CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-2725-CESTAT-MUM + Case Story

Albright and Wilson Chemicals India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Valuation - Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - As no flow back is alleged or evidenced, proposal to include the charges incurred by the buyer in respect of gypsum sold by the appellants to the contractor is by no stretch of imagination legally tenable - Impugned order set aside and Appeals allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

- Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2736-CESTAT-MAD

Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing Cement & Clinker, availed Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods & input services utilized - The assessee had a captive power plant and so procured various inputs to be used to repair it - Credit was availed on such inputs as well - The Revenue reasoned that such inputs were ineligible for availing credit - Duty demands were raised for recovery of credit so availed - Demand for interest u/r 14 of CCR 2004 r/w Section 11AB of CEA 1944 was raised - Penalties were imposed as well.

Held: Considering that similar issues stand settled in cases for earlier periods & involving the same assessee, the matter at hand requires re-consideration - Penalty is set aside as issue is interpretational in nature: CESTAT (Para 2,4,6)

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2735-CESTAT-MAD

CCE Vs Jindal Drugs Ltd

CX - Assessee is located in state of Jammu & Kashmir and availing benefit of exemption Notfn 56/2002-CE - The assessee paid duty along with education cess and higher education cess and took self credit of the same which was initially allowed - Later on, it was revealed by Revenue that assessee is not entitled to claim self credit of education cess and higher education cess, therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the assessee - Issue has already been settled in favour of assessee, therefore, assessee is entitled for refund claim and the same cannot be appropriated as there is no demand pending against the assessee - Accordingly, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed - With regard to the appeal filed by Revenue, assessee has paid the said amount of penalty to file the appeal before Commissioner (A), theref ore, same is to be treated as pre deposit as in case of J.M. Baxi , as it is the amount of pre deposit, therefore, on the amount of pre deposit, the provisions of Section 11B of CEA, 1944, are applicable - Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of pre deposit amount of penalty: CESTAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2734-CESTAT-MAD

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of dutiable goods namely aerated water and exempted goods namely 'Maaza Mango' - They were clearing aerated water on payment of duty and 'Maaza Mango' without payment of duty availing exemption under Notfn 3/2001-CE - They were using plastic crates printed as 'Coke/ Coca Cola' as transportation / packing materials for both the dutiable as well as exempted goods - It was noticed that assessee was taking entire CENVAT credit on plastic crates on the duty paid irrespective of fact that they were using for both dutiable and exempted final products - The department was of the view that assessee did not maintain separate accounts for the receipt of plastic crates used for both dutiable and exempted final products - Demand confirmed alongwith interest and imposed penalties - The issue stands decided in assessee's own case in 2007-TIOL-925-CESTAT-MAD - The said decision has been maintained by High Court of Andhra Pradesh - Following the said decision, demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2733-CESTAT-MAD

India Cements Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee company manufactures Ordinary Portland Cement & Portland Pozzolano Cement - It availed Cenvat credit on inputs & input services - It availed credit of tax paid on Railway Siding Track Laying & maintenance work rendered by contractor - The Revenue disallowed such availment and raised duty demand for its recovery with interest - Penalties were also imposed - Such leviews were upheld by the Commr.(A).

Held: The definition of 'input service' does not include works contracts in its ambit - Where works contracts availed are in the nature of completion of finishing services, these would generally be treated as used for modernisation or repair or renovation of existing structures - Only those services used for constructing a building or civil structure or a part thereof or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, are ineligible - As the laying of railway tracks does not fit into the exclusion clauses in the definition, the denial of credit is unjustified - The order in challenge is set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,5,6)

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

CC Vs Hine Hydraulics India Pvt Ltd

Cus - Valuation - Import of hydraulic components from related group company - Article 19 in the agreement is nothing but a standard clause fixing the liability to pay tax dues to statutory authorities and does not mention of passing any additional consideration from appellant to "Foreign Company" - Tribunal observation of Commissioner(A) ' s reasoning that this clause is a condition of sale is too flimsy cannot be said to be unreasonable or wrong as Tribunal is the final fact finding authority - also Tribunal observation that grounds on which the appeal was remanded was not a part of the show cause notice nor was it raised in the appeal, filed by the department before the Appellate Authority does not require any interference - no perversity in the order of the Tribunal - Revenue Civil Miscellaneous appeal dismissed: High Court [para 7, 9]

Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-2732-CESTAT-DEL

Service Bureau Vs CC

Cus - The assessee is a Custom broker - It filed bills of entry for clearance of goods imported under the Duty Fee Imported Authorization Scheme - However, the Customs Authorities booked a case under invoicing of goods against the importer - Duty demand was raised - The Revenue also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the assessee by way of SCN and his CB licence was revoked - This Tribunal in the first round of litigation remanded the matter for de novo adjudication - During the de novo proceedings, the CB licence was revoked again ordered for forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit- Hence, the present appeal.

Held: The assessee failed to obtain proper authorization from the importer, the CB did not only failed to advice his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, but has worked hands-in-glove with the importer and facilitated highly under-valued importation of goods - Furthermore, it facilitated the importer to misrelate the goods so as to fraudulently avail the benefit of DFIA licence - Therefore, assessee is in violation of Regulation 11 (a), (d), (an), 17(9)are established - Therefore, assessee will have to face penalty provisions - However, revocation of licence is unnecessary - Hence, the order under challenge is modified to this aspect : CESTAT (para 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)

- Appeal Partly Allowed: DELHI CESTAT