2021-TIOL-313-CESTAT-CHD

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the refund claim filed by them of Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess lying unutilized in their cenvat credit account on 01.07.2017 when GST Regime came into force has been denied - A SCN was issued to the appellant that in terms of Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 the appellant is not entitled to carry forward the cenvat credit in GST Regime; therefore, the refund claim filed on 30.08.2019 is barred by limitation - The amendment to Section 140 came after one year of switching to GST Regime on 30.08.2018 which is applicable retrospectively - In that circumstances how the appellant could have filed the refund claim within one year from 01.07.2017 till 30.08.2018, when there was no provision of law existed, when amendment itself takes place on 30.08.2018, therefore, the relevant date of filing refund claim shall be 30.08.2018 and within one year of the said date, the refund claim has been filed by appellant - In that circumstance, the refund claim filed by appellant is not barred by limitation - The refund claim is allowed which is subject to verification of records: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-312-CESTAT-CHD

Orrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein the credit has been denied in terms of Notification No. 13/2016-C.E. (N.T.) - The credit is available to the assessee on capital goods in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 if the said goods used in manufacture of dutiable goods - However, these capital goods have been used for manufacture of dutiable goods, in that circumstance, the assessee is entitled to take credit - Admittedly, the facts are not in dispute that these goods have been installed during the period November, 2015 to March, 2016, the assessee opted out of area based exemption which clearly indicates that the appellant used capital goods for manufacture of dutiable goods - In that circumstance, the provision of Notification No. 13/2016-C.E. (N.T.) are not applicable - It is admitted fact that the goods have been used by manufacturer of dutiable goods, therefore, in terms of Rule 3 i bid, the assessee is entitled to avail credit - Therefore, no merit found in the impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-311-CESTAT-CHD

Ota Falloons Forwarders Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the penalty has been imposed on them under section 114(1) of Customs Act, 1962 - The documents filed by Shri Ankit Sharma, the representative of exporter, the documents were found in order and the goods examined by examiner - In that circumstance, after examination of the goods and shipping bill, the role of appellant comes to an end - There is no evidence placed on record with regard to any investigation done with the transporter while transportation of the goods from CFS, Dappar to port of export - As the appellant has no role to play regarding change of goods or export of Red Sander - Investigation to this effect is silent - In that circumstance, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of appellant - Therefore, no penalty can be imposed on appellant without bringing any evidence on record - Accordingly, the impugned order quo imposing penalty on appellant is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT