2018-TIOL-2983-CESTAT-MAD

PR CGST & CE Vs India Trimmings Pvt Ltd

CX - The date of order of adjudicating authority is 05.10.2016; the date of communication of same to the reviewing authority was 17.10.2016, the date of order of reviewing authority is 12.01.2017 and the date of filing of the appeal before the lower appellate authority is 19.01.2017 - It is clear that the first appeal before the lower appellate authority is within the period of three months from the date of communication of the order which is well within the meaning of Section 35E (3) of CEA, 1944 - In view of legal requirement of Section 35E (3) which is extracted, the limitation would start from 17.10.2016 i.e., the date of communication of the order, which is relevant in the context of the amended provision of Section 35E (3) with effect from 01.06.2007 - The lower appellate authority has committed an error in holding that limitation began on the date when the adjudicating authority affixed his signature - But however, considering quantum of amount/duty involved coupled with the fact that for the subsequent period the Revenue itself has not raised any demand, issue is more an academic in nature and therefore dismiss the Revenue's appeal - Revenue Appeal is therefore dismissed on monetary limits alone, on the basis of CBEC Circular F. No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dt. 11.07.2018, without going into the merits: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Apex Guj Plastochem Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of Plastic jars on job work basis for principal namely Vimal Oil & Food Ltd and M/s Gujarat Spices and Oil Seeds Growers Co-op Union Ltd. who are manufacturing edible oils and these jars are used for edible oils - By including the value of job work manufacturing, the value of clearance of job work goods exceeded threshold limit of 1 crore as per SSI exemption - The case of department is that the value exceeding Rs. 1 crores is liable for payment of excise duty by assessee - Since the job work goods are used in manufacture of edible oil by the principal which is exempted from payment of Excise Duty, the assessee, being job worker, is not entitled for job work exemption notfn 214/86-CE - Therefore, value of clearance job work goods should be included in the overall clearance value - Assessee is liable to pay duty on the value exceeded to exempted limit - There is no dispute about the demand raised by Revenue - Accordingly, the demand of duty confirmed and upheld by Commissioner is maintained along with the interest - As regard the penalty imposed under section 11AC, adjudicating authority has not granted the option of 25 % penalty available in the proviso of section 11AC - Penalty reduced to 25%, subject to condition that the amount of duty, interest and 25% penalty stand paid within one month - As regard penalty imposed on the Director, since there is no dispute in demand of duty, the director, who is directly involved in overall affair of the company is responsible for non-payment of duty, penalty imposed on director is maintained: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2981-CESTAT-HYD

CCE & ST Vs Shirdi Sai Electricals

CX - Assessee has been given a contract by M/s APSPDCL for conversion of existing low tension network into high voltage distribution systems on a turnkey basis - This involved manufacture of transformers as well as their installation on a turnkey basis - The assessee had adopted valuation of transformers in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act r/w Rule 8 of CEVR, 2000, based on CA’s Certificate issued under CAS-4 - It is alleged that in the bills raised by assessee to M/s APSPDCL, there is a separate element for cost of materials and a separate cost for service element - It is therefore alleged that there is a clear sale price of transformers and they should accordingly be valued as per Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act based on transaction value - The Commissioner was correct in holding that there was an indivisible turnkey contract for supply of transformers, other materials and also installation and commissioning of same - The cost of materials has been given in schedule but it includes not only the cost of transformer manufactured by them but also other bought out items as explained by assessee and also as recorded in the draft audit report by Central Excise Department themselves - Therefore, entire amount cannot be considered as cost of transformer sold to M/s APSPDCL - The correct way of assessing the value of transformer, in such a case, is treating the same as captively consumed by assessee in executing the contract given to them by M/s APSPDCL - The assessee had done so and the same was upheld by Commissioner in impugned O-I-O - No infirmity found in Order-in-Original: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: HYDERABAD CESTAT