|
2022-TIOL-497-CESTAT-AHM
Metenere Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The primary issue involved is that whether the letters submitted by appellant should be treated as acceptance of value enhanced by department and; whether, after giving letter of acceptance, the appellant has right to file appeal challenging the assessment - Firstly, Adjudicating Authority has not passed the speaking order either on acceptance letter of appellant and enhancement of value - It is also not clear whether the assessing authority has relied upon any contemporaneous import price data - On the issue that whether the appellant is entitled to challenge assessment after giving acceptance letter of enhanced value, there are contrary judgments - Adjudicating Authority had no occasion to consider all these judgments as he has not passed any speaking order - Moreover, there is no contemporaneous data provided to appellant for enhancement of value which amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice - Matter remitted back to assessing officer who shall consider the representation to be given by appellant on all the issues and thereafter, he shall pass a speaking order within a period of two months: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-496-CESTAT-AHM
Khemisati Polysacks Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - This appeal has been filed by appellant against denial of interest on refund granted to appellant - Irrespective of disputes that arise after filing of refund claim, appellant became entitled to interest from after three months of filing of original refund claim - Following the decision of Apex Court in case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX , appeal is allowed with consequential relief - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-495-CESTAT-DEL
Mahendra Industries Vs CCE
CX - The basic allegation against appellant is that they while transferring the imported machines to its customers, had charged amount of CVD and additional duty on machines imported by him but the said amount has not been deposited in Government Exchequer - However, it is observed that while making submissions before Adjudicating Authorities appellant had time and again submitted about making payment of said amount of CVD and additional duty right at the time of filing bills of entries, but had not taken the Cenvat credit thereof - Perusal of bill of entry filed for those machines reveals that the amount of additional duty along with CVD has duly been mentioned in said bill of entry - Appellant has also place on record the copy of challan vide which the total amount of duty on imported articles inclusive of CVD and additional duty was paid by appellant at the time of getting cleared said imported articles - As it has already been observed that admittedly the appellant has not availed Cenvat credit of aforesaid duty paid, it cannot be denied that appellant was entitled to claim the same under Rules 3 and 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - No irregularity is opined to have been committed while charging said amount of CVD and additional duties, the credit whereof was not taken by appellant, from its customers - Confirmation of such demand is nothing but amounts to paying what has already been paid - Double payment of same tax liability is not permissible and shall be without authority of law - The order under challenge is hereby set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-494-CESTAT-DEL
Autoneum India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
ST - The issued involved is, whether the penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 have been rightly imposed - There is no case of concealment or contumacious conduct on the part of appellant - Levy of service tax under Section 66E(e) ibid, is a matter of interpretation - Further on audit objection, appellant have accepted the same and deposited the tax alongwith interest - No penalty is imposable under Section 78 ibid, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
