they have contended that Commissioner (A) sought to read statements of Director in a distorted manner - Obviously, without having copies of statements, they could not have come to such a conclusion - Hence, the assertion of assessee at this stage is only an afterthought - No infirmity found in the impugned order and same is sustained: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-256-CESTAT-AHM

Ramdev Chemical Industries Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Issue involved in present appeals relates to eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on sales commission - Both sides fairly agrees that issue has been decided by Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. observing that sales commission paid to agents could not fall under the scope of sales promotion mentioned under the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' prescribed under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Considering the number of appeals on the same issue and categorical observation of High Court of Gujarat High Court in Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-237-HC-AHM-ST that the judgment is binding on all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, it would be inappropriate, to decide the issue following the Division Bench judgment when the matter is on Board of the High Court - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and others following the principle laid down by Larger Bench, disposed of the matters, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the cases pending before the higher forum - Following the said judgment, present appeals are also disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of High Court in the pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of this Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s 2016-TIOL-520-CESTAT-AHM filed by the Revenue: CESTAT - Appeals disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Cus - Petitioner imported items which were claimed to be knitted scarves and shawls whereas Revenue alleged that the petitioner had misdeclared the same - An order of provisional release was passed but the petitioner had not availed the same on the ground that amount payable as a condition was too much when compared with the value of the goods - aprehending that final adjudication would take time and the officers would be biased against him the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court - High Court was informed by counsel for Revenue that the SCN would be issued by 30.05.2017 - High Court, therefore, directed the petitioner to file reply latest by 07.06.2017 and appear for hearing on the said date and the Commissioner was requested to pass final order of adjudication by 30.06.2017 - Special leave petition filed before Supreme Court by petitioner.

Held: Since the Commissioner(Customs) has passed an order dated 28.06.2017, therefore, the petition is dismissed: Supreme Court - Petition dismissed : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Navkar Exim Vs CC

P R Agencies Vs CC