2018-TIOL-862-CESTAT-MUM + Story

General Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - CENVAT - Goods returned by appellant assessee for non-compliance with the fixed supply schedule - recovery effected through debit notes - adjudicating authority confirming demand of Rs.27,62,926/- attributed to recovery of courier charges from supplier - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: By no stretch of imagination can a debit note, arising from contractual liability, be considered to be a credit note relating to rendering of a service under rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004 - Appellant is not the recipient of courier service referred to in the debit note and has not taken the credit of any tax paid on the provision of said service to the vendor of the goods in question - in absence of any evidence that the ineligible credit was availed in the first instance, reversal of credit will not arise - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-861-CESTAT-AHM

Tudor India Pvt Ltd Vs CST

CX - the assessee-company manufactured excisable goods - It claimed that a fire accident led to drastic drop in sales and consequently, it incurred huge financial losses - Thus, the assessee approached the BIFR - Moreover, all employees left the assessee-company leaving none to manage the day-to-day financial & tax matters - In such backdrop, the assessee was served a notice, which was not brought to the notice of the management - The management came to know about it only when a recovery notice from the Revenue was received - Duty demand was raised - The assessee sought remission of duty, which was denied on grounds that the assessee did not submit requisite documents supporting its claim, despite sufficient time being given -

Held - The assessee claimed that the cause of delay was bona fide and not caused by negligence, and so merits condonation - In interests of justice, the assessee merits a fresh chance to submit requisite documents - Assessee to do so within one month & appear for hearing: CESTAT (Para 2,7) - Appeal Allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-860-CESTAT-AHM

Panasonic Energy India Company Ltd Vs CCE

CX - the assessee-company deposited duty as per directions on the Apex Court in an ongoing matter - When such matter was settled in favor of the assessee, such duty paid was directed to be refunded with interest - While such refund was sanctioned, it was adjusted against outstanding dues to be recovered from the assessee - After some rounds of litigation, the interest kept adding up, before the principal amount was refunded - However the entire interest amount was not granted - The assessee's claim for the same was rejected by the Commr.(A) -

Held - The Revenue's claim, that the the appropriation of interest amount against the confirmed demand continues to retain the characteristics as interest only, so no interest is payable on the same, holds no water - It is undisputed that had the amount not been appropriated the assessee would have received interest as originally calculated, along with the principl amount - On appropriation the interest merged with the principle amount - Hence the pending interest be granted as well: CESTAT (Para 2,5) - Appeal Allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-859-CESTAT-AHM

Kec International Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee failed to reverse CENVAT Credit on SAD on the imported inputs cleared as such - On being pointed out, entire amount was reversed - Since they have not paid interest of Rs.2,50,120/-, a SCN was issued to them - Tribunal has already discussed the issue relating to availment of wrong credit without utilization in case of Atul Limited and others 2017-TIOL-1570-CESTAT-AHM after analyzing the principle of law settled by various Courts and the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Indo-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-21-SC-CX and observed that interest is payable - As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, no reason found in confirming the same as nothing is on record to sustain suppression of facts or mis-declaration - On the contrary, it is revealed that the same was taken under bona fide mistake and reversed on being pointed out by the Audit, before issuance of SCN - Impugned order is modified to the extent of confirming recovery of interest and set aside on the aspect of imposition of penalty: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-858-CESTAT-MAD

Areva T And D Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - the assessee-company manufactures 'Relays, Control Panels, ODS Switches and Parts' thereof, for which it imported inputs by availing concessional rate of duty - On audit, it was found that the assessee exported inputs & availed benefit under Notfn No 25/99-Cus - The Department opined that since the inputs had not been used in manufacture of excisable commodities, the benefit of the Notfn was not available - Duty demand for differential duty was raised, with imposition of interest - The demands were upheld by the Commr.(A) -

Held - The assessee stated that substantial portion of the imported inputs were used for the manufacture of relays and the balance not used by them, was re-exported in order to reduce their obligation to that extent - In this regard, considered relevant findings of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in Final Order No. 42228/2017 dated 27.09.2017 - Herein it was held that no duty demand could be raised where inputs were re-exported - Following the same, the demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,5,6) - Appeal Allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

 

 

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

2018-TIOL-855-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd

Cus - Assessee were importing Furnace Oil (FO) under DEEC scheme without payment of custom duty thereon for export of finished products - They used to procure FO locally also - It emerged that as per SAP records of assessee, closing stock of imported FO was 21.643 KL whereas taking into account the export of 1885.480 MTs of tinted glass and also taking account the SION, a balance quantity of 1702.970 KL should have been available - Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against assessee - After due process of adjudication, adjudicating authority dropped all the charges raised in SCN - Commissioner had very clearly analyzed the correctness for invocation of extended period and had held that the demand could not be made by invoking extended period as assessee did not hide any material from the department and that all the records have been maintained properly for duty-free imported FO - Department in grounds of appeal has not raised the invokability of extended period, which shows that they are not aggrieved with finding of Commissioner on the ground of non-invokability of extended period - The technical objection raised by assessee, then will succeed, hence appeal filed by Revenue dismissed on this ground alone without going into the merits: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-854-CESTAT-DEL

Roop Automotives Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee exported certain automobiles components in year 2014 - These goods were found defective and were sent back by importer to assessee - The goods were allowed to be cleared without payment of duty in terms of Notfn 158/95-Custosms - After due repair the imported goods were re-exported by assessee by filing five shipping bills - Revenue held a view that these re-exports have not happened within the stipulated time of six months and accordingly the imported goods which were covered by these shipping bills were held liable for duty - Considering the date of actual clearance of goods on assessment of bill of entry of all the re-exports happened within one year - Regarding re-exports made after six months of re-import, assessee did not seek due extension from Commissioner of Customs - The question now is whether not obtaining due extension will be fatal to the claim of exemption under Notfn 158/95 - Assessee put to a duty only on the ground that re-export did not happen within six months - The custom duty is levied on goods imported into India for home consumption - Admittedly, goods are not in India and they were duly allowed for export - In such situation, demand of duty only on the ground that assessee did not seek/ get an extension of time limit for re-export of goods is not sustainable - Extension of time limit which is otherwise available as part of terms of said Notification should be considered as procedural - Reliance placed by original authority on the decision of Tribunal will not lead to a situation of confirmation of custom duty - If at all, assessee may be liable for penalty for violation of condition of Notfn in not seeking extension of time - Denial of exemption will not be justified - Similar matters had come up before Tribunal in case of Teletube Electronics Ltd. - Tribunal held that when the matter of export is not in dispute, denial of exemption under Notfn 158/95 only on the ground of non availability of permission extending the time limit is not sustainable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT