Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of Titanium Dioxide, Beneficiated Ilmanite and Titanium Tetrachloride and availing CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as service tax paid on input services in accordance with the provisions of CCR, 2004 - They have engaged various persons for various kinds of construction works like erection of structures and fabrication under works contract service - It is alleged that assessee had taken ineligible CENVAT credit from the months of June 2011 to October 2011, in violation of Rule 3 read with Rule 2(k) and (1) of CCR, 2004 - Accordingly, a SCN was issued to assessee - Various contracts awarded to various contractors and their invoices clearly shows that the work awarded to those contractors fall in the definition of input service even after 1.4.2011 and they are not excluded by amendment to input service w.e.f. 1.4.2011 and the impugned order denying the same is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-802-CESTAT-ALL

Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Vs M P Enterprises

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Chewing Tobacco bearing Brand names; Bharat & Vani - The assessee was issued with two Show Cause Notices - Through SCN, assessee was called upon to show cause as to why excess finished goods & raw-material seized at the factory premises of assessee should not be confiscated under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 - Original Authority has dropped the demand in respect of 21 Co-noticees in respect of whom there was a proposal to impose personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that Revenue has not filed appeals against that part of the order and against those 21 Co-noticees - Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that Revenue has accepted that those 21 Co-noticees were innocent - Entire SCN for demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.7,38,84,853/- was based on the statements and the said statements did not stand the scrutiny before Original Authority - There was not any evidence brought forward by Revenue in respect of procurement of raw-materials, engaging labourers, transportation of goods, buyers of goods and realization of sale proceed in respect of goods alleged to have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared - Impugned Order-in-Original is sustainable: CESTAT - Appeal rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-801-CESTAT-ALL

TS Tech Sun (India) Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of automotive (car) parts and components which include seats and door interiors of various models of Honda Cars which are supplied to M/s. HSCIL, who used the same in further manufacture of cars - The dispute relates to admissibility of Cenvat credit of SAD @4% paid/reversed by M/s HSCIL and credit was availed by assessee in November 2006 on strength of supplementary invoices issued by HSCIL - A SCN was issued to assessee proposing to recover and deny the benefit of Cenvat credit taken on the strength of supplementary invoice under Rule 14 r/w section 11A of CEA, 1944 along with interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR - Provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of are applicable since the explanation 1 below the said Sub-section is not invokable for the reason that Revenue could not establish that there was intention to pay less amount as compared to required amount because the whole exercise was revenue neutral - Therefore, there was no need for issue of SCN in respect of said issue - Therefore, the question of imposition of penalty on said alleged violation does not arise: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

Seeks to impose definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of 'Sulphonated Naphthalene Formaldehyde' originating in or exported from China PR

ctariffadd18_006

Govt notifies definitive anti-dumping duty on import of 'O-Acid' from China

PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft17pn065

Amendment in Chapter 2 of the Handbook of Procedure (2015-20)

CASE LAW

Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs CC

Cus - M/s. RCL and M/s. RGL are engaged in manufacture of ceramic tiles - The case of department is that on investigation and visit of factory premises of M/s. RCL in September 2007, certain capital goods were not available and installed in the factory and instead were found installed in the premises of M/s. RGL - Assessee have produced sufficient certification not only from Chartered Engineer but also from jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise that capital goods imported by them against concerned EPCG license had very much been installed and put in use initially at their own manufacturing premises as required - Only much later, they decided to shift capital goods to their sister unit M/s. RGL, which also was located in Yanam itself - This unilateral shifting of capital goods, though done without permission from DGFT authorities, and/or customs authorities, has nonetheless been regularized by way of adjudication of matter by Jt. DGFT, Hyderabad by imposing a nominal penalty - The procedural lapse on the part of assessee having been adjudged by licensing authority by way of imposing nominal penalty and shifting regularized and most importantly the export obligation having been done completely in full, demand of duty liability, confiscation and imposition of penalties for procedural lapse, would surely be unnecessary after the matter has been regularized by licensing authority, namely Jt. DGFT - Applying the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers 2002-TIOL-234-SC-CX , acts and omission of assessee is nothing but a non-observance of a procedural condition of technical nature and not a substantive condition - Impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT