Balaji Structurals India Ltd Vs CCE  

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of MS Ingot and various rolled products of Iron and steel - Department searched the premises of two transporters and found documents indicating that these transporters have indulged in transporting goods manufactured by assessee and cleared without payment of duty - Entire allegation of clandestine removal is based on statements of transporters as well as details culled out from ledgers of transporters - These documents are evidently third party documents - Revenue has not produced any evidence from assessee to support the charge of clandestine clearance - It is settled law that documents recovered from third party cannot be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal, unless they are supported by corroborative evidence - For clearance of such huge quantities of goods, corresponding quantity of raw materials ought to have been procured by assessee - However, revenue has not brought any evidence on record on this issue - The evidence from the end of transporters, at best, raises suspicion in minds but is grossly insufficient to support the charge of clandestine clearance: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-753-CESTAT-HYD

Gowthami Steels Ltd Vs CCE & ST  

CX - Issue is regarding confiscation of capital goods and redemption fine imposed thereof in lieu of confiscation and also for imposition of penalty under Provisions of Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Assessee is only contesting the imposition of equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 (2) and confiscation of goods - Facts from records indicates that assessee has availed Cenvat credit third time which they are not supposed to do, against the capital goods received by them, a fact evidenced once the assessee has reversed said amount on being pointed out by audit party, hence the reversal of Cenvat credit is rightly upheld - No interference is called for in such an order passed by first appellate authority; as regards confiscation of goods - Since the assessee had reversed the cenvat on being pointed out, the redemption fine imposed is reduced to Rs. 2.00 lakhs - Provisions of Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 will not be attracted to the case in hand - Penalty imposed on assessee under provisions of Rule 15 (2) is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-752-CESTAT-AHM

ION Exchange India Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST  

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of excisable goods and availed cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on 'Construction Service' of existing plant and machinery in their factory premises, so as to meet USA, FDA guidelines during period June 2011 to March 2012 - Alleging that after amendment to definition of 'Input Service' w.e.f. 01.4.2011 'construction service', being placed on the exclusion clause, therefore credit availed by assessee is irregular; consequently, notices were issued to them for recovery of inadmissible credit with interest and penalty - A plain reading of relevant old and amended Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 makes it clear that service utilized in relation to modernization, renovation and repair of factory are definitely fall within the meaning of 'input service' even though construction of a building or civil structure or part thereof has been placed under exclusion clause of said definition of 'input service' - After amendment to definition of 'input service', a clarification issued by Board vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX - Thus, harmonious reading of inclusive part of definition and exclusion clause mentioned at clause (a) relating to construction service of definition of 'input service', it is clear that construction service relating to modernization, renovation and repair of the factory continued to be within the meaning of 'input service' and accordingly, the Service Tax paid on such service is eligible to credit - Undisputedly, assessee carried out modernization/renovation' work to meet USA FDA guidelines for manufacture of their products therefore, the service tax paid on such construction service is eligible to credit - In the result, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Micheli Bearings India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Issue is regarding confirmation of demand of amount which is equivalent to 10% of value of exempted goods cleared by assessee after availing CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services - There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee had reversed proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services utilized for manufacturing and clearing of exempted goods; that they have not informed the Revenue authorities at beginning of the year i.e., 2008-09 as to the intention to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit as per Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 - Since there is no denial that assessee had reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit in time as provider, the ratio of Division Bench of Tribunal in case of Cranes and Structural Engineers, will squarely apply to the case in hand, wherein it has been held that provisions of Rule 6(3A) are procedural in nature and if they are compiled subsequently within the time, should be held as compliance of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-750-CESTAT-CHD

Sumit Impex India Vs CC

CX - Assessee imported re-rollable steel scrap at a declared value - The consignment was examined by officers under supervision of Assistant Commissioner on two consecutive dates and it was found that, out of total weight of 115.648 MTs of re-rollable steel scrap, 59.026MT was of prime HR Sheets of thickness more than 4.75mm and having higher assessable value - Assessee have not challenged the fact of presence of prime HR sheets in scrap - Neither have they felt aggrieved with classification of prime quality of sheets adopted by lower authorities nor the higher valuation of same - This leads to inevitable fact that prime sheets were sought to be imported in guise of re-rollable scrap and there was mis-declaration, thus making the goods confiscable - As such, confiscability of goods in question is required to be upheld - However, assessee have contested the quantum of redemption fine on the ground that there was nothing to suggest that said prime quality of sheets were sent by foreign supplier was at their request - Appreciating the fact that no evidence stands placed by Revenue to show that such presence of sheets was at assessee's behest, redemption fine reduced to Rs. 35,000/- - Similarly, penalty of Rs. 15,000/-, in the absence of any evidence to show the direct involvement of assessee is reduced to Rs. 7,500/- : CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

Kalpena Industries Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Principles of natural justice would also include a right to cross-examination - there is no straightjacket formula in which the principles of natural justice can be confined and which principles of natural justice or which facets of it is applicable, would depend upon the nature of the  lis  and statute under which adjudication is undertaken and several other factors - in order to effectively defend itself the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the said transporters as that would offer the petitioner "a reasonable opportunity" as contemplated under section 124 (c) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Impugned order dated 14.09.2016 and the contents of the said communication, declining the opportunity to cross-examine, as sought by the Petitioner, were quashed and set aside - entire exercise of conducting the cross-examination should be completed within period of six weeks and thereafter the SCN be adjudicated – Writ petition allowed: High Court [para 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21] - Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs UoI

Anti Dumping duty - Assessee contested the Customs Notfn 53/2016-Customs (ADD) imposing antidumping duty on "low ash metallurgical coke" originating in or exported from PR China and Australia - Said notfn has already been assailed by other parties in case of M/s Kalyani Steels Limited and M/s Association of India Mini Blast Furnaces, on identical grounds, before the Tribunal - But the assessee at the time, was perhaps, before the High Court - No new ground has been taken by assessee in present appeal - Issues now raised in present appeal were the same as dealt with by Tribunal in final order dated 07/04/2017, where the appeals were dismissed after detailed examination - By following said order, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT