2021-TIOL-198-CESTAT-MAD

M S Alaudeen Vs CC

Cus - The appellant had taken a place for rent and was running lathe business of smelting and melting gold used melting furnace - Revenue entertaining a doubt that the appellant had improperly imported gold into India carried out a search and they were able to seize gold in various forms as mentioned in mahazar/SCN, from the possession of appellant - A perusal of pleadings placed on record as well as the arguments of appellant refers to the rebuttal dated 13.12.2018, whereby the appellant has mentioned inter alia that he was doing job with regard to the melting of gold pieces, convert them to gold rings which was given by his customers; that the officers without verifying anything took the gold including all the gold rings to the office - There is no explanation on the cut pieces of 100 gms foreign marked gold bar with the marking "Cambi, Suisse 100 gm Gold 999.9" ending with last five digits of Sl. No. 09053" that was retrieved from Ryobi brand 6" Orbittal Buffer car cleaning machine - There is also no rebuttal on maintaining a secret chamber and a hot furnace inside nor has he disputed the availability of dismantled power tools of buffer car cleaning machine - More interestingly, the appellant has nowhere claimed, rather has not even admitted that he is an authorised/license holder/goldsmith to carry out the job of melting gold pieces and convert to gold items of his so called customers - The initial burden cast on appellant in terms of Section 123 ibid has not been discharged and therefore Revenue's action is justified - Strangely, the non-filing of appeal against rejection of absolute confiscation by Commissioner (A) is questionable especially when an order authorising appeal against O-I-O granting redemption was made - Further, the Revenue has happily accepted the order of Commissioner (A) whereby the substantial reduction is ordered, both in terms of redemption fine as well as penalty, hence said order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Nayara Energy Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant has correctly paid/reversed the amount as required under Rule 6(3) when common Input/Input Services used in exempted goods/exempted services and dutiable goods/taxable services - The appellant have pointed out the glaring mistake in calculation of amount which is required to be paid under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules - There is indeed serious error in calculation of amount to be paid under Rule 6(3) - As regard the term "total Cenvat Credit" to be considered for the formula as provided under Rule 6(3A), the various judgments were cited by appellant - It also appears that there is a duplication of demand in as much as SCN issued on monthly reversal as well as on yearly reversal - The Adjudicating Authority has also not properly considered the "total Cenvat Credit" that whether the clearances made to SEZ and deemed export under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. should be taken as exempted clearances or otherwise - Likewise there are serious discrepancies in SCNs which are purely on a factual matrix - Therefore, the matter remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for proper appreciation of the facts and correct calculation of demand, if any arise: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Bhabani Pigments Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed - Vide SCN, it has been alleged that the appellant has not discharged service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism - Considering the fact that the appellant has deposited the amount in time which has been reflected in ST-3 return and the impugned order has been passed without considering the ST-3 returns, there is gross violation of principle of natural justice - In the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT