Prabhat Industries Vs CCE

CX - The principal issue involved in the present Appeal relates to the eligibility of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on sales commission - Considering the categorical observation of Gujarat High Court in Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. 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 the High Court - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of 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, present appeal is disposed of with liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of High Court in pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of this Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s 2016-TIOL-520-CESTAT-AHM filed by the Revenu - No recovery nor any refund would be processed during the period: CESTAT - Appeal disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Mobis India Ltd Vs Commissioner

CX - Assessee have a factory premises at Irungattukottai, Tamil Nadu and engaged in manufacture of Original Equipment (OE) items like dash board, front module and rear module for supply to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (HMIL) - They are also having three other manufacturing registrations also known as depots for Genuine Parts Division, at Gurgaon (Delhi), Taloja (Mumbai) and Kolkatta which are registered as manufacturing locations - Assessee procure automobile parts from suppliers and clear and sell it to Hyundai Genuine Parts - Proceedings were initiated against assessee by way of issue of SCN which culminated in impugned order holding that goods cleared by Irungattukottai of assessee to their three depots fall under section 4A of the Act - Undoubtedly, assessee undertakes repacking and relabeling processes on the parts procured by them by way of import - In normal course, impugned goods, by virtue of provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act/ Rules are required to affix maximum RSP on each package and in consequence such packages will attract valuation and assessment for purposes of discharge of central excise duty liability as per provisions of Section 4A of CEA, 1944 - In fact, clearances of such goods, made directly to dealers of HMIL are assessed only under section 4A ibid - For goods which are required to affix on package the RSP as per provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules thereunder, assessable value is worked out as RSP less any abatement as may be allowed by Notification - Discernably, unless the goods are specifically exempted by said Act /Rules from declaring the RSP, all such packages will necessarily fall within the ambit of Section 4A valuation - No infirmity found with cogent finding of impugned order.

However, on the matter of entire proceedings being hit by limitation, some merit found in contentions of assessee - Department was very much aware of assessment procedure followed by assessee for disputed period - In fact, department themselves have advised the assessee to adopt the value using CAS- 4 costing method which is exactly what the assessee did - Having given such directions to assessee, department cannot then make allegations of suppression or mis-statement and invoke extended period provided under section 11A(1) of CEA, 1944 to justify issue of SCN that is almost more than four years after the aforementioned letter of department - Therefore, SCN cannot sustain and is therefore set aside.

Coming to the matter of penalty, none of ingredients justifying the invocation of extended period under proviso to section 11A(1) are present in this case - Hence, there is no justification for imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Act: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Big Bags International Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of HDPE/PP Tapes, webbings, yarn, PP Woven Fabric, FIBC Bags and availing Cenvat credits on inputs viz. HDPE/LDPE granules - It was noticed that intermediate goods sent to Job Worker were not returned even after stipulated period of 180 days - Subsequently, instead of paying amount equivalent to Cenvat credit attributable to inputs, assessee filed a claim for remission of duty on account of two fire accidents at the Job Workers premises - In case of Indchem Electronics 2002-TIOL-181-CESTAT-MAD, it has been held by the Tribunal that where inputs were actually issued and thereafter destroyed in the fire accident, there was no requirement of reversal of credit - In case of Fenner India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1254-HC-MAD-CX, High Court of Madras while considering the other decisions, has held that when inputs are destroyed in fire accident, assesse cannot be called upon to reverse the credit when there is no dispute that inputs on which credit was availed were destroyed when work was in progress - Therefore, by following the ratios of said decisions, impugned order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

CBEC notifies tariff rates Palm oil, Palmolein, Soyabean oil, Brass scrap, Gold & Silver

cnt19_2018

CBEC notifies forex rates of several currencies for import & export of goods

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-453-HC-MAD-CUS

Cus - Petitioner engaged in manufacture and sale of Silver Oxide Zinc/Silver Chloride Batteries - The petitioner is stated to have imported SEAWATER ACTIVATED SILVER CHLORIDE MAGNESIUM BATTERY STACK and after doing necessary fitment of accessories and testing, the same battery re-exported to customer under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 - On account of fitment of accessories done by petitioner, the cost of the battery had been enhanced from 40,000/- Euro to 48,000/- Euro - Since the final product was exempted from payment of excise duty and the petitioner having not availed Cenvat Credit facility, sought for refund of duty in form of Duty Drawback - This claim has been pending since 2011 - Respondent should take a decision on the petitioner's application at the earliest: HC - Writ petition disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-828-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Smbj Impex Pvt Ltd

Cus - Assessee imported PU Coated Fabrics and filed Bill of Entry which were assessed provisionally on the basis of an Alert Circular issued by DRI - The declared value has been rejected on mere assumptions and presumptions - Department has not been able to adduce any cogent evidence for holding that declared transaction value is not correct - Commissioner (A) has rightly discussed that there is no allegation that the buyer is related to seller and therefore Rule 7A cannot be invoked without first excluding Rules 5 to 8 with valid reasons - Department has failed to prove that the goods imported by assessee are of same quality of goods referred in DRI Alert Circular - That being so, rejection of transaction value is not acceptable - Further, enhancement is solely based on NIDB data - Tribunal in case of Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-39-CESTAT-DEL has held that value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data - Following the same, impugned order call for no interference: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT