2022-TIOL-126-HC-AHM-CX
Atithi Gokul Automobile Works Vs UoI
CX - The Commissioner passed an order confirming the demand of Cenvat and other duties and at the same time also confirmed the demand of Motor Vehicle Cess under the proviso to Section 11A(1)/Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act - The Tribunal thought fit to remit the matter with a view to give an opportunity to applicants to cross-examine the persons concerned and also an opportunity to applicants to file their detailed reply - In the second round of litigation, Commissioner neither permitted any cross-examination nor gave any opportunity of hearing much less permitting any reply to be filed and proceeded to pass a stereotype order i.e. verbatim the same which came to be set aside by Tribunal - Let notice for final disposal be issued to respondents returnable on 24.02.2022 - In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken towards recovery: HC
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-102-CESTAT-AHM
Western Corrosion Controller Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is in appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit, demand of interest and imposition of penalty - Demand has been raised under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Claim of assessee is that prior to 01.06.2007, works contract service was not chargeable to service tax - Moreover, for the period after 01.06.2007 their service would qualify as Works Contact Service and not Commercial or Industrial Construction service and therefore, demand cannot be sustained under Commercial & Industrial Construction Service - Upon perusal of few contracts, it is seen that they were engaged in activity of painting/ coating of various structures to prevent corrosion - There are few contracts which involved construction of concrete work as well - From the letter DOF No. 334/1/2008- TRU it is apparent that CBEC is of the view that if VAT is paid under category of Works Contract Service then the service should be classified as works contract service - Matter is remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority to ascertain if VAT/Sales tax has been paid for all contracts under category of works contract - If assessee has paid VAT/Sales Tax under head of Works contract then service would fall under same category - No demand under category of Commercial & Industrial Construction Service can be confirmed - Moreover, in that case demand of duty for period prior to 01.06.2007 too cannot be confirmed as at material time works contract service was not taxable: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-101-CESTAT-MUM
Jet Airways India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is disputing the confirmation of demand under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty of like amount under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and challenges the finding of Commissioner that fuel on board aircraft returning to India on completion of international leg is liable to duty of customs on determined cost to which insurance, freight and landing charges are to be added - Tribunal is now required to determine eligibility for exclusion of fuel claimed to be on board before conversion of aircraft into 'foreign run' as claimed by appellant - Appellant had discharged duty liability on fuel available on board upon arrival in India after 'foreign run' and the claim of eligibility to set off the fuel available on board upon conversion to 'foreign run' before departure from India was raised for the first time in course of proceedings for recovery of duties of customs over and above that discharged by appellant - Neither has any claim for refund of this component of duties been filed nor is there any demand of duty following denial of benefit of set off provided in notification No. 151/1994-Cus - It would, therefore, appear that this was a plea for mitigation in event of enhancement of assessable value of fuel on which duty had already been discharged in accordance with extant instructions - Consequently, Tribunal is not required to examine this aspect of relief sought by appellant before original authority and here - The demand in impugned order has incorrectly taken recourse to Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and therefore, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-100-CESTAT-MUM
CCE Vs Raymond Ltd
CX - This appeal is filed by Revenue against O-I-O - It was alleged that the supplier of Respondents have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on Bars and Rods which were used in annealing process, though the same did not amount to manufacturing, and have later transferred the credit to Respondents, who purchased the material - A SCN was issued alleging that the Respondents were aware of the fact that their supplier ceased to be a manufacturer - It is not the case of department that respondents did not receive said inputs; the same were not duty paid and same were not utilized for manufacture of final dutiable products - None of the essential conditions have been violated to deny the credit to appellant - The commissioner in impugned order has correctly observed that the fact that the supplier has carried out some processes, which though did not amount to manufacture, does not alter the duty paid character of the inputs; when the duty paid inputs are genuinely used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products, denial of benefit of Cenvat Credit would be totally in defiance of spirit of entire Cenvat Scheme - Appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-99-CESTAT-DEL
Anjani Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C
CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order vide which Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal filed before him on the ground that the same is barred by time invoking section 35(1) of CEA, 1944 - Appellant has sent a letter to department on 9.7.2019 requesting for copy of O-I-O informing that the same has not been received by them - Tribunal also have perused response of department to this letter vide their letter providing copy of said order to appellant - The said letter is absolutely silent about copy of O-I-O to have earlier been despatched to appellant either by speed post or by any other mode of service - Said letter was received by appellant on 19.7.2019 - Appeal before Commissioner (A) was filed on 13.8.2019 i.e. within one month of receiving the copy of order dated 31.10.2017 - Appellant has sufficient cause for filing the appeal on 13.8.2019 against order of 31.10.2017 - Accordingly, said delay is hereby condoned - Resultantly, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (A) for adjudicating the matter on merits: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT |
