2018-TIOL-692-CESTAT-ALL

Capital Meters Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Electricity Meters - In terms of agreement entered into by assessee with Electricity Board, they are required to supply five extra meters as against the supply of 100 Electric meter, for purpose of warranty - Assessee addressed one letter to their jurisdicational Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise bringing the fact to their notice and also seeking their advice - There was no response to said address of assessee - Subsequently, certain investigations were made against them and as a result of which proceedings were initiated for demand of duty on said five duty free supplies made by assessee - Letter stands received by Revenue as also the fact that invoices carried a declaration to the fact of free supply of goods does not stand doubted by Revenue - In fact said declaration available in invoices stand accepted in SCN itself - If that be so, there cannot be any mala-fide intention, mis-statement or suppression with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee - In absence of same, longer period of limitation is not available to Revenue - As such demand having been raised behind the normal payment of limitation, is fully time barred and is accordingly set aside on the said ground itself.

As regards to another issue, in view of the fact that assessee have subsequently debited their Cenvat account in respect of inputs, which were cleared to their sister unit, as also on account of the fact that entire situation was Revenue neutral inasmuch as credit debited by assessee was available as credit to their sister unit, no justification found for imposition of penalty upon them - Same is accordingly, set aside.

Further, it is seen that duty of around of Rs. 1.35 lakhs approximately stands confirmed against assessee in respect of short stock detected by officers at the time of search of assessee's factory - Whether such shortages are required to be held as having been removed clandestinely, is a matter, dependent upon the evidences available on record - However, as assessee is not contesting the same, demand upheld on said count - As regards penalty, merely because the assesee has accepted their duty liability to buy peace with Revenue, it cannot be said that they were indulging in any clandestine activities on the basis of shortages itself - In such a scenario, imposition of penalty upon them is neither justified nor warranted and same is accordingly set aside.

Inasmuch as, penalty on the main assessee has been set aside, penalty imposed on Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, Director of Company is also set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

Pasupati Acrylon Ltd Vs CCS

CX - Assessee company has only one manufacturing unit located at Moradabad - The corporate office of assessee is situated at New Delhi which was receiving taxable services on which service tax was paid by service provider and credit was availed at assessee's manufacturing unit at Moradabad - It is alleged that as corporate office of assessee was not registered as ISD, so no credit of service tax in respect of input services received by corporate office or deports could be passed on to the manufacturing unit - Following the ruling of Gujarat High Court in case of Demosha Chemical Pvt. Ltd., it is held that availment of Cenvat credit in absence of head office being registered as ISD, there was no illegality in taking Cenvat credit - In fact, there being only one manufacturing unit, there is no question of distribution of credit involved - When there is only one manufacturing unit, head office exists only for the purpose and support of manufacturing unit and they are rather one and the same and accordingly all services received at their office are in fact equivalent to services received at the sole manufacturing unit: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt17_2018

CBEC revises tariff value of many items

2018-TIOL-690-CESTAT-ALL

Kamlesh Gupta Vs CC

Cus - DRI Officers intercepted two trucks near Indo-Nepal Border, which were found to be carrying "Urad Ki Dal", on a reasonable belief that same were meant for illegal export to Nepal - Further investigations were carried out and statements of various persons were recorded - Proceedings were initiated against all assessees for confiscation of Dal, of trucks and for imposition of penalties upon them - Assessee's contention is that they requested for cross-examination of all the various deponents of statements, so as to arrive at correct factual position - In as much as, Adjudicating Authority has not provided the cross-examination, impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside on said ground itself - Accordingly, matter remanded to Lower Authorities for afresh decision, after affording the cross-examination of witnesses - As regards the appeal of Shri Rahul Mishra, a separate penalty of Rs.1 lakh has been imposed upon him on the ground that he was the seller of Dal in question and as such, has contributed to the illegal activities of Shri Kamlesh Gupta - Apart from the fact that said assessee sold the pulses to Shri Kamlesh Gupta there is virtually no evidence on record reflecting upon the involvement of Shri Rahul Mishra on his knowledge that the said Dal in question was meant for illegal export - The pulses were sold under invoices and the other relevant documents and there is no doubt about the same - As such in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no justiciable reason found to impose penalty on said assessee: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT