Oriental Aromatics Ltd Vs UoI

CX - the assessee-company was served an SCN, following which duty demand was raised with interest & penalty being imposed - The same was upheld by the Commr.(A) - Later, the Tribunal granted a stay order in favor of the assessee - Meanwhile, the assessee was served several SCNs on the same issue - These SCNs culminated into appeals - Some of these were dismissed for not making pre-deposit - One of appeals was remanded, but the Tribunal later dismissed the appeal - However, due to the assessee shifting premises, the assessee was delayed in filing the present appeal.

Held - the Tribunal cannot reject the assessee's submissions and call them false or fictitious or negligent - The Tribunal should have noted that the assessee duly contested each SCN and filed all appeals in time, except for one - The Tribunal displayed recklessness in mechanically disposing off the appeals, and in branding such appeals as being filed casually or light-heartedly - Courts of law do not merely dispose of cases, but also adjudicate and dispense justice - Where a litigant deserves justice, the same cannot be summarily denied - Matter restored to the Tribunal for fresh hearing: High Court (Para 4,5,10) - Case Remanded: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Techno Forge Ltd Vs UoI

CX - the assessee-company was served an SCN raising duty demand - The Tribunal granted interim relief - Such order was later corrected due to their being an error in it - The assessee later executed personal bond in compliance with the order - However, the Tribunal later dismissed the assessee's appeal - Such order was passed in 1997 - When the Department initiated recovery proceedings, the assessee sought a copy of the Tribunal order, in 2013 - Thereafter, the assessee paid duty with penalty and redemption fine - The assessee then filed a restoration application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The Tribunal was supposed to give the assessee a chance to argue its case on merits, particularly satisfied that the assessee has acted in bona fide - There is no gross negligence and utter callousness, other than a lapse of reporting compliance to the Tribunal - The deposits were made & revenue was secured - Hence the Tribunal adopteds an approach which defeats justice - There is a difference between a Secretariat and Administrator clearing old files and a Court of law deciding old cases - True that, old cases have to be given priority, but this is not a manner of disposal which merits being upheld - Hence, Tribunal order quashed & matter restored for fresh disposal: High Court (Para 4-7,10) - Appeal Allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Victoria Bleaching And Dyeing Vs Customs And Central Excise Settlement Commission

CX - The assessee-company, engaged in dyeing cotton yarn, cotton fabric, and 100% polyester yarn, proposed to commence job work for dying of blended yarn and 100% polyester yarn - Appropriate declaration under Rule 173 (B) was also filed - The assessee also submitted to the Revenue copies of application for registration with schedule, factory site plan and the photostat copy of the partnership deed - Later it was served an SCN proposing to raise duty demand u/s 11A(1) of the Act, along with imposition of penalties u/s 11AC of the Act and under Rule 173Q of the CER, 2002 - Before the Settlement Commission, the assessee claimed to have purchased & cleard polyester yarn without payment of duty, due to severe competition in the market, and because buyers were unwilling to bear te burden of the duty - The Commission rejected the assessee's application & disallowed it from being proceeded against u/s 32F(1), since the assessee did not satisfy the conditions in Clause (a) of Section 32E(1)(a).

Held - If the correspondence between the assessee and the Revenue is considered, it is necessary to examine the need for filing returns u/s 32(F)(1)(A) - Hence the application filed before the Settlement Commission should not have been rejected at the threshold - There is also correspondence with the Revenue, relevant to determine the nature of activity done by the assessee - Hence, the application ought to have been entertained especially when the assessee admitted the entire duty liability - Hence application remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh verification: High Court (Para 3,4,5,6) - Case Remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-668-CESTAT-MUM

CCE & ST Vs ACC Ltd

CX – Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004 – Inputs - Issue is whether welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery would be Cenvatable or not. Held: Issue is no more res integra – In respondent's case reported as - 2016-TIOL-113-CESTAT-MUM welding electrodes were held as Cenvatable - earlier appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of same respondent stands rejected vide Final Order No. A/88313/17/SMB dated 06.07.2017 - 2017-TIOL-2801-CESTAT-MUM - Both decisions are based upon the precedent judgements of various High Courts – Inasmuch as issue stands decided in favour of assessee, Revenue appeals rejected: CESTAT [para 2, 3] - Appeals rejected: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-667-CESTAT-MUM

Balbir Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Case of the department is that the appellant has availed fraudulent cenvat credit on the invoices in respect of HR Trimming issued by Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (JISCO), whereas the consignment under the said invoices were transported and delivered to Viramgam, Gujarat based parties - CENVAT credit disallowed and personal penalty imposed on Director - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Under a common investigation various show cause notices were issued to various assessees alongwith present appellant - SCNs were based on the statements of various persons such as transporter, broker etc. - In the present case, though the invoice in respect of HR Trimming was issued by Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. on which the appellant availed the cenvat credit but in none of the statements of transporter or boker, the name of the present appellant was indicated regarding the diversion of the goods to the Gujarat based parties - statement of Director of the appellant company is exculpatory as he has not admitted the non receipt of the goods, rather he stated that the appellant company purchased the HR Trimming from JISCO - fact regarding payment of the input invoice and transport charges was accepted by the adjudicating authority - no evidence exists which is against the appellant, therefore, the orders of the lower authorities assuming the evidence against other assessees applicable to the appellant's case also is misleading - case of alleged wrong availment of cenvat credit cannot be established - Appellants are legally entitled for CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by JISCO - Appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-666-CESTAT-MUM

Ballarpur Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Valuation - Appellants engaged in manufacture and clearance of paper and paperboard in reel form on payment of duty to their various cutting centers on payment of duty - demand for differential CE duty issued and confirmed on the ground that goods were sold at a higher price in wholesale trade as compared to the value on which CE duty was paid by appellant - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: In appellant's own case, on the very same issue, it has been held by Tribunal and affirmed by apex court that what had been cleared from the factory was paper reels and revenue was comparing the value of the paper reels with the selling price of the cut paper at the depot which is not correct; that since price of paper reels at the depot at the time of removal was available and the duty had been paid only on that price, there is no short payment of duty - impugned orders are set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5] - Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

Oriental Trimex Ltd Vs CC

Cus - the assessee's appeal before the Commr.(A) was dismissed for being filed beyond 60 days - Held - Such O-i-A was challenged in another appeal by the assessee, wherein the Tribunal remanded the matter for examining the assessee's claims w.r.t. actual date of dispatch with supporting evidences - Following such decision, the O-i-A in question is set aside & matter remanded to the Commr.(A) for fresh verification of admissibility of appeal and assessee's claim regarding actual date of receipt of the original order: CESTAT (Para 1,2,3) - Case Remanded: DELHI CESTAT