|
2021-TIOL-766-CESTAT-MUM
Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - The appellant, a 100% EOU is engaged in manufacture of Absorbent Cotton of Pharmacopeial Grade - The manufacturing process involves blow room cleaning of cotton, carding and thereafter bleaching and drying of the same - In manufacturing process, waste known as 'cotton waste' dropping waste arise - The entire dispute pertains to said cotton waste generated in manufacturing of finished products - The issue in regards to levy of Central Excise Duty on 'cotton waste" as per proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was earlier considered by Tribunal in appellant's own case and the matter was remanded back by Tribunal for reconsideration of entire issue in light of decision in case of C T Cotton 2012-TIOL-1696-CESTAT-DEL - The Commissioner distinguishes the decision of C T Cotton, holding that the demand for duty is not by holding that the cotton waste is a manufactured product, but he demands duty in respect of the imported inputs namely comber noils received without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 53/97-Cus, which do not get duly accounted for as per the para 7 of said Customs Notfn - Thus, Commissioner has proceeded to demand duty not on the clearance of cotton waste but on the excess generation of cotton waste - No merits found in the approach adopted by Commissioner because the show cause in respect of all demands made have been issued in terms of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Once it is held that the cotton waste is not manufactured goods leviable to excise duty, all the subsequent arguments advanced by Commissioner vis a vis contravention of provisions of exemptions issued under Customs Act, 1962 and those of Foreign Trade Policy, become irrelevant for these proceedings, initiated under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - No merits found in impugned order proposing to levy and demand duty of customs on excess waste generated, in unit in terms of SCN issued under CEA, 1944 - Tribunal is not inclined to accept the observations made by Commissioner in impugned order regarding the issue of "cum duty price" - Since Tribunal hold against demand of duty, demand for interest and penalty is set aside - Impugned order is set aside : CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-765-CESTAT-MUM
Central Industrial Security Force Vs CST
ST - The appellant was providing security agency services to M/s. Infosys Ltd. from July 2010 - They were determining assessable value on the amount charged by them from service recipient - However, appellant was receiving certain facilities like accommodation, medical facility, vehicle, telephone and stationery and has not included the value of these facilities while determining the taxable value for payment of service tax in respect of services rendered by them - A SCN was issued to the appellant - Appellant submits that the issue involved in matter is with regard to inclusion of reimbursable expenses in value of taxable services provided by them and that the issue is no longer res integra and has been covered by decisions in appellant's own case, i.e., 2019-TIOL-3277-CESTAT-ALL and 2019-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-DEL - No merit found in the impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-764-CESTAT-HYD
Synthokem Labs Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
CX - The appellants are engaged in manufacture of bulk drugs and are availing CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services - They are simultaneously utilising the same for payment of duty on their final products - During Audit, it was noticed that the appellants have short paid service tax and had erroneously availed CENVAT credit for the period 2013-2014 to 2014-2015-2016 - Admittedly out of total demand of Rs. 11,64,424/- major amount of Rs. 6,89,256/- pertaining to alleged excess availment of input service tax credit has already been held not assessable by both the adjudicating authorities below - The remaining amount of Rs. 4,75,168/- pertaining to alleged irregular availment of inputs service tax credit taken on any irregular service and alleged irregular availment of inputs service tax credit taken on common inputs service was reversed in August, 2016 itself immediately after the audit team raised the objection - Also, appellant carried much more balance in their CENVAT credit account when they reversed the aforesaid amount, due to which authorities below have accepted that there is no liability of appellant to pay interest thereupon - The only issue remains now is as to whether the case in hand was merely a case of wrong apportionment of credit between the appellants both units, a bonafide clerical error or it was a case of intentional malafide intention to evade payment of duty - Though the amount was not proportionately bifurcated between both the units of appellants but simultaneously it is an admitted fact that the amount of Rs. 2,54,199/- was not further distributed to second unit of appellant despite being claimed by first unit - So the eligibility of claim of credit of Rs. 8,28,621/- stand admitted - Since there has been prompt reversal by appellant that too of a such amount which was meant for appellants own both units, however was utilised only by one unit - Hence, allegation of wilful mis-statement with an intent to evade payment rather not at all justified - Though the adjudicating authority below had been right while dropping the demand on same ground by holding it to be mere clerical error, they have definitely got wrong while still imposing penalty - The order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-763-CESTAT-KOL
Apex International Vs CC
Cus - Detention - The goods under detention/seizure are neither prohibited items nor restricted items and hence the same are not subjected to any statutory permission - The Central Board of Excise & Customs has issued Guidelines for provisional release of seized imported goods pending adjudication under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - The appellants are directed to execute the bond backed by Bank Guarantee - On execution of bond and bank guarantee, Adjudicating Authority shall grant provisional release of consignment - Quantum of bond should be sufficient enough to cover the duty, redemption fine and penalty likely to be imposed during adjudication taking into consideration the various circulars issued by CBEC: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
