|
2022-TIOL-297-CESTAT-BANG
Foto Flash Vs CCE & CST
ST - The limited issue to be decided is that in case of photography service, whether value of goods such as photography paper and chemicals used for providing photography service is required to be included in gross value for purpose of charging service tax or appellant is entitled for abatement in respect of cost of said goods in terms of Notfn 12/2003-ST - Very same issue in appellant's own case only for the different period has been considered by Tribunal in case of Shilpa Colour Lab 2007-TIOL-340-CESTAT-BANG - The aforesaid decision of Tribunal has been upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing the Department's appeal - Therefore, issue stands settled in favour of appellant - In view of settled legal position, issue is no longer res integra and has attained finality in favour of appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2022-TIOL-296-CESTAT-DEL
Ashok Singhla Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The first issue that arises for consideration is, whether Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue notice - This precise issue was examined by Supreme Court in Canon India 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB wherein it is observed that the nature of power to recover duty not paid or short paid after the goods have been assessed and cleared for import is a power that has been conferred to review the earlier decision for assessment - This power which has been conferred under section 28 of Customs Act on proper officer, must necessarily mean the proper officer who, in the first instance, assessed and cleared the goods - Thus, Additional Director General, DRI did not have the jurisdiction to issue SCN - The SCN issued by Additional Director General, DRI is, therefore, without jurisdiction as the said officer was not the proper officer and, therefore all proceedings undertaken by Department on this SCN is without jurisdiction - The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained - A Division Bench of Tribunal in M/s. Beriwala Impext Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-183-CESTAT-KOL , also examined the proposed amendments to section 2(34), 35 of the Customs Act and introduction of the new section 110AA in Customs Act and held that the impugned order emanating from SCN issued under section 28 of Customs Act by DRI cannot be sustained - Thus, impugned order passed by Principal Commissioner cannot be sustained and it is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-295-CESTAT-AHM
Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of CVD paid by availing exemption Notfn 12/12-Cus - From the Rule 3 (i), it is clear that the restriction is provided only in respect of such duty which is paid by availing exemption Notfn 01/2011-CE or under Notfn 12/12-CE - The CVD was paid by not availing the aforesaid excise notifications but it was paid by availing Customs Notfn, therefore, the restriction provided in Rule 3 (i) and proviso thereof shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case - The issue is no longer res-Integra as in appellant's own case, Tribunal has decided the same issue by order in 2018-TIOL-2838-CESTAT-AHM - Impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside : CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
