CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-647-CESTAT-AHM

CCE & ST Vs Keihin Automotive System India Pvt Ltd

CX - Assessee, as registered dealer surrendered their registration certificate on 30.01.2013 but same was not accepted by Revenue which means that on the day of transfer of inputs, from register dealer to manufacturing unit, assessee was registered with CX Department as registered dealer - Therefore, cenvat credit cannot be denied which Commissioner (A) has already allowed - With regard to the fact that goods in question are not inputs for assessee - As assessee is registered being a manufacturer of parts of Motor vehicle under Chapter heading 87 of CETA, 1985 and goods in question are parts of Automobile industries - Therefore, goods in question are the parts of motor vehicles and they could not been used by assessee in manufacturing of their product but being part of motor vehicle, these are inputs for assessee, therefore, cenvat credit cannot be denied - Further, allegation against assessee is that as the activity of packing or re-packing does not amounts to manufacture and on those goods, assessee has not done any activity of manufacturing, therefore, they are not entitled to take cenvat credit - Assessee has cleared the goods on payment of duty after packing and re-packing, therefore, if their activity is to be held does not amounts to manufacture, the duty paid on clearance be treated as reversal of cenvat credit in the light of the decision of Tribunal in case of Ajinkya Enterprises 2011-TIOL-1333-CESTAT-MUM which has been affirmed by High Court of Bombay - Therefore, Commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the cenvat credit to assessee - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-644-CESTAT-DEL

Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of excisable goods -aluminium and articles thereof - Dispute is with reference to cenvat credit availed by assessee in respect of certain input services - During the period under dispute assessee has paid the service tax on reverse charge basis even for the period prior to 18.04.2006 - But such service tax paid cannot loose the colour of tax only because the service tax on reverse charge basis has been held to be payable only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 - Revenue was of the view that such tax was liable to be paid right from 16.08.2002 in the light of the Service Tax Rules prevalent at the relevant time - Having paid the service tax, assessee is entitled to cenvat credit thereof since there is no dispute that such services, otherwise satisfy the norm of input service - The fact of payment of service tax is not in dispute and hence, no reason found to disallow the cenvat credit of such service tax: CESTAT - Appeal Allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-643-CESTAT-DEL

Salora International Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Classification - Main assessee engaged in manufacture of various components of television sets in their factory at Delhi and cleared to various units of assessee company at different places - The other units reassembled and marketed the TV sets - Whether such components are liable to be assessed as television receivers under CETH 8528 or parts of television receivers falling under CETH 8529 - Admittedly for the period 01/07/1993 to 28/02/1994 the issue of classification has been held against the assessee - The matter reached the Apex court in assessee's own case and it was found that the goods are to be classified as television receivers and not as parts - Very same materials were cleared by assessee for export classifying the same as television receivers under CETH 8528 - They have claimed higher export benefits - When these items are cleared for their other satellite units for final assembling and marketing they have claimed classification as parts - Such dual approach for the same set of items is not tenable - Ratio of Apex Court in assessee's own case regarding classification of impugned goods shall apply in these cases also - Accordingly, classification of impugned goods under CETH 8528 of the Tariff upheld.

Limitation - It is assessee who claimed variation in facts in order to not to pay differential duty by classifying the impugned goods as parts - Present show cause notice was not issued on similar set of evidences or facts which were subjected to decision in the earlier proceedings - Submission of assessee regarding limitation was elaborately discussed in impugned order as per the remand directions of Tribunal and relying on various decisions of Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court, the Original Authority concluded that the case for extended period is sustainable against assessee and no reason found to interfere with the same: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-642-CESTAT-DEL

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Dispute in present case is whether the interest liability and penal provisions are attracted in respect of reversal of Cenvat credit availed in excess - Assessee availed full 100 per cent in year in which the capital goods were received - Upon being pointed out, assessee promptly reversed the same - Assessee has relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX in which it has been held that no interest is payable whereas the Apex Court in case of Ind- Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-21-SC-CX has held that interest is leviable if Cenvat credit has been wrongly taken but not utilised - By following the decision of Apex Court, Adjudicating Authority has rightly upheld the levy of interest - As regards to imposition of penalty, assessee has claimed that the mistake was unintentional - Central Excise duty was imposed on coal for the first time in year 2011 - The dispute of wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on capital goods is for the period immediately after introduction of such Excise Duty - Consequently, penalty imposed on assessee is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT

 

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft17pn063

Amendments in ANFs 4F & 4G of Handbook of Procedures 2015·20

CASE LAW

2018-TIOL-646-CESTAT-DEL

Delhi International Airport Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - A refund application was filed by assessee claiming refund of excess CVD amount paid by it under protest - Same was rejected by Commissioner (Refund) holding that the claim of refund is premature, in absence of final re-assessment order passed by apprising group who are the proper authority to examine the issue of admissibility of exemption notification benefit - Assessee had objected to assessment made by authorities, in consonance with audit objections raised for earlier period - Further, assessee had also represented the authorities regarding its claim for exemption benefit - It is an admitted fact on record that the authorities below have not adhered to the request of assessee, in passing the order(s), negating the claim of entitlement for CVD exemption as contemplated under notfn - It has to be construed that filing of refund claim by assessee itself, is to be considered as challenge of assessment of Bills of Entry, which is detrimental to its claim - Thus, legal position is manifestly clear that refund claim filed by assessee is maintainable in terms of Section 27 of Act, and filing of refund claim itself is a trigger for re-assessment, and there is no requirement to separately seek re-assessment/final assessment of disputed Bills of Entry - Rejection of claim of assessee on the ground mentioned by lower authorities is not sustainable - Original authority should examine the issue, regarding entitlement of assessee to the claimed exemption with reference to defence submission and pass reasoned order on merit - The claim for refund on excess payment of CVD will be considered as a consequence of said determination: CESTAT - Matter remanded : DELHI CESTAT