2018-TIOL-2439-CESTAT-MAD

Ajinomoto India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of "Monosodium Glutamate", which is being sold in trade name of "Ajinomoto" - For the purpose of manufacture, assessees imported monosodium glutamate and after certain processing in factory, it is sold in local market on payment of duty - The assessee had cleared certain quantities of monosodium glutamate to an EOU under the provisions of AR3 procedures together with CT3 certificate during disputed period - The department views that such clearances to 100% EOU without payment of duty on the basis of CT3 Certificates are not eligible for exemption under notfn 22/2003 - Assessee submits that they undertakes repacking of goods and in terms of Chapter Heading 29 which specifies that repacking would amount to manufacture, they would be eligible for benefit of notfn - On perusal of records, no discussion found in this regard - The assessee argues that they would be able to produce evidence to establish this fact if an opportunity is granted to them - Taking note of these submissions, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration leaving all issues open: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2438-CESTAT-CHD

Aman Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein demands have been raised on two grounds namely that the dealer has issued bogus invoices for availment of cenvat credit by assessee and for clandestine removal of goods - As regards to for denial of Cenvat Credit, the allegation is based on the ground that the dealer has made a statement during investigation that they had issued only invoices and number of truck which was mentioned on invoices were not capable of transportation of goods - It was contested that truck which were capable of transportation of the raw material and dealers in course of cross examination stated that their statement was recorded under threat - In that circumstances, without any corroborative evidence, case of revenue is not sustainable - As the truck which was alleged to have carried the goods and statement of dealers has been contested and found in favour of assessee, therefore, cenvat credit cannot be denied on the allegation that they have procured only invoices without supplying the goods to avail inadmissible cenvat credit.

As regards to clerance of goods clandestinely without payment of duty, charge of clandestine removal has been made against assessee on the basis of loose slips recovered from possession of Director of assessee who failed to explain the contents of loose slips and only stated that these loose slips are not in his handwriting and the cross examination of the buyers is not granted - These loose slips have not been matching with statement of buyers but they paid duty on goods received by them - In that circumstances, there is no one to one co-relation in this case, therefore, demand of clandestine removal is confirmed - Considering the fact that for the demand, certain deposits has been paid before issuance of SCN, in that circumstances, said deposit shall be adjusted against demand of duty and interest payable thereon - Penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is reduced of 25% of the demand confirmed: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2437-CESTAT-ALL

Basant Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX- The assessee is a manufacturer of diesel engine pump set - On physical verification of the premises of the assessee, excess goods were found against recorded balance in the register - Thereafter, stock of verification chart was prepared on which the assessee signed - The Revenue was of the view that assessee had excessive stock of finished goods in their factory on the day of inspection & removed the same clandestinely within the meaning of Rule 25 CER r/w section 11 AC of CEA - A SCN was issued & the excess goods were confiscated and seized - Subsequently, these goods were released provisionally on furnishing of bond - Due to change of counsel, extra time was sought by assessee - Meanwhile, the Adjudicating Authority passed an ex-parte order - On appeal, assessee contended that the entries in physical verification report was incorrect - The Commr. (A) observed that mere clerical or factural error in the report does not change the result of physical verification and confirmed the demand.

Held - There is factual mistake with regard to the quantity and value of goods mentioned in the reconciliation report - The data of columns shifted by one place as a result the description of goods were recorded in the column meant for opening balance and the figures meant for opening balance column shifted in the column of day’s production - Therefore, the report is erroneous and SCN issued on the basis of the report is not valid - Hence, the order challenged is set aside : CESTAT (Para 2, 4, 5, 7)

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT