|
2022-TIOL-355-CESTAT-DEL
Raydean Industries Vs CCGST
CX - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order, by which demand of duty has been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation provided under section 11A(4) of CEA, 1944 with interest and penalty - The issue that arises for consideration is, whether 'module mounting structures', manufactured by appellant and supplied to suppliers of solar power water pumping systems for irrigating agriculture fields, is exempted from payment of central excise duty in terms of notification dated 17.03.2012 - Appellant claims that such exemption would be available at serial no. 332 of said notification - What has been exempted from payment of central excise duty under serial no. 332 of notification is 'non-conventional energy devices or systems' specified in List 8 - The Principal Commissioner has rightly concluded that the serial number 10 of List 8 refers to 'solar power generating system' and not to 'module mounting structures' manufactured by appellant and only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 are exempted from payment of central excise duty - The Principal Commissioner has also correctly appreciated the effect of amendment made on 11.07.2014 to aforesaid notification dated 17.03.2012 - According to them, prior to amendment only parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for manufacture of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 were exempted, but after the said amendment the exemption is also available to parts of goods specified at serial numbers 1 to 20 of List 8 in a situation where it is consumed not only within the factory of production but also when used elsewhere than in the factory of production, subject of course to condition that the procedure laid down in the relevant rules has been followed - It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of appellant that 'module mounting structures' should be granted exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of notification dated 17.03.2012 and not the 'solar power generating system' - An exemption notification has to be strictly construed, as was observed by Supreme Court in M/s. Dilip Kumar and Ors. 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB and in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-236-SC-CX - The distinction sought to be drawn by appellant between 'devices' and 'systems' is not of relevance because both non-conventional energy devices or systems specified in List 8 are covered by the description of excisable goods - There is, therefore, no infirmity in impugned order: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-354-CESTAT-AHM
Navkar Infosys Vs CCE & ST
ST - The issue arises is, whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on strength of debit notes issued by service provider - In view of judgements in Ad-Manum Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Jaguar & co. and Shree Cement Ltd., appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on debit note - The debit note has contained all information such as Name and address of service provider and service recipient, registration number of service provider, amount of service tax charged to appellant and description of service - Therefore, all the details which is otherwise required to be mentioned in valid document for cenvat credit are appearing in debit note, for this reason also the cenvat credit cannot be denied to appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-353-CESTAT-DEL
Dynamic Team Security Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Penalty - The appeal is about challenging the penalty as has been imposed upon appellant under Section 78 A - Penalty under Section is imposed for the same reasons as it is being imposed under Section 78 but for the similar offence being committed by Director of concerned Company - Period of demand is from April 2013 to June 2017 - Appellant was appointed as Director on 1st December, 2016 - This apparent fact is sufficient to falsify any involvement as that of intent/knowledge of appellant being the Director about tax evasion by appellant for the period from April, 2013 to November, 2016 - For the remaining period, no doubt, there is an admission of appellant that the impugned demand was not paid at the relevant time, but the admission is rather more in the form of acknowledgement that the non-payment was due to unavoidable circumstances as that of grave medical illness of spouse of appellant who finally succumbed to that illness on 24th June, 2017 - This fact has been brought to the notice of Department since the time the SCN has been issued but the same has not at all been considered by Adjudicating Authority - There are ample medial documents on the record of this appeal - There is sufficient admission of Amar Sigh Gautam that he was looking after the financial affairs of Company - The financial statements in form of balance-sheets, tax returns as placed on record bear his signature as the person authorized for the Company - None of those documents bear the signature of appellant - Department has not produced any such documents for a subsequent period where the appellant would have been a signatory to such returns - Mere oral submission of Mr. Amar Singh Gautam that he was acting under the guidance of appellant cannot be fully sufficient for holding at least that the appellant had the knowledge and the intent to not to make the impugned payment - Penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation - Commissioner has erred while imposing penalty upon the appellant while ignoring the unavoidable circumstances as were explained to be reasons for not depositing duty in time - Hence, the order under challenge is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-352-CESTAT-AHM
Schaeffler India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of outward GTA - The sale is on FOR basis and freight is integral part of price of goods on which the excise duty was discharged - Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit as held by Tribunal in case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1709-CESTAT-AHM and Ultratech Cement Limited 2019-TIOL-1420-CESTAT-AHM - The sale being FOR sale and freight is inclusive in price of goods and the same was not charged separately to customers, cenvat credit in respect of outward transportation is admissible - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
