| SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-409-CESTAT-DEL
Narayan Prasad Gour Vs CCE & ST
ST - The assessee's appeal before the Commr.(A) was rejected on account of the assessee's failure to pre-deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded, as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 - The assessee claimed that the defect of non-deposit of such pre-deposit amount was not pointed out to it.
Held - In interests of justice, it is apposite that the Commr.(A) hear the matter on merits - The 10% duty deposited before the Tribunal be treated in compliance of the condition of pre-depositing 7.5% of the duty before the Commr.(A): CESTAT
- Case remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-405-CESTAT-DEL
Vaibhav Global Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - The assessee-company is engaged in processing, manufacturing & retailing of gem stone and jewellery products - It is also listed on stock exchanges such as BSE & NSE - The assessee has three units in India and has also set up an SEZ - The assessee being eligible for exemption from payment of service tax, being a unit located in SEZ and used for authorised operations, filed refund claim on the eligible input services received from service providers - The assessee filed quarterly refund claim for the relevant period - SCN was issued, with the Revenue being of the opinion that the assessee was disentitled for refund - The SCN proposed to reject refund u/s 11B(1) of the CEA r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act - It also appeared to the Revenue that service tax was not paid by the assessee, as challan pertains to another unit of the assessee - On adjudication, part of the refund claim was disallowed - Such findings were sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.
Held: The facts for the period in dispute are similar to those in the preceding quarters which were already decided upon by the Commr.(A), wherein it was held that the assessee units were one and the same and thus for deposit of service tax in the service tax code of the company, for such violation of the rule, the substantial benefit of refund should not be rejected - It is seen that such findings are correct and so merit being upheld - The subject order is set aside to the extent of disallowance of refund - Since the assessee is eligible for refund and so the same be granted within 30 days of receipt of such order: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-404-CESTAT-MAD
Lotte India Corporation Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - The assessee-company manufactures Sugar confectionary and availed Cenvat credit on input goods, services and on capital goods - Such credit was availed in respect of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods - On verification of ER-1 returns for the relevant period, the Revenue found there to be short payment of duty for the relevant period and issued SCN - On adjudication, the proposals in the SCN were sustained - On appeal, the Commr.(A) allowed partial relief to the assessee, wherein a part of the duty demand with interest had been upheld - Hence the present appeal.
Held: The issue at hand is no longer res integra and stands settled in the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. - It was held that from a perusal of Rule 6(1), it is clear that only in respect of input or input service used in exempted goods are not allowed - It was also held that if Rule 6(1), (2) and (3) were to be read harmoniously and conjointly, it is clear that "Total Cenvat Credit" for the purpose of formula under Rule 6(3A) is only total Cenvat credit of common input service and will not include the Cenvat credit on input/input service exclusively used for the manufacture of dutiable goods - In respect of introduction of Rule 6(3A), it was observed that the legislators very consciously substituted the Rule with intention to give a clarificatory nature to the provision of sub-rule (3A) so as to make it applicable retrospectively - It was all along not the intention of the Government to deny Cenvat credit on the input/input service even though used in the dutiable goods - In light of such findings, the O-i-A in question merits being quashed: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-403-CESTAT-ALL
CC Vs Industrial Exim Pvt Ltd
Cus - Respondents imported two consignments of "Defective PPGI/EG Sheets & Strip Cutting (Stock lot in Mixed size in Bundles)" and filed Bills of Entry at the declared value of USD 350 per metric ton - on first check examination, the consignment was found to be as per the declaration made by the importer - Thereafter opinion of Chartered Engineer was also sought who again examined the goods and submitted his report accepting the fact that the consignment was stock lot of defective PPGI sheet and scrap coils, however, the assessing officer loaded the value of the goods to USD 470 per metric ton based upon the NIDB data - said decision was challenged by the importer and the Commissioner(A) set aside the order by observing that NIDB data cannot be considered to be a legal ground for enhancement and in the absence of any contemporaneous value of the goods, the consignment was not proper and legal - Revenue is in appeal against this order - Stay application filed by Revenue is rejected and the appeal is taken up for decision.
Held: Tribunal in the case of Sanjivani Non-ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-3396-CESTAT-ALL has set aside such enhancement of the value of the imported scrap - present respondent was also one of the appellants in the said case - Furthermore, the said final order was upheld by Supreme Court vide their order dated 10 December, 2018, therefore, Revenue appeal is rejected: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeal rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
|
