2018-TIOL-1318-CESTAT-BANG  

NV Associates Vs CC

ST - Assessee have filed appeals against impugned order wherein Commissioner has rejected the valuation done by assessee and directed that valuation be done on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificate under Rule 9 of CVR, 2007 - The Commissioner has also imposed redemption fine and penalties - Assessee filed Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as old and used digital multifunctional printer through their CHA M/s. Ajay Overseas Shipping with a declared value for 245 units - Amendment made in FTP on 28.2.2013 has mandated that these impugned items can only be imported after obtaining a license and in present cases, assessee had not obtained license for importing impugned goods - Further, the Bill of Entry was filed on 15.11.2012 and 12.2.2013 which is prior to the amendment of FTP dated 28.2.2013 - Since the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Madras High Court in City Office Equipment 2013-TIOL-359-HC-MAD-CUS and subsequently, followed by Tribunal in case of Bhavani Enterprises, except in two appeals and in all other 9 appeals, the import is after the amendment and therefore, import is in violation of Policy and therefore, there is no infirmity in impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty - Therefore, these 9 appeals dismissed and allow only two appeals of M/s. Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd. by setting aside the impugned orders in these two appeals with consequential relief: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1317-CESTAT-BANG

Analog Devices India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Assessee is exporting taxable services to its holding company without payment of duty and thereafter they filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notfn 27/2012-CE-NT - Same was partly allowed by Assistant Commissioner - On appeal, Commissioner (A) who has partly issued a favourable order by allowing the credit on various services but has not addressed all the issues for which the appeal was filed by assessee - After considering the judgment in assessee's own case in 2018-TIOL-836-CESTAT-BANG, it is found that assessee is not rendering the intermediary service and they are rendering consulting engineering service and BAS and fall in definition of export of service - After holding that assessee is not rendering intermediary service, case remanded back to original authority as held by the Commissioner(A) to pass a fresh order after considering all the submissions of assessee: CESTAT - Matter remanded: BANGARLORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1320-CESTAT-KOL

Super Forgings And Steels Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee's Howrah unit is engaged in manufacture of Forged Alloy and Non-Alloy Steel - They have sent the raw material to their Bhadreshwar unit taken on lease rent basis for job-work of steel ingots under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 - It is seen that Rule 4(5)(a) provides that Cenvat Credit on inputs shall be allowed even if any inputs as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker and after re-processing there from are received back by the manufacturer within the stipulated period - Thus, it is clear that processed material of Bhadreshwar Unit has been sent back to Howrah unit who used it in manufacture of final product and cleared on payment of duty - It cannot be said that the Bhadreshwar Unit is exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods - Rule 7(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules debarred the distribution of credit of Service Tax attributable to Service Tax used by one or more units exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed - In terms of Rule 2(d), "exempted goods" means excisable goods which are exempt from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to NIL rate of duty - Job-work materials of the Bhadreshwar unit cannot be treated as exempted goods as Howrah Unit paid duty thereon - Hence, it cannot be said that the Bhadreshwar unit is exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods - In any event, Rule 4(5)(a) has not given any exemption from levy of duty on job-worked material - Therefore, findings of lower authorities cannot be sustained: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

GM Sugar And Energy Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Assessee is registered with Central Excise for manufacture of sugar, molasses, Bagasse and Press mud - During audit, it was found that assessee had availed CENVAT credit on items such as MS angles, plates, channels, beams, base plates and foundation bolts treating them as capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004 - It appeared that assessee had availed credit on ineligible capital goods - Though the assessee has a good case on merits but since they have reversed the credit before issuance of SCN and are only contesting the imposition of penalty, same is not sustainable as the issue relates to interpretation of law and the assessee has not suppressed any material fact from Department with intention to evade payment of duty and has shown availment of credit in relevant returns and CENVAT records maintained by them - In view of this, imposition of penalty is not legally tenable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-768-HC-P&H-NDPS  

Niranjanjot Singh Vs State Of Punjab

Whether accused under NDPS Act already having undergone custody for eight months, deserves regular bail upon furnishing security - YES: HC - In favour of Petitioner: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-1321-CESTAT-DEL

Rakesh Dhingra Vs CC

Cus - The assessee was a manager of CHA firm - The exporters have been penalized and goods were ordered to be confiscated - No action is recorded against CHA for any violation of provisions of CHALR or Customs Act, 1962 - However, surprisingly, only the assessee, has been proceeded and penalized by Rs.5 lakh of penalty - The Original Authority found that assessee did not discharge his role as an employee of CHA as provided in the law - Further, it is recorded that obligations and regulations of CHALR, 2004 has not been fulfilled due to failure to examination of due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information supplied by exporter - Assessee can be brought under the category of abettor only - For such allegation, positive evidence of act with knowledge has to be ascertained - No such evidence is brought out in the present case - In fact, whatever allegation could be inferred is against violation of CHALR, 2004 and lack of due diligence by the CHA - Such alleged lack of due diligence has been fastened on assessee as a CHA - Such allegation is not legally sustainable - His role as an abettor of improper act or omission has not been evidenced: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CCT Vs Jai Durge

Whether filing of Form 3-D is mandatory & without which a transaction cannot be claimed as Job work - NO : HC

Whether when all the materials, except labour is provided by contractee for manufacturing tiles, such transaction and nature of work under contract is job work - YES : HC - Revenue's Appeal dismissed: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-769-HC-MAD-CT

State Of Tamil Nadu Vs Vinayagar Cotton Company

Whether any penalty is imposable under Tamil Nadu GST Act, without pointing any suppression attributable to the dealer - NO: HC - Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT