2021-TIOL-145-SC-CX

CCE Vs Reliance Media Works Ltd

CX - In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the appellant's contention that the various chemical preparations produced by them in situ and captively consumed for processing of Cinematographic films are not marketable goods & classifiable under CETH 3707 of CETA is upheld - Hence the Tribunal set aside the duty demand raised - As per Chapter Note to Chapter 26, silver waste arising in the processing of the cinematographic films stands excluded from Chapter 26 and is correctly classifiable under Chapter 71 - During the material period, the silver residue was exempt from excise duty, therefore, demands raised on this count were also set aside. Held - Assessee given one week's time to file additional affidavit giving particulars for delay - Notice be issued on the application for condonation of delay as well as the SLP: SC

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-144-SC-CUS-LB

UoI Vs Raj Grow Impex LLP

Cus - When the High Court had directed release of the goods forthwith, it is beyond comprehension as to how a lower appellate authority can nullify such direction by ordering absolute confiscation of such goods - It is not only unacceptable but contumacious as well which aspect Bench may deal with at a later stage - Operation of the order dated 24th December, 2020 is stayed until further orders - Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall comply with the directions of this court dated 15th October, 2020 and 9th December, 2020 - Hence the High Court directed that the matter be listed on 27th January, 2021, on which date Counsel for Revenue shall inform the court about compliance of this order. Held - In the peculiar facts of present case, the question of precipitating the matter by way of contempt action does not arise - For, the entire subject matter is pending before this Court - There are conflicting decisions on the same question involved in the writ petition and the appeals pending before this Court - Hence it is not a fit case for initiating contempt action in view of the debatable aspects involved in the proceedings and are still pending before this Court - Hence, this appeal is allowed - Contempt Petition filed before High Court be disposed off in terms of this order: SC LB - Revenue's appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-143-SC-CX

CCE Vs Dhruv Industries Ltd

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of metalized polypropylene film and availing Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs - The said inputs were used for manufacturing finished goods which are metalized films used for manufacturing capacitors - The assessee is also availing benefit of Notfn 25/99-Cus and Notfn 25/2002-Cus, as applicable during relevant period and also registered with Customs Rules, 1996 - A SCN was issued to assessee that the activity of metalizing does not amount to manufacture and consequently the assessee was not entitled to take credit of inputs - From the process of manufacture explained by Shri R.Rohilla working as Production Manager, it is found that as in said process, goods manufactured by assessee have been transformed into good which are different and new after a particular process undertaken by assessee and the goods are marketable as such - Raw material i.e. polypropylene/polyester is subjected to a complex process to ensure that one side of insulting material is converted into a conductor having a desired thickness with adequate free margin and heavy edge - After metallization process, polypropylene film is no longer a film with insulting properties but a metalized film with conducting properties ready to be used in capacitors - Therefore, the raw material has been transformed into something new i.e. Electronic Capacitor Grade Aluminium Metalized Dielectric Plastic Film which can be used for manufacturing electronic capacitors and the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology clarified that there is a great deal of difference between the plastic film and the metalized film manufactured by assessee - From the tenor of notification, it is clear that inputs procured by assessee are altogether different from the goods manufactured by assessee - Therefore, as the name, character and use of product has been changed, activity undertaken by assessee shall amount to manufacture - The Tribunal held that as it is already held that the activity undertaken by assessee amounts to manufacturer, therefore, assessee is entitled to refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 which remains unutilized in Cenvat credit account on export of goods.

Held - As the assessee's counsel seeks additional time to file reply to application for condonation of delay, the matter be listed for hearing on 14.04.2021: SC

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-714-HC-MAD-ST

Chena Enterprises Vs JCCE

ST - Writ petitioners are distributors of M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited - Agreements were entered between the petitioners on the one hand and their principal and as per their terms, the petitioners sold starter packs with prepaid voucher - There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners' principal had already remitted the service tax on MRP - However, the respondents sought to levy service tax on the margin earned by the petitioners during the sale process. Held: Issue on hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Central Excise V. Bharat Cell – Held therein that since full taxable value of the service provided by BSNL to customers is subjected to tax, there is no case to undo decisions already taken by the Tribunal in this regard and levy service tax on the margin earned by the petitioners during the sale process - Following the aforesaid decision, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-713-HC-MAD-CX

CCE Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CESTAT and has inter alia raised the following substantial question of law viz. Whether the Appellate Authority is correct in holding that the respondent cannot be demanded for the excess duty collected at the Depot on the revised rates, under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held: Bench notes that the issue has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. = 2016-TIOL-361-CESTAT-MAD ; Bench cannot be compelled to take a different view as the impugned order has already been upheld at the instance of another Company and the facts being identical - Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed: HC [para 5, 6]

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-172-CESTAT-BANG

CX - The appellant filed the refund claim on 20/03/2013 in respect of duty paid on goods exported - The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but appropriated an amount of Rs. 16,04,530/- towards arrears pending in another case and the said appropriation was set aside by Commissioner (A) and thereafter it was incumbent on Department to refund the said amount of - When the Department did not refund the said amount, the appellant after waiting about four years wrote a letter dated 14/01/2019 requesting the Assistant Commissioner to release the amount in view of judgment of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27/07/2015 but the Department wrongly issued a SCN proposing to deny the refund claim on time-bar and subsequently denied the refund claim by O-I-O dated 29/04/2019 on time-bar and the same was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order - Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly invoked the provision of Clause (ec) for denying the refund on the ground that the refund has arisen on account of the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal whereas in fact the refund has arisen on account of export of goods and the Department having accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27/07/2015 should have refunded the amount in cash to the appellant - This issue has been considered by Tribunal in the case of SPIC Ltd. wherein it is held that there is no need to file any refund application under the provisions of the Act - This decision of Tribunal has been upheld by Madras High Court - Further, in the case of VVF Ltd. 2018-TIOL-509-CESTAT-AHM , it is also held that second refund claim need not be filed again for claiming the refund arisen from O-I-A - In the case of GIL Shared Services Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1845-HC-MAD-ST , Madras High Court by relying upon its earlier decision in the case of SPIC Ltd. has allowed the claim of assessee - The impugned order is not sustainable in law, therefore the same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-171-CESTAT-DEL

Cus - The appellant imported LCD Panels for laptops - Intelligence was gathered by Department regarding undervaluation in declaration of goods by appellant - Live consignment covered by bill of entry filed by appellant were investigated by Department and a SCN was issued - This SCN was adjudicated by original authority by confirming the demand of duty and interest as proposed in SCN and imposing penalty upon appellant - It clearly transpires that not only is the order passed by adjudicating authority a very cryptic order but even otherwise opportunity was not provided to the appellant to file a detailed reply - The appellant had expressed inability to file a detailed reply because the documents, on the basis of which the declared value indicated in 14 bills of entry was rejected, was not provided - It is, therefore, a fit care case which should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order - The relevant documents shall be provided to the appellant within three weeks - The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT