2021-TIOL-434-CESTAT-ALL

Sampark Industries Ltd Vs CGST

CX - The issue is as to whether aluminum coated paper/metalized paper cleared by appellant during the disputed period merits classification under CETH 48101390 or 48115900 - Appellant purchases kaoline coated paper either locally or by import and undertakes the process of coating of aluminium by passing the said paper through vapours of aluminium vacuum - CRCL report categorically states that paper is coated on one side with metal powder, i.e., aluminium and is free from plastic material - Appellant's product is covered under Tariff Item 4810 13 90 of Central Excise Tariff by virtue of presence of inorganic substances and the question of bringing it under Heading 4811 ibid not arises: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-433-CESTAT-KOL

Nupur Viniyog Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Refund - A claim for refund of Service Tax paid on specified taxable services used for export of goods under Bill of Exports under Notfn 41/2012-ST was filed - Once it is not in dispute that the services are specified for refund purpose, and since Service Tax was actually paid on specified services pertaining to export activity, in terms of the broad scheme of refund under Notfn 41/2012-ST as amended with clarifications, refund must be granted to the exporter - The order passed by Commissioner (A) cannot be sustained as substantive benefit should not be denied to an appellant if conditions are fulfilled - It would not be out of place to mention that the sole intention of Government to bring out these rebate schemes is to promote the Indian exporters to enjoy a level playing field and to compete with exporters of other countries in global market - Further, it is not the intention of Government to export taxes, hence after much research these schemes have been notified and if the refund claims are rejected on such flimsy grounds, it defeats the very purpose of rebate schemes and traps the exporters under unnecessary litigations - The impugned order is set aside and the order passed by Adjudicating authority is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2021-TIOL-432-CESTAT-MUM

Nathi Mal Rugan Mal Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order whereby the provisional release of goods allowed subject to furnishing a Bond and a Bank Guarantee - The assessee have been cooperating with investigation and have deposited substantial sums during investigation only before the passing of any formal adjudicating order confirming the duty - They have established his bona fides and requested to set aside the conditions of provisional release - Setting aside the same would place revenue interests in jeopardy - At the same time, Tribunal need to take in to account the hardship of appellant and the financial losses they have undergone - Therefore, Bank amount for submission of Guarantee is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000 in place of Rs. 30,00,000 and the amount of Rs. 65,79,899/ fixed for Bond remains unaltered: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT