2018-TIOL-483-CESTAT-MAD

Venus Engineers Vs CST

CX - Assessee has a brand name 'Sanchi' and 'MMTC logo' as a house mark - In the case of medallion made out of gold or silver, it is the claim of assessee that only the house mark is embossed on such items - In respect of other silver articles, such as cups, whereas the house mark is embossed on such items, the brand name appears in packing box in which such silver articles are sold - Notfn 1/2011 imposed the excise duty at the rate of 1% not only on articles of jewellery, but also other articles made of precious materials such as, gold, silver and platinum - Such duty was payable only in cases where such goods were sold with the brand name - In respect of jewellery items, it is further specified in notfn that if such jewellery or 'other articles' bears the house mark, same shall not be considered as brand name - The case in dispute is that medallion of gold / silver and other articles of silver have been cleared bearing only the house mark - The brand name 'Sanchi' belonged to MMTC has not been embossed on any of these items and this fact is not in dispute - The department has proceeded to demand the duty considering such house mark to be in the nature of brand name - In case the medallions of gold/silver only the house mark "MMTC Logo" is applied on the articles - The brand name "Sanchi" is not appearing either on the articles or packing - Hence, Central Excise duty of 1% will be not payable on each goods in the case of silver articles, it is on record that such articles bear the house mark but are sold with the brand name which appears in the packing material - Consequently, such articles are to be considered as sold with the brand name and hence will attract the levy of 1% in terms of notification - Duty demand of 1% has already been called back by the Government after this disputed period with effect from 16.3.2012: CESTAT  - Appeals partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - Interest on delayed refund - Issue of allowing interest under Section 11BB of CEA, 1944 on delayed refund is no more res integra in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX - Said judgment has also been followed by Gujarat High Court in case of Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. - In view of said position in law, assessee is entitled to interest on expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund claims - In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT 

CX - One of these two appeals relates to recovery of CENVAT credit for incorrect availment of CENVAT credit on invoices issued by non-existent dealers, whereas the other appeal relates to refund which was appropriated against the aforesaid confirmed demand - No doubt, in principle on eligibility of credit of duty paid on invoices issued by non-existent dealers, Gujarat High Court in Prayag Raj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. decided the issue in favour of Revenue observing that the assessee is required to take due care in availing CENVAT credit on invoices received by him, however, held that the extended period of limitation cannot be applied in the absence of the fact that receiver of the invoice, is a party to the fraud - From the beginning, assessee had claimed that three dealers namely, M/s Dhanlaxmi Textile, M/s Tirupati Industries and M/s Sai Industries have been in existence and they have rightly availed the CENVAT credit consciously being fully aware of their existence - On the basis of said averment before Tribunal, for verification of the facts, Tribunal remanded the matter to adjudicating authority to scrutinise the evidences produced, including the affidavits and other evidence between the owners of shop provided on rent to the dealers - Assessee had placed certain evidences which are found to be unreliable after its analysis by adjudicating authority as well as by Commissioner (A) - The conclusion has been drawn that the assessee had failed to establish that these dealers who had issued invoices to them, based on which assessee had availed CENVAT credit were not in existence - These facts were well within the knowledge of assessee, since they failed to establish their claim of existence of these dealers made before Tribunal in first round of litigation, for verification of which the matter was remanded - Assessee could not produce any cogent evidence to rebut the said findings of Commissioner (A) before this Tribunal but reiterated the same submissions advanced before Commissioner (A) - In the result, both the appeals are dismissed: CESTAT  - Appeals dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-482-CESTAT-KOL

S Pandey and Company Vs CC

2018-TIOL-481-CESTAT-MAD

Sonu Enterprises Vs CC