2022-TIOL-557-CESTAT-AHM
Rajhans Impex Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appeals filed against impugned order demanding Customs duty in respect of imported raw materials and Central Excise Duty in respect of finished goods - As regard the demand of customs duty, case of department is that appellant have obtained Advance Authorization from DGFT for duty free import of raw material under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus - The said Advance Authorization and subsequent Export Obligation Discharge Certificate have been obtained by Appellant on the basis of clearance shown to have made to four 100% EOUs and claimed the same a Deemed Export Benefits - Appellant also produced certificate of chartered accountant certifying that the use of material imported as per the requirement of policy - Once in the 100% EOU the raw material imported duty free is used in the manufacture of final product and final product is cleared on payment of duty in DTA, for any reason the customs duty on the raw material which was used in the finished goods cannot be demanded therefore, the demand of Customs Duty on this ground also is clearly not sustainable. As regard the demand of Central Excise duty, case of department is on the ground that deemed export clearance were not genuine and were shown only on paper and finished goods were clandestine cleared in open market - Entire case of Revenue is based upon surmises and conjectures - No concrete, positive and tangible evidence appears on record - The evidences brought into the record by department are incomplete, inconsistent and not a reliable piece of evidence to prove charges of clandestine removal - Charges of clandestine removal of alleged goods not sustainable - Central excise duty liability cannot be fastened upon appellant. Demand of Customs duty and Central Excise duty along with interest and imposition of penalties related to raw materials and finished goods are not sustainable - As regards the penalties imposed on other appellants, demand itself is not sustainable against main appellant, hence the question of penalties on other appellants does not arise: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeals allowed/Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-556-CESTAT-AHM
Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is required to pay an amount of 6% in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 on empty packaging drums of cenvatable input considering the same as non excisable goods - From the judgment in case of Banco Gasket I Ltd , it can be seen that the very identical issue has been considered and categorically held that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Considering the said judgment, appellant is not liable to make any payment on clearance of empty drums - Hence, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-555-CESTAT-AHM
Balkrishna Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Appeals are directed against common impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the appeals for claim of refund are rejected - Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation - Goods have been exported by appellant during period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for exported goods - Appellant have raised the contention that payment of service tax on commission agent service was made only on 31-3-2008 and 21.04.2010 and therefore refund claim is within the time limit of one year from the date of payment of service tax - A similar issue came up before Tribunal in case of Pacific Leather Finishers 2016-TIOL-473-CESTAT-ALL - As issue has already been settled in favour of appellant wherein it has been held that the 'relevant date' for computing six months periods under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. to be taken the date when service tax paid and not first day of month following quarter in which export made - Therefore, merely on the ground of limitation refund cannot be rejected - Refund claim is within time - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-554-CESTAT-DEL
Shriram Rayons Vs CCE & CGST
ST - The appellant is engaged in providing taxable services relating to 'Renting immovable of property', 'Transport of goods transport agency service', 'Business auxiliary services', 'Maintenance or repair services' and 'Scientific and technical consultancy service' - Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand/reversal of Cenvat Credit for the sole reason that appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence by which it can be established that the service have been received before 1.7.2017 - Commissioner (Appeals) also while confirming the demand has held the non-availability of requisite documents as the reason for same - The typographic error in challan number and corelation of compiled record of appellant is impressed upon by them - Keeping in view the same, request of remanding the matter is hereby accepted - The matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to appreciate both the challans and to look into the documents produced by appellant and to appreciate as to whether there is any typographic error: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT
