2018-TIOL-1644-CESTAT-DEL

Bhansali International Vs CCE

ST - the assessee claimed refund of service tax paid on services used for export - Such refund was claimed under Notfn No 17/2009-ST - However, the Department rejected such refund claim.

Held - An identical issue stands settled by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a previous year - Following such decision, the assessee's refund claim is allowed - Duty demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,4,5) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1643-CESTAT-DEL

Alps Industries Ltd Vs CCE

ST - the issue at hand relates to refund of service tax paid on various services in terms of Notification No - 41/2007-ST- Refund denied due to lack of supporting documents to establish freight charged from ICD to the port of export.

Held - Similar issue decided in Suncity Art Exporters and others v. CCE & ST, Jaipur-II - Hence the Adjudicating Authority is directed to examine and verify the documents afresh: CESTAT - Case Remanded: DELHI CESTAT

 

 

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-1645-CESTAT-CHD

CCE & ST Vs Hindustan Polyester Lines

CX - the assessee company manufactured excisable goods - Pursuant to a visit to the assessee's factory by the Department, it was alleged that the assessee allegedly made clandestine clearance of POY without payment of duty - Such allegations were based on documents recovered from the assessee's premises, documents from buyers & transporters as well as statements recorded during investigation - Duty demand was raised & penalties were imposed against the assessee - Subsequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter & the Department's appeal against such remand was dismissed by the High Court - Consequently, during remand proceedings, the charges against the assessee were dropped.

Held - Cross-examination of witnesses is essential as their statements were relied upon to issue SCN u/s 9(D) of the CEA, 1944 - The admissibility of such statements must be tested - In the present case, the statements were not tested by the Examination in Chief - The assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses - Hence such statements cannot be relied on in the adjudication process - Moreover, when the Department sought the original copy of report prepared by the forensic expert, such documents were found to be untraceable - Since such documents form the basis of issue of SCN, the proceedings are consequently unsustainable - Thus there is no infirmity in the proceedings being dropped: CESTAT (Para 2,6) - Appeal Dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION

cus_instruction11_2018

Single Window Project - clearance of food consignments by Customs officers at locations where FSSAI has provided delegation

Corrigendum

Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on rubber chemical PX 13 originating in and exported from EU and rubber chemical MOR originating in and exported from China PR.

5/2018-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI)

Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI

CASE LAW