ST - Assessee engaged in manufacture of woven fabrics of cotton and other textile fabrics - They were availing Cenvat credit facility under CCR, 2004 - During period 2006-07 to 2007-08, department noticed that assessee had availed Cenvat credit on various service - However, subsequently entire Cenvat credit was reversed - Since they were claiming the duty draw back of export of cotton fabric, the department was of the view that the assessee was liable to pay interest on such Cenvat credit from the period such credit was taken till the date on which such credit was reversed - Accordingly, interest was demanded in impugned order - By following the decisions of Apex Court as well as other judicial forum cited by assessee in Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. 2014-TIOL-466-HC-MAD-CX , no justification found for demand of interest as required in the impugned order and hence, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Maize Starch, Maize Gluten & Maize Fiber and availing the benefit of cenvat credit of duty paid on input/input services and capital goods - It was noticed that the assessee have availed cenvat credit on HR coils, MS Channels and Nickel Chromium Austenitic during period from 02/2012 to 12/2013 and these items were used for fabrication and erection of structural items - It appeared that credit availed on said items is irregular in as much as these items are neither inputs nor capital goods - Both the authorities have consistently held that assessee is entitled to cenvat credit relying upon various decisions including the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of SLR Steels Ltd. 2011-TIOL-892-HC-KAR-CX and also on the decision of Apex Court in case of Rajastan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 2010-TIOL-51-SC-CX - Further, both the authorities below have relied upon the decision of CESTAT, in case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises 2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL - In view of various decisions relied upon by Commissioner (A) which are squarely applicable in facts and circumstances of assessee's case, no infirmity found in impugned order which is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CX - the assessee company manufactured detergent - It availed Cenvat credit on a supplementary invoice issued by another firm - The Revenue claimed that such availment of credit was incorrect & it contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004, since the firm which issued such invoice had been booked for undervaluation - Hence, the cenvat credit availed was disallowed & demand for interest was raised along with imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 - Such demands were upheld by the Commr.(A) - Held - As the proceedings at the end of the other firm stand settled by this Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit under dispute: CESTAT (Para 1,2,6) - Appeal Allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - the assessee company manufactured transformer, SMPS transformer & choke coil - It was denied SSI exemption by the Department - On search of premises, the assessee was found to be not registered with the Department - Capital goods were found installed and being used for manufacture - Invoice books were recovered, showing clearances of goods to another firm - Moreover, the proprietor of the assessee was also director in the firm to which clearances were made - Further, there was no segregation of the inputs, goods in progress & final products of both firms - Hence, goods were seized & statements of the proprietor were recorded - Duty demand with interest & equivalent penalty was imposed on the assessee company, along with personal penalty on the proprietor - Such demands were upheld by the Commr.(A) - Held - The condition precedent under Notfn No 8/2003-CE for claiming SSI exemption is that where the subject goods are manufactured by one or more manufacturers from a single factory the exemption would apply to the aggregate value of clearances - Since in the present case, there are two firms running in the same premises, their turnovers must be clubbed - Since the total turnover exceeds the limit of Rs 1.5 crores, the SSI exemption was rightly denied: CESTAT (Para 2,6,8) - Appeals Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of agricultural tractors which are exempted under Notfn 6/2006 - They supplied two tractors to M/s. Sathish Dhawan Space Centre, SHAR availing exemption under Notfn 64/95 - SCN was issued proposing to deny the exemption and also for recovering the duty - On perusal of certificate issued by SHAR, it is categorically stated that tractors are used as part and parcel of their launch vehicle project for transporting rocket fuel - The launch pad from where national prestigious launches are taking place - That these are in form of technical equipment for their launch vehicles - For the said reason, the certificate has been given certifying the description and quantity of each type of goods cleared availing the exemption - So also the intended use of goods for said project is also certified - No material found to disbelief this certificate - The department also has not furnished any evidence to show that the certificate issued is not proper - Even though the goods cleared may be tractors, the same have been put to use by SHAR for the purpose of launching projects - The said item therefore becomes covered under notfn - Denial of exemption is unjustified: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Narinder Kumar Vs CCE

Cus - Shri Roshan Singh had imported goods from China covered under Bill of Entry declaring the imported goods as "E Glass off SPEC Chopped Strand Mat (B Grade)" - On examination, it was found that fire crackers were contained therein instead of declared items - Since import of fire crackers are restricted under Import / Export Policy, Department seized the same - Imported goods were not only mis-declared but also under-valued by importer - Since the import of fire crackers is restricted in terms of EXIM Policy, confiscation of the same by Department under Section 111 of the Customs Act is proper and justified - However, considering the fact that goods were absolutely confiscated and were not released to assessee for his use or sale in market and value of the offending goods, penalties imposed under Section 112 (a) and 114 AA are reduced - With regard to imposition of penalty on Shri Narinder Kumar, he is not the importer of subject goods and did not file any Bill of Entry or made any declaration or statement before the authorities, regarding the importation of such goods - Therefore, penalty under Section 114 AA of the Act cannot be levied against him - However, imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act is justified but same is reduced: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - The assessee imported continuous cast stainless steel slabs and filed Bill of Entry for clearance which was processed through EDI with a basic duty of 7.5% - The BCD was reduced to 5% by amending notfn - Neither the assessing officer nor the importer noticed the non-implementation of reduced rate at that time - Assessee vide letter dt. 21.1.2008 approached the department with the claim of refund - Both the refund application as well as request for amendment of Bill of Entry were rejected - Admittedly, assessee approached the assessing officer after almost one year of payment of duty - Any excess payment of customs duty due to any reason should be claimed within 6 months of the relevant date - This fact is not disputed by assessee - However, what they are claiming is that since this is an error due to EDI system and the amount which is not a customs duty should be refunded without applying limitation - Tribunal cannot treat the present case as error in course of certain documents - There is no error to be corrected in document and this is a legal provision of applicable rate of duty: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT