2018-TIOL-1766-CESTAT-AHM

Indus Tropics Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, namely, Face Veneer, Core Veneer, Plywood and Sawn Wood - During scrutiny of returns, it was observed that assessee during February, 2011 to October 2011 had though used common input, namely, wooden logs on which cenvat credit of SAD was availed, used the said input in manufacture of finished goods and also exempted goods but failed to maintain separate records for consumption of inputs in manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods and also failed to discharge 6% of value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - Demand notice was issued to them for recovery of said amount with interest and penalty - In impugned order, Commissioner (A) has held that the products namely Saw dust, Fire Wood and Sawn Timber, Wooden Roller, Wooden Baton and Firewood emerge as a by-product during course of manufacture of finished products, namely, Face Veneer, Core Veneer, Plywood and Sawn Wood - As far as applicability of Rule 6(3) to the by-product, issue is covered by judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Sterling Gelatine 2010-TIOL-897-HC-AHM-CX - Applying the principle laid down in aforesaid case, no merit found in impugned order to the extent of confirming demand on wooden rollers and Revenue's appeal in challenging the order to the extent of allowing the benefit to other products by Commissioner (A) as waste products: CESTAT - Assesse's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1765-CESTAT-AHM

Raj Rayon Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appeal has been filed by assessee against confirmation of demand on reversal of CENVAT Credit and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004 - Assessee pointed out that they had closed their unit-IV and transferred the entire equipment and materials of unit-IV to their unit-III - Consequently, they sought to transfer the entire credit available in their accounts to unit -III in terms of Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 - He pointed out that they had written a letter to Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, Silvasa with copy of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-III, Silvasa intimating their intention to transfer the said credit in terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules - They also annexed to said letter, the list of equipment that they had intended to transfer and also the extracts of their CENVAT Credit account - Proceedings were initiated against assessee to deny CENVAT Credit and impose penalty on the ground that they had taken said credit without permission of Central Excise officer in terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules - The said rule has been examined by Tribunal in case of Hewlett Packard 2007-TIOL-250-CESTAT-BANG , wherein it has been clearly held that no prior permission is needed - In said case, it has been held that as long as the importer has been accounted to satisfaction of department, the credit is transferable - In so far as submission of Revenue regarding incorrect credit availed in unit-II is concerned, the same is not relevant for this proceeding as this proceeding relates to unit-III & unit-IV: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1764-CESTAT-CHD

Riat Machine Tools Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX- The assessee took over the business of a partnership firm - This firm got 'RIAT' as brand name for the product manufactured by them - Post acquisition of the business by the assessee, the registration certificate was amended showing the assessee-company have started using the brand name 'RIAT' - An assignment deed was also executed by the partnership firm in favour of the assessee-company transferring the brand name to them - The assessee were clearing goods under the brand name RIAT - The Department denied the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE on grounds that as they are using the brand name of partnership firm - Therefore, they are not entitled to avail the benefit of the notification - Duty demand was raised and confirmed by denying the benefit of exemption notification and penalties were also imposed.

Held - Following the ratio of M/s. Basant Presses it is held that as the assignment deed was signed between the firm and the assessee transfering the brand name, the order-in-appeal need be set aside :CESTAT (Para 2, 6, 7) - Appeal Allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT