CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2018-TIOL-652-CESTAT-DEL Shivpriya Cables Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of PVC compounds and availed cenvat credit on goods procured from M/s Ritzy Polymers who were availing benefit of area based exemption under Notfn 56/2002-CE - Even before expiry of exemption period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production, M/s Ritzy Polymers undertook substantial expansion and claimed the benefit of new area based exemption Notfn 1/2010-CE - The department proceeded to deny Cenvat credit availed by assessee amounting to Rs.2,19,69,001/- on goods procured from M/s Ritzy Polymers which were cleared availing the benefit of Notfn 1/2010 - The department has denied the benefit of Cenvat credit for the reason that Notfn 1/2010 is not specified in Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules but the Notfn 56/2002 is included - Availment under N otfn 1/2010 is in dispute which is yet to be settled - However, the alternate plea that they would have been entitled to Notfn 56/2002 upto 05.09.2014 appears to have been considered and permitted by jurisdictional Central Excise authorities - If that is so, then there will be no justification to deny the Cenvat credit availed by assessee on goods received from M/s Ritzy Polymers - Hence, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing de novo orders after verifying whether M/s Ritzy Polymers have been permitted to avail benefit of Notfn 56/2002 during period under dispute - Disputed amount stands paid by assessee even before issue of SCN, consequently, there is no justification to impose penalty: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-651-CESTAT-ALL
Garg Industries Vs CCE
CX - Entire case of assessee is that SCN was adjudicated earlier vide O-I-O which having been withdrawn by Department, in appeal/proceedings before Supreme Court wherein said assessee was not even party, permission obtained for fresh adjudication will not apply in its case - It amounts to abandoning the right of Department, so far as assessee is concerned - In view of withdrawal of earlier adjudication order without reserving liberty to proceed from stage of SCN against assessee, no lawful authority found for passing fresh O-I-O, being the impugned order - Therefore, there was no question of seeking permission from Supreme Court in case of assessee to pass a fresh adjudication order - Further, order of Supreme Court which have been made basis for passing a fresh adjudication order against assessee does not grant unconditional permission to withdraw the earlier adjudication order - Applying the ratio of Apex Court in case of Sarguja Transport Service , by withdrawing the earlier O-I-O, which was passed against assessee and two individuals, without obtaining permission to pass fresh adjudication order against them, would amount to abandoning the proceedings against the said three parties - There is no provision under CEA, 1944, which grants power to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the SCN on same facts for same period relating to same clearances once again, the said SCN already having been adjudicated upon by passing of O-I-O - Re-adjudication proceedings of same SCN along with addendums and passing of the present O-I-O is not saved by order dated 19 August, 2011 of Supreme Court, so far the assessee and the two individuals, namely, Shri B.M. Garg and Shri Krishna Kumar are concerned - Commissioner has already unconditionally released the seized goods to respective assessees from whose premises the same were seized - Therefore, no confiscation is possible, nor redemption fine can be imposed on other assessees under provisions of Section 34 of the Act - Thus, impugned O-I-O is not sustainable in respect of all assessees and accordingly, same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-650-CESTAT-AHM
Styrolution Abs India P Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Issue relates to eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on "sales commission" - Considering the number of appeals on same issue and categorical observation of Gujarat High Court in Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd.'s case 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 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, appeals disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of High Court in pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s case 2016-TIOL-520-CESTAT-AHM filed by the Revenue: CESTAT - Appeal disposed of : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATIONS/CIRCULAR
cuscir05-2018
Refund of IGST on Export–Invoice mis-match Cases –Alternative Mechanism with Officer Interface
ctariff18_027
Screws and SIM socket/other mechanical items (metal) for cellular mobile phone [Ch. 73] not entitled for concessional BCD of 10%
ctariffadd18_005
No Anti-dumping duty on 'Toluene Di-Isocyanate' imported from China PR, Japan & Korea RP for the period 05.12.2017 to 22.01.2018 due to lapse of provisional anti-dumping duty notification
cscaadri02-2018
Adjudicating authority changed - ADG(DRI), Mumbai to adjudicate DRI case against Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. & Balkrishna Industries Ltd
cscaadri01-2018
Common Adjudicating authority appointed for many DRI cases
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-654-CESTAT-MAD PV Shyam Kumar Vs CC
Cus - Appeal is only by one of the many noticees in adjudication proceedings - Assessee is the proprietor of M/s. World Wagon Agency - In his reply to SCN, assessee has contended that the statement given by him was not voluntary but obtained by threat and coercion - He has been consistently protesting that he had not placed any orders for cigarettes but only for mini cassette players and that the mix-up of the same was only due to mistake and wrong despatch at the suppliers side, which has been confirmed by writing by the later - However, while disclosing the imposability of penalty on assessee in impugned order, adjudicating authority has held that importer with active connivance of supplier and one Shri Basheer to conspire to smuggle the cigarettes in guise of mini cassette players - He arrived at this conclusion by dismissing the various letters apparently signed by suppliers confirming that mix-up has been occurred at their end - Even so, no further role of assessee has been brought out - Neither is there any additional finding unearthed to confirm beyond doubt that assessee had planned or was actively involved in alleged smuggling of cigarettes - Without any such discussion, penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is too harsh, same is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
