|
2022-TIOL-419-CESTAT-BANG
Molex India Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - Issue relates to rejection of refund claim of unutilized CENVAT Credit, claimed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for various periods - Issue is no more res integra as the same is settled by orders of different Benches of CESTAT - From the orders of lower authorities, it is found that no objection was taken when said input services were consumed, but only when it came to the granting of refund did the Revenue raise the objection that the services did not qualify as input service and that there was no nexus between the services received and services exported - This, defeats the very purpose of CENVAT scheme - In absence of any contrary order/judgement on record, rejection of the refund claims is not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2022-TIOL-418-CESTAT-DEL
Balaji Edibles Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.CC
CX - The appellant apparently is a contract manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing biscuits for its principle i.e. M/s. PBPL - Whether M/s. PBPL was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to final product on pro rata basis proportionate to turnover of each unit between manufacturing plants of M/s. PBPL and its contract manufacturing units including appellant in terms of Rule 7(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - From the decision relied upon by appellant in M/s. Krishna Food Products 2021-TIOL-420-CESTAT-DEL , it is clear that the said issue has already been decided by larger bench of Tribunal hence remains no more res integra - Further perusal of said decision shows that the decision in case of Sunbell Alloys 2014-TIOL-38-CESTAT-MUM and others as have been relied upon by Commissioner while passing the order under challenge have also been discussed and distinguished by Larger Bench of this Tribunal - Said decision has already been followed in similar facts and circumstances by this Bench in case of M/s. Ajmer Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-78-CESTAT-DEL - No distinguished fact is apparent on record in present appeal nor could have been brought to the notice by revenue, who rather expressed no objection for following the decision of Larger Bench - M/s. PBPL was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to final product on pro rata basis proportionate to turnover of each unit between their manufacturing plants and its contract manufacturing units including appellant under Rule 7(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules - Accordingly, appellant is held entitled to avail CENVAT credit where input services is attributed to the goods on which the excise duty is paid and includes the cost of services on which credit was taken - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-417-CESTAT-DEL
Omni Decoratives Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant had imported teak sliced veneer - Since the goods were imported from Myanmar, same were exempted from whole customs duty as per Notification No. 46/2011-Cus as per the entry at S.No. 545 thereof - The appellant however, had not submitted the certificate of origin along with aforesaid Bill of Entry - Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim of appellant - Important condition of said Notfn of certificate of origin along with Bill of Entry was not fulfilled by appellant at the relevant time - Said certificate was produced by appellant before Original Adjudicating Authority - Original Authority, despite acknowledging the receipt has failed to give the benefit of said certificate in its order - The request of appellant for re-assessment of duty was pending before department since 2018 - The findings of Original Adjudicating Authority who were aware of order upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order under challenge have failed to appreciate the pendency of said request of re- assessment - Keeping in view the mandate directed by Apex Court in case of ITC Ltd. 2019-TIOL-418-SC-CUS-LB and the No Objection endorsed by department, original adjudicating authority is directed to first consider the request of re-assessment of appellant and then to decide the refund claim afresh: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT |
