Income Tax - Both ACIT as well as JCIT are competent officers for sanctioning issue of notice u/s 148: HC

I-T - Factual findings of Tribunal do not become redundant merely because some alternative conclusion can be drawn: HC

ST/CUS/CX - Constitution of Larger Bench - There is no enabling provision that empowers Central Government to delegate powers of President on any of Members of Tribunal: LB by Majority

I-T - Approval as 'Industrial Park' u/s 80IA cannot be withdrawn for alleged reduction in building area when in fact no minimum area is prescribed in law: HC

CX - CENVAT Credit of Basic Excise Duty can be utilized for payment of EC & SHE Cess as they are 'duties of excise': CESTAT

VAT - Existence of 'mischief' in words of statute is sine qua non for applying Heydon's Rule; is inapplicable where meaning is clearly discernible: HC

2018-TIOL-2533-CESTAT-AHM

Amoli Organics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of bulk drugs and also undertaking job work for M/s Pfizer Limited, Mumbai - They had availed Cenvat Credit on input/raw material and after processing, cleared the finished goods on payment of duty by raising Central Excise invoices; also they raised debit notes separately for recovery of processing/ conversion charges - Two methods of valuation of converted goods have been stated in purchase order and the assessee paid duty by following a method, however, collected the entire amount of conversion charges by issuing debit notes, resulting into short payment of duty - Admittedly, excess amount of conversion charges was collected by assessee by issuing debit notes to M/s Pfizer Ltd., the raw material supplier, for whom the goods were manufactured on job work basis - No doubt, issues of valuation relating to transfer of finished goods to their depots have been raised by visiting audit team and settled, but recovery of excess amount by way of debit notes towards conversion charges from M/s Pfizer Ltd. has not been an issue raised by the audit team - Also, it is not borne out from the records that the relevant credit notes were placed before Audit party - In these circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate that such facts and evidences i.e. debit notes were placed before audit team who, after, analyzing the same raised no objection on the issue - In absence of such evidences, it is difficult to accept that the assessee had not suppressed the fact of recovery of excess amount by way of issuance of debit note, after the job-worked goods were cleared to the raw material supplier i.e. M/s Pfizer Limited - The said view is fortified by principle of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Tigrania Metal and Steel Industries' 2015-TIOL-2055-HC-MUM-CX - In the result, the impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2532-CESTAT-MAD

Bhavani Enterprises Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of Blow Moulded HDPE plastic bottles on job work basis on behalf of M/s. Marico Ltd. and availed SSI exemption under Notfn 8./2003 - M/s. Marico supplied HDPE granules for manufacture of bottles by assessee - The assessee have paid duty on assessable value worked out by taking into account the cost of materials plus conversion cost as laid down in case of Ujagar Prints - The principal manufacturer (M/s. Marico) used the bottles in its factory for filling coconut oil - The department therefore contends that assessable value has to be arrived as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 - It is also contended that after 1.4.2007 the valuation should be done applying Rule 10A(iii) r/w Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules - It needs to be mentioned that Rule 8 applies when goods are not sold - The goods are sold by assessee to M/s. Marico - Assessee does not captively consume the goods nor does M/s. Marico consume it on behalf of assessee - The very same issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of Advance Surfactants India Ltd. 2011-TIOL-757-CESTAT-BANG relied by assessee - Tribunal in said case considered the Board circular F.No. 6/15/2009 - The ratio of said decision is applicable to the present case - Following the same, impugned orders are not sustainable and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed :CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2531-CESTAT-MAD

K Padmanaban Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - the appellants herein are Customs Brokers - An offence report was received from the Mumbai Customs commissionerate stating that the appellant was one of three customs brokers who had facilitated fraudulent export of goods by some persons, who had used fake IECs & had claimed undue drawback - Thereafter, an order of continuation of prohibition was issued by the Mumbai commissionerate & received at the Chennai Customs House - Thereafter, the appellant's license was suspended by the Chennai Customs house - Pursuant to a personal hearing, the same was extended vide an O-i-O passed under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR 2013.

Held - Considering the provisions of Regulation 19 of the CBLR, it is clear that suspension or revocation of license or imposition of penalty can only be done by the 'parent' Customs commissionerate - Also the provision for suspension of license is meant to be invoked in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and where enquiry against an agent is pending - The issue at hand is whether where commissionerate of another Customs station issues an order of prohibition against an agent, can a parallel suspension of license be done by the parent Customs commissionerate in respect of an act or omission involving such Customs broker at the other Customs station - Such issue must be answered in the negative as it is not the intended purpose of the CBLR as it amounts to double jeopardy - In serious offences, the jurisdictional Customs stations could write to the parent station to seek further punitive action if warranted - However, such is not the case here - The prohibition ordered by the Customs station at Mumbai was still in effect when the order of suspension was passed by the Chennai station - Besides, the raison d'être provided by the Chennai station for ordering suspension, had been set aside in an earlier order - Hence the continuation of suspension by the Chennai station was unwarranted & without there being any recommendation from the Mumbai Customs station to such effect, it was an over-kill - Hence such extension of suspension of license warrants being set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,7,8)

- Appeal Allowed :CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2530-CESTAT-AHM

Meridian Impex Vs CCE & ST

Cus - The assessee is a 100 % EOU, engaged in the manufacture of Brass articles - During the period in dispute, it imported Brass Metal Scrap containing other impurities, without payment of duty as per Notification No. 52/2003 Cus - An SCN was issued on grounds that since segregation of imported brass scraps into foundry and non-foundry did not result into manufacture, as per Circular No 62 of 2001, consequently the clearance of non-foundry scrap in DTA on payment of applicable excise duty is in contravention of Notification No. 53/2003-Cus - Therefore, applicable import duty would be recoverable from assessee - The Revenue opined that the assessee exceeded the use of laid down norms of scrap in the segregation activity or in the manufacture of brass articles, contrary to the norms fixed by the Norms Committee - Therefore, the Revenue initiated recovery proceedings for applicable import duty foregone on the excess quantity - On appeal, the Commr. (A) confirmed the demand

Held - The issue at hand is whether the activity of segregation of imported mixed brass scrap into foundry and non-foundry grade, amounts to manufacture - This issue is covered by the recent Circular of Board ( Circular 2001 not applicable) dated 10/05/2016 - It clarifies on the issue of segregation of impurity like iron, steel, rubber, plastic, dust from honey grade brass scrap imported, in the context of Rule 3(5) of CCR 2004 & is applicable to the case at hand - The process of segregation of imported mixed brass scrap, into foundry and non foundry grade by weeding out the impurities so as to make it suitable to feed into the furnace for manufacture brass ingots, and then finished goods - This process is connected to the manufacture of brass articles - Besides, this Tribunal in the case of Singh scrap Processor Ltd. vs CCE held that the process of removal of impurity results into manufacture - With respect to payment of duty on the excess use or consumption scrap material in the manufacture of finished goods - The excess quantity of scrap generated during the activity of segregation or manufacture of the brass articles cleared on payment of applicable excise duty in DTA as per the permission of Development commissioner, is covered by clause(3) of the Exemption Notification 50/2003 Cus. as amended - Hence, the order-in-appeal passed on the same lines are upheld and the Orders contrary are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

- Appeal Dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT