|
2022-TIOL-514-CESTAT-DEL
Asiatic Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
ST - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Cefadroxil Monohydrate Trihydrate - On being advised, that as appellant has already paid customs duty, CVD on the import price, which includes ocean freight, appellant was not required to pay service tax again on freight - Accordingly, appellant filed the refund application praying for refund of amount of tax with interest and penalty - It was alleged in SCN that appellant have not produced any document evidencing that they have not taken credit of said amount, therefore refund claim appears to be bad - Accordingly, appellant was required to show cause as to why the refund claim, not be rejected - The SCN was adjudicated on contest - Appellant had urged that service tax cannot be levied on same transaction/activity twice (ocean freight), as the value of ocean freight has already been included in value of goods, on which customs duty and CVD has been paid - In fact, payment of service tax on ocean freight has resulted in double taxation - The transaction value for Custom duty and Excise duty (CVD), includes the/ ocean freight, and accordingly appellant has suffered the double taxation, by again paying service tax on ocean freight, as demanded by Revenue - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund of service tax, Interest and Penalty - This amount should be refunded to appellant within a period of 45 days alongwith interest as per provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-513-CESTAT-MUM
Mirc Electronics Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is justified in availing suo moto credit of excess duty paid in previous month on account of clearance of input effected under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 - It is not correct to say that there is any suppression on the part of appellant as the procedure adopted by them was well within the knowledge of Revenue way back since the year 2011 and accordingly extended period of limitation is not invocable - Mere short payment of duty by appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke extended period - The facts of the case clearly establish that there was no suppression on the part of the appellant and they have submitted all the documents/information as and when the same was asked by the department, starting from the year 2011 onwards - On merits also the issue is about adjustment of excess duty paid in previous month with duty liability of subsequent month - The amount have been paid by appellant in month of March i.e. the ending of financial year on entire spare parts cleared to their service agent as abundant precaution - This excess payment have not been controverted anywhere - No reason found why the duty cannot be adjusted for subsequent month - The procedure adopted by appellant may not be proper but that itself cannot make it illegal per se - This procedure admittedly has been discontinued by appellant w.e.f May, 2016 - On the ground of limitation as well as on merits, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-512-CESTAT-MUM
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - This appeal is directed against impugned order, wherein Commissioner (A) has upheld the order of original authority, denying the benefit of exemption claimed by them in terms of Notfn 11/97-Cus at Sr No 143 - Appellants have in support of their contention that they had imported these machines to augment their existing production process as they were having excess production capacities, produced a Chartered Engineer Certificate - There is no dispute that these three machines are used in process of production of finished products namely "Electronic Plastic Film Capacitor" and these three machines were imported to augment existing production capacity of appellant at various stage to streamline the production process - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
