2020-TIOL-458-CESTAT-MAD

MSYS Tech India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The assessee-company provides Information Technology Service to its foreign clients - During the relevant period, the assessee claimed refund of service tax on input services - The Revenue issued SCN proposing to restrict the refund claims on grounds that the assessee had claimed certain ineligible input credit - On adjudication, certain services were found to be ineligible since they were rendered on unregistered premises - The export turnover and total turnover was re-determined - Subsequently, the entire refund claim was rejected on grounds that the amount claimed as refund was not debited from the assessee's Cenvat credit a/c at the time of filing refund claim - Such findings were sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.

Held: The availability of input credit in respect of services rendered at un-registered premises, is fairly settled law that the refund of input credit cannot be denied merely because the premises were unregistered, as was held in Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Vs. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities - Hence the denial of credit on this ground is unsustainable - The period in question is April-June 2017 and the refund claim was made in June 2018 which is perhaps within the period of one year but, however, by that time it is an undisputed fact that the GST regime had taken over by which filing of ST-3 Return was done-away - The Revenue also does not deny that subsequent to the filing of TRAN-1 Return, the refund amount was debited in its GSTR-3B/Electronic Credit Ledger - It is settled law that with the introduction of GST, there was a change in the scenario, there was also no provision in the ACES system to debit the refund amount and that subsequent reversal by the assessee in its GSTR-3B file is a sufficient compliance with condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notfn No. 27/2012-CE (NT) - Hence the denial of refund is not in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Department issued a SCN seeking to classify the products 'Rexona' and 'Lux' under sub-heading 3307.30 of CETA as against classification claimed under SH No. 3401.10 - SCN alleged that that the totally fatty mater (TFM) content is less than 60% and, therefore, it is a bathing preparation and not toilet soap - order passed by Commissioner confirmed the allegations levelled, therefore, appeal before CESTAT.

Held: Issue is no longer res integra as the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. 2000(121) ELT 451 (TRI) and which was upheld by the Supreme Court - it has been held that the item in question is soap only for classification under Chapter Heading 34 and it is not bath preparation for classification under Heading 33.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as contended by the Revenue - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5 to 7]

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-456-CESTAT-ALL

Mohd Imran Vs ADDL CC

Cus - The appellant was apprehended at the airport, whereupon the Revenue recovered 1235 Gms of Gold concealed in the frame pipe of trolley bags - Since the appellant did not declare himself to be carrying Gold, the same was seized - SCN was issued proposing to confiscate the Gold and impose penalty on the appellant - On adjudication, absolute confiscation was ordered along with penalties u/s 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 - On appeal, the Commr.(A) set aside such order and permitted redemption of the gold on payment of fine - Penalty imposed u/s 114AA was set aside - On Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal set aside the same on grounds of low tax effect - Hence the present application.

Held: It is seen that Section 125 of the Customs Act enables an importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine - On account of the Revenue having sold the confiscated goods during the period for filing appeal to the Commr.(A), the same were not available for redemption - This nullified the right of the appellant u/s 125 of the Act - Considering the decision of the Apex Court in Shilps Impex vs. Union of India it is clear that the if goods are not available for redemption on account of disposal of the same by the Revenue, then the appellant need not pay the redemption fine and Customs duty and is also eligible for refund of the sale proceeds - Hence the penalty u/s 112(b) is reduced - The sale proceeds of the Gold minus the penalty on the appellant, is directed to be refunded to the appellant - Appeal disposed off in such terms: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT