2021-TIOL-1740-HC-DEL-NDPS
Mahmood Kurdeya Vs NCB
NDPS - Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets [6500 strips with each strip containing 10 tablets were recovered; One strip weighs around 4 grams] - Tramadol X - 225 [1900 strips of 10 tablets each] - Petitioner seeks regular bail in Sessions Case under Sections 22/23/29 NDPS Act.
Held : There is substantive evidence against the petitioner dehors the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act in the form of CCTV footages and the photos in the mobile phone of the petitioner - Considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in trafficking of commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 50 kgs 800 grams and it cannot be said that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the alleged offence, at this stage this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 12, 13]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-507-CESTAT-MUM
Cipla Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The three SCNs were adjudicated by Commissioner as per impugned order - Aggrieved by the same, appellant have filed these appeals - It is settled principle that the findings which have been recorded earlier and if not challenged by way of appeal to the appropriate forum, become final and binding on both the parties - Hence, the issue of eligibility of CENVAT Credit in respect of Capital Goods, installed in R & D building cannot be raised once again in remand proceedings - The only issue that was to be addressed by Commissioner in these proceedings was limited to the use of Capital Goods and Input Service in the factory of manufacturer -The observations made by Commissioner that these capital goods should have been used by manufacturer in his "factory" whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products do not find support from the definition of Capital Goods - Since the Capital Goods after the demolition of manufacturing sheds, were shifted within the registered premises, the same cannot be said to have been removed from the factory - In view of decision in case of Hero Motocorp Limited 2018-TIOL-1928-CESTAT-CHD, R & D Building located in registered premises of appellant is the part of factory of manufacture of appellant and hence the credit availed on Capital Goods installed in the said premises cannot be denied on that ground - As R & D Building is held to be the part of factory/registered premises of appellant, CENVAT Credit on the input services for use in said R & D building/ activities could not have been denied - The Commissioner has in impugned order, sought to deny the credit on certain input services by stating that appellant had stopped manufacturing activities in Vikhroli Unit from November 2006 and had also demolished the manufacturing sheds - However they continued to avail and utilize the CENVAT Credit on input services received by them in said premises - It is settled law that CENVAT Credit on inputs or the input services received by appellant cannot be denied to the appellant till the time the same are used in the factory of manufacturer - All the activities were well within the knowledge of department as is seen from various correspondences highlighted by Tribunal in order remanding the matter back to original authority - No justification found in invoking extended period of limitation for making these demands - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-506-CESTAT-MUM
Haldex India Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of Parts of Brakes - During audit, it was observed that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on the basis of photocopies of 13 nos. of Bills of Entry - Since, the appellant did not produce original copy of Bills of Entry for verification, original authority had disallowed the cenvat credit and also ordered for recovery of interest and equal amount of penalty from the appellant - The appellant submitted that the certificate issued by Jurisdictional Customs Authorities, certifying that appropriate duty liability had already been discharged in respect of the goods imported under the disputed Bills of Entry - It is evident that the duty paid character of goods and receipt of the same in the factory for use in the intended purpose have been duly complied with - Thus, on the strength of certificate issued by Jurisdictional Customs Authorities, cenvat benefit should be available to the appellant - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-505-CESTAT-DEL
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The Appellant is availing re-insurance service from Indian as well as foreign re-insurance companies in respect of these insurance policies - The impugned orders passed by Adjudicating Authority have denied the CENVAT credit on such re-insurance services - Re-insurance service is a statutory requirement since without obtaining re-insurance services, the appellant cannot be permitted to engage in insurance business - Thus also, the re-insurance services availed by appellant would qualify as 'input service' and the appellant would be justified in availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on re-insurance services - Amendment to the definition of "input service" in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. April 1, 2012 excluding general insurance services relating to motor vehicles from the purview of 'input service' - However, this exclusion clause cannot be read to cover re-insurance services, which are not insurance services in respect of a motor vehicle as a re-insurance service is in respect of assumed risks of an original insurer - Thus, the aforesaid exclusion clause has no application to qualification of re-insurance services as 'input service' and not affects the eligibility of appellant to avail the Cenvat credit on re-insurance service - Appellant deposits the whole premium collected by it in the pool account under pool arrangement and based on the prescribed formulae, GIC determines the amount of re-insurance premium due to each member as against the other members - Thus, in effect, each company pays re-insurance premium after deducting the amount due from other member companies - Service Tax liability stands discharged on whole re-insurance premium paid to other members - Therefore, appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid thereon: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-504-CESTAT-MUM
Avivet Nutritional Services Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant had imported several varieties of probiotics on which the refund of special additional duty was denied for not having discharged 'appropriate' tax on sale and for failure to correlate the invoices of sale with the bills of entry pertaining to imports - The imported goods, upon sale in domestic market are entitled to post facto exemption from 'special additional duty' upon furnishing of sales invoices and that, despite the impugned goods being exempted from tax on sale, the eligibility for refund of special additional duties of customs is not, thereby, discountenanced - The appellant was unable to reconcile the difference in description and entitlement to refund was the casualty - It would appear that the absence of any clarification from Joint Commissioner of Animal Husbandry, sought for vide letter also contributed to doubt - It would be appropriate for the appellant to furnish all necessary information to the original authority for a proper determination that the goods, covered by furnished invoices, were the same as those imported which is the only satisfaction prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. - Original authority is directed to consider the application afresh and to dispose off the claim for refund accordingly within a period of three months: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT |
