2021-TIOL-232-CESTAT-BANG

Nitta Gelatin India Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant filed the Bill of Entry for the clearance of 'Decalcified Fish scale for Collagen' (Fish Protein) - The original authority has confiscated the goods and allowed reexport of the same subject to payment of redemption fine under Section 125 and payment of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 - The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has specifically allowed the benefit to the appellant under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 for reexport of goods as the governing factors under Section 74 for reexport of goods imported have not been violated by appellant - The Tribunal in case of Kenda Farben India Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-233-CESTAT-ALL, has held that imposition of redemption fine is not justified when permission was granted to reexport the goods - By following the ratio of said decision, imposition of fine and penalty is not sustainable in law: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-231-CESTAT-CHD

Vardhman Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appeals filed against impugned order wherein cenvet credit has been denied to M/s Vardhman Industries Limited alleging that M/s Mas Equipments Pvt Ltd has not supplied the goods physically, only invoices were moved, therefore, M/s Vardhman Industries Limited is not entitled to take cenvet credit and penalty on both the appellants has been imposed - During investigation, no shortage or excess of goods were found in the premises of both the appellants - In that circumstance, duty cast on Revenue to ascertain the fact if M/s Vardhman Industries Limited has not received the goods, then from where, they procured the goods and used the same for manufacturing of dutiable goods which have been cleared on payment of duty - Further, it was also the duty of Revenue to find out where M/s Mas Equipments Pvt Ltd has cleared the goods without payment of duty - This is lacking in the investigation which gives benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants - Moreover, the transporters whose statements have been relied upon, have not given the cross examination to ascertain the truth - Thus, penalty is not imposable - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-230-CESTAT-DEL

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant had provided the storage facility to M/s. FCI consequent upon revision of prices with retrospective effect - They had discharged service tax liability on differential amount so collected and reflected in their ST-3 Returns - Subsequently, FCI under the contract of storage invoked the price escalation clause of contract and consequently a higher price was agreed to be paid to the appellant - Accordingly, the appellant issued supplementary invoices to FCI for recovering differential price from them and paying the differential value to the appellant - These payments of differential amounts were made to the appellant during relevant period - A SCN was issued invoking extended period of limitation demanding interest under Section 75 on the additional amount of service tax, which arose due to revision/price escalation for the period from the date of original invoice till the date of supplementary invoice - There is no case of fraud, mis-representation or suppression of facts on the part of appellant as they have disclosed the additional taxable turnover arising out of the issue of supplementary invoices and has also paid tax in time and also disclosed such turnover in their books of accounts and returns filed with the Department - Demand for the period July, 2012 to March, 2013 is barred by limitation - The appellant shall be liable to pay balance demand in view of the ruling of Supreme Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2019-TIOL-204-SC-CX-LB whereby the Apex Court has held that interest is payable under similar facts and circumstances for the period being the date of original invoice to the date of supplementary invoice: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT