CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-2730-CESTAT-KOL

Pushkar Techno Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts and accessories - The period of dispute is from May 11, 2007 to February 15, 2010 - The issue relates to availment and utilization of cenvat credit - SCN was issued alleging that assessee had taken cenvat credit of duty passed on by M/s TRL, a registered dealer, under supplementary invoices issued by M/s TRL, which were not considered as eligible documents as per Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004 - SCN proposed disallowance and recovery of alleged wrongly availed cenvat credit along with interest and also imposition of penalty - The input supplier also issued supplementary invoices to assessee where under additional duty was paid - No reason found to hold that supplementary invoice evidencing payment of additional duty amount should be treated on a different footing vis a vis the original invoices evidencing payment of duty on said goods in as much as both these documents were issued under same provisions of law - If assessee was entitled to take credit on their inputs on strength of original invoices issued by supplier, they can validly claim to be entitled to take cenvat credit of additional amounts of duty paid on same goods by supplier under supplementary invoices - In any case it was not in dispute that the inputs were received in assessee's factory - The substantive requirement of cenvat credit were thus met by the party - The benefit was not liable to be denied on procedural grounds - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2729-CESTAT-HYD

Raghavendra Industries Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Assessee entered into an agreement with APSPDCL for conversion of Low Voltage Distribution System into High Voltage Distribution System in certain feeders in Rajampeta division of Kadapa operation/circle, APSPDCL - Both the lower authorities have confirmed the demand on the ground that assessee have adopted two types of valuation for the purpose of arriving at the price of transformers cleared to site for execution of turnkey project and they have not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Central Excise for goods as per transaction value - It is seen from CAS-4 certificate that Chartered Accountant has certified the correct assessable value of transformers sought to be cleared by assessee - It is seen that the assessee had cleared 16 KVA transformers at the assessable value of Rs. 37,009.64 and 25 KVA at the assessable value of Rs.48,581.44 discharging both the transformers - The evidences in respect of the same are in form of invoice - It can be seen from the invoice and CA Certificate, assessee had discharge Central Excise duty at the higher assessable value then as certified by Chartered Accountant - In assessee's own case, Tribunal had accepted that Central Excise liability needs to be discharged by assessee on CAS-4 certificate - Tribunal in case of Blue Star Ltd. 2017-TIOL-844-CESTAT-MUM has come to a conclusion, which goods cleared on self basis to the site of customer, valuation done should be in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of CEA, 1944 - Confirmation of demand for differential duty from assessee is unsustainable and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2728-CESTAT-MUM

Dujodwala Products Ltd Vs CC

CX - Tribunal had after taking note that the dispute pertained to publication of notification imposing ‘anti-dumping duty' remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority and instructing that the decision in Jindal Industries vs. UOI be followed - Applicant filing ROM application.

Held: Bench does not find this to be an erroneous recording of submission but a deliberated direction to the adjudicating authority - Tribunal may have erred in its judgment but it does not appear to have erred in the recording as claimed by the applicant - Error of judgment, even if that were so, is not rectifiable by recall or rectification but only by appeal - in any case, there is no detriment to applicant as matter has been directed to be decided afresh - application rejected as not warranting rectification: CESTAT [para 4, 5]

- Application rejected : MUMBAI CESTAT