CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

 2018-TIOL-628-CESTAT-MUM + Story

CCE Vs Arrow Engineers

CX - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 applicable only to physical exports - clearances to SEZ and refund claimed of CENVAT - impugned order of Commissioner(A) had erred in allowing the application under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, hence same is set aside and Revenue appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 7, 9, 10, 11] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-627-CESTAT-MUM

CCE & C Vs Vitthalsai Ssk Ltd

CX - Bagasse cleared by appellant by paying 5% of the value of the exempted item in accordance with rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004 - Revenue sought recovery of the amount of Rs.32,17,541/- on the ground that the appellant had collected the said amount from their customers - appellant paid the amount by challan before approaching the CESTAT, however, when CESTAT decided in their favour the said amount was claimed as refund - Commissioner(A) allowed refund, therefore, Revenue in appeal before CESTAT.

Held: Issue has reached a finality in view of the apex court decision in DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX holding that the bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue and which itself is not the result of any process; that it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of s.2(f) of the CEA, 1944 and in absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty; that rule 6 of CCR, 2004 would have no application - amount was thus not payable and even if liable to be deposited in accordance with section 11D of CEA, 1944 for having been recovered under the guise of duty, same has already been paid by debit of CENVAT credit account - second payment effected during the pendency of appeal is thus a collection in excess from the respondent and, therefore, sanction of refund cannot be faulted - impugned order is upheld and Revenue appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-626-CESTAT-DEL

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of toilet soaps and soap noodles - The goods have been cleared by assessee to their own sister unit located in tax exempted areas - Consequently, assessee is require to pay excise duty on goods so cleared - The basis of valuation is also required to be done in terms of Rule 8 of CEVR, 2000 following the CAS-4 - However, such valuation has been done on the basis of CAS-4 certificate prepared on the basis of annual cost of production - Assessee has paid duty on a month to month basis on the basis of cost of goods for previous month - When valuation is finalised on an annual basis, there has been short payment of duty in some months as well as excess payment in other months - Assessee has already paid the excess duty wherever value as per CAS-4 is more than the value adopted for payment of duty, but after adjusting the excess paid duty in other months - Such adjustment has not been permitted by adjudicating authority even in denovo adjudication - Stand taken by adjudicating authority is untenable - By following the decision of Tribunal in Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 2016-TIOL-3079-CESTAT-DEL , impugned order is not sustainable and hence is set aside - Assessee has claimed that they have already paid short paid duty payable after deducting adjusting the excess - The adjudicating authority is directed to verify the same and recover only the differential, if any, after such adjustment: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-625-CESTAT-BANG

United Electrical Industries Vs CCE & C

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of goods and cleared their products on payment of duty and e-filed the monthly ER-1 returns - During the month of June, 2013, SP static LCD meter sub-assemblies / components were cleared with 10% of duty, during November 2013, goods were cleared without payment of duty - Actual rate of duty was 12% for said period - Further they transferred these meters from the finished goods account and cleared them as materials returned for rectification to M/s. RMC Swith Gears ltd., Jaipur, the original supplier of goods, on payment of duty @ 10% ad valorem under when the prevalent rate of duty was 12% ad valorem - M/s.RMC Switch Gears ltd. cleared them on payment of duty @ 10% ad valorem, under the contention that the meters returned by them were in the same status as when it was supplied to them - Commissioner(A) has observed that the goods were returned to supplier for rectification but assessee have not produced any proof that the repaired goods were received back - Assessee have not followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of CCR, 2004 - In view of reasoned findings of Commissioner(A), no infirmity found in impugned order demanding differential duty and same confirmed along with interest - Imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- on assessee under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Act is not justified as assessee is a state government undertaking and there is no intention to evade duty on the part of assessee and therefore taking a lenient view, penalty under Rule 25 dropped: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

 2018-TIOL-624-CESTAT-AHM

Polycab Wires Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Asssesee had availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor caterers, manpower supply services and travel services - Two SCNs were issued alleging irregular availment of credit - Whether assessee could avail credit of service tax paid on various services for period prior to receiving centralized registration for both units - Issue of admissibility of Credit in absence of ISD Registration during relevant period is covered by judgment of Gujarat High Court in Dashion Ltd.' s case 2016-TIOL-111-HC-AHM-ST - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT. - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

 

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariffadd18_004

Definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on “Ceramic Tableware and Kitchenware, excluding knives and toilet items” imported from China PR

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-621-CESTAT-HYD

CC Vs JSW Steel Ltd

Cus - Assessee imported various types of coals by declaring the cargo as "soft coking coal and Jellinbah PCI coal" in March 2011 and claimed exemption in terms of Notfn 21/2002 - Revenue's appeal is on the point that coal imported by assessee cannot be considered as a coking coal and the original Notfn 21/2002 did not allow coking coal for exemption from Customs Duty, however Notfn 21/2011 and 77/2011 wherein specifications were provided but will not be effective retrospectively - The Bills of Entry filed and provisionally assessed on the ground of seeking a clarification as to what is "coking coal" - It is undisputed that the goods which were imported by assessee were coking coal kind of a coal which were used they them in corex technology which does not require the conversion of coal into coke; that specifications provided under Notfn 77/2011 and the corrigendum there to are complied by the goods imported - First Appellate Authority has correctly interpreted the provisions of Notfn 77/2011 as applicable to the goods imported - The view of First Appellate Authority and Tribunal's view is fortified, by the decision of Apex Court in cases of Indian Tobacco Association 2005-TIOL-109-SC-CUS and WPIL 2005-TIOL-51-SC-CX-LB in interpretation of the word "substitute" - I mpugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference: CESTAT - Appeal rejected : HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-620-CESTAT-MAD

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee had imported 'Titanium Pipes and Fittings' of various sizes and dimensions and sought to clear the items as parts of Bi Polar Membrane Electrolyser claiming benefit of Notfn 21/2002-Cus. as amended - However, claim of assessee was rejected and goods were classified under CTH 81089090 and assessed to duty accordingly - Applying the ratio laid down by Apex court in case of Insulation Electrical (P) Ltd. 2008-TIOL-61-SC-CX , Tribunal is not able to appreciate how the titanium pipes and fittings which are generic products made in standard sizes obtained from another supplier and another country can be considered as a specifically designed for Membrane Electrolyser part which is essential and integrated with Membrane Electrolyser separately imported - Admittedly, imported titanium pipes and fittings are not specially designed or created to work as integral part of Membrane Electrolyser - They are only generic items which have been obtained to complete the functioning of imported Membrane Electrolyser - At the most, it can be brought within the ambit of accessory, but certainly not as a part or a component - The reliance of the lower appellate authority on the case of Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. which held that pipes and fittings made on specialized materials are not component parts of machinery is therefore correct - No merit found in appeals filed by assessee: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed : CHENNAI CESTAT