|
2022-TIOL-309-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs Givaudan India Pvt Ltd
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with specific directions - It was submitted that pursuance to remand order, Adjudicating authority has already issued a notice of personal hearing and assessee had appeared for personal hearing - After hearing, matter is reserved for orders - As adjudicating authority has already conducted de novo hearing of appeal and reserved the matter for orders, present appeal has become infructuous: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-308-CESTAT-AHM
GMM Pfaudler Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of inputs which were sent to job worker under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without reversing Cenvat credit - Goods were cleared by job worker on payment of duty - Case of department is that since the appellant have cleared cenvatable input under Rule 4(5)(a) ibid, job worker was not supposed to pay duty, instead, he was supposed to avail exemption Notification No. 214/86-C.E. - When appellant have received input it was duty paid, hence they have rightly taken the Cenvat Credit - As regard the Notification No. 214/86-C.E. being a conditional Notification, it is optional for the job worker whether to avail the exemption or to pay the excise duty - Here, job worker chose to pay duty without availing Notfn which cannot be objected, as there is no provision for compulsory availment of Notfn - As regard the duty paid by job worker it is very much in relation to the job work goods, which was undisputedly used by manufacturer of final product - Appellant had cleared the final product on which duty was paid by them - This tribunal has taken consistent view that in case of payment of duty by job worker, same is available as a Cenvat Credit to principal manufacturer - Therefore, issue is no more res integra and appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit of duty paid by job worker - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-307-CESTAT-DEL
CCGST & CE Vs Manglam Build Developers Ltd
ST - Appeal is filed by Revenue under wrong assumption that maintenance deposit taken by assessee from the buyers is to be utilized for maintenance of complexes and any unutilized amount will be transferred to society after it is formed - It is evident that no amount of maintenance deposit was to be utilized for maintenance of complex by assessee and entire amount was to be transferred to society once it was formed and was then to be used for major repairs - As far as the assessee is concerned, it only held the deposit for the society to be formed later - The maintenance done by assessee during the intervening period was at its own cost - No amount was charged for such maintenance nor was any amount, out of maintenance deposit, spent by assessee on maintenance - Assessee has not received any consideration for maintenance of complexes and maintenance deposit was only held by it in custody for subsequent transfer to the society - There is no infirmity in impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals): CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-306-CESTAT-BANG
Alufit India Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - The appeal is directed against impugned order whereby demand of service tax of Rs. 17,498/- which was short-paid on the basis of difference between ST-3 returns and the tally account maintained by appellant, was confirmed and consequently, interest and penalty was also confirmed - In addition, demand of Rs. 2,96,10,898/- was confirmed on the ground that since the appellants were supplying their service to SEZ developers, which is exempted under Notification No. 4/2004, they are required to reverse an amount in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The demand of service tax of Rs. 17,498/- short-paid was rightly confirmed - Since the appellant have paid said amount along with interest, penalty corresponding to the demand of Rs. 17,498/- is set aside - As regards the major demand of Rs. 2,96,10,898/-, from the amendment through Finance Act, 2012 in CCR, 2004, which has retrospective effect from 10.02.2006, payments as prescribed under sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not required to be paid by appellant, in cases, where the services have been supplied under exemption to SEZ Developers - Notwithstanding anything contained in said amendment, this Tribunal, even without the aforesaid amendment, has taken a view that the supplies made to SEZ Developer amounts to export, therefore, the appellant is not required to pay any amount in terms of Rule 6 ibid - It is settled that the appellants are not required to pay any amount under Rule 6 ibid in respect of supplies made to SEZ Developers - Accordingly, demand and corresponding interest and penalty are not sustainable: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT |
|
