2021-TIOL-582-CESTAT-DEL

Indore Treasure Market City Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The issue involved is as to whether the credit of Excise Duty/Additional Customs Duty (CVD) on inputs and capital goods and credit of Service Tax paid on input services which have been used for construction of Mall, further used/usable for providing taxable output service is admissible to appellants - In so far as the argument of Revenue regarding absence of nexus between input services and output services, the Tribunal has gone into this issue in several cases - In view of the decision of Tribunal in DLF Promenade Limited 2020-TIOL-520-CESTAT-DEL , the issue of nexus between input material/services and the output services has been settled by Tribunal in favour of appellant - The demand pertains to credit availed by appellant before 01.04.2011 - Therefore, it is held that appellant has correctly availed the credit on inputs and input services, duty and tax on which has been paid by appellant - To that extent, impugned order is not sustainable - Appellant has demonstrated that during the Audit conducted during 2007-08, well before the issuance of SCN, credit of around Rs. 4.5 crores was noticed by Audit and explanation of appellant was called for - The appellant explained the same to the Authorities - Credit Rules imposed certain conditions for allowing credit in terms of Rules 4 & 9 and cast certain obligations upon the assessee in terms of Rule 6 - The quantum of admissibility of credit depends on satisfying the conditions imposed therein and discharge of obligations - In such circumstances, it is not possible to quantify the admissible credit at this juncture - For this limited purpose, matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-581-CESTAT-DEL

Super Iron And Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C

CX - The appellant is the manufacturer of M.S. Ingots and T.M.T. Bars - Acting upon specific information that appellant is indulging in clandestine procurement of raw materials, production and clearance of M.S. Ingots and TMT Bars, revenue visited the premises of one M/s. PIL and it was observed that they had procured a total of 6936.105 MT and 25171.23 MT of unaccounted M.S. Ingots without accounting for the same in statutory records and they clandestinely removed finished goods - As the name of appellant also appeared in seized records of PIL, as supplier of M.S. Ingots and TMT Bars, resultantly, a SCN was issued proposing recovery of central excise duty with interest and a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party evidence - There is no other evidence or documents in the form of stock verification of raw-materials of appellant and the materials supplied to M/s. PIL, nor any evidence about usage of any transportation by appellants for transporting alleged quantity of raw materials to M/s.PIL - In absence thereof, the documents recovered from M/s.PIL cannot be held against the appellant - It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods - Impugned order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to be sustained: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-580-CESTAT-MAD

Seaswan Shipping And Logistics Vs CC

Cus - The importer M/s. J.J. Enterprises had imported 423 packages of footwear and scrubber - The appellant, a Customs Broker had filed bills of entry in respect of this consignment - During examination, it was found that the consignment contained some undeclared cargo in nature of imitation glass beads - Department was of the view that appellant has violated provisions of Regulations 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 - The only allegation put forward under Regulation 11(a) is that the appellant had not obtained KYC documents from importer directly but through a middleman, be it Shri Ramadhurai or Shri Karthi - When the necessary authorization and KYC documents have been obtained and when these documents are proper, merely because the said documents were not obtained directly from the importer, appellant cannot be said to have violated provisions of Regulation 11(a) ibid - When the proper address of the importer-firm as well as the details given while issuing the IE Code is available with the department, merely because the person who purportedly is representing the firm did not appear before the customs authorities, the appellant cannot be held to have violated Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 - Though the Inquiry Officer has reported that there is no violation under Regulations 11(a), (d) and (n) of the CBLR, 2013 the adjudicating authority has proceeded to conclude that there is violation of Regulations 11(a) and 11(n), without informing the Customs Broker on the ground of disagreement with the inquiry report - In doing so, there is violation of principles of natural justice - The impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT