2022-TIOL-560-CESTAT-DEL
CCT & GST Vs CH2M Hill India Pvt Ltd
ST - The issue involved is, whether Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly remanded the matter of refund, for further examination to the Court below - The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the assessee is entitled to refund of balance amount of cenvat credit - However, he observed that it is subject to merits and compliance under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act - From plain reading of provisions, it is found that there is no further compliance or merit required to be seen - Thus, there is no further inquiry required in the matter and in view of categorical finding of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee is entitled to refund - Accordingly, order of Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to the effect that the appeal is allowed on merits and Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund within a period of sixty days alongwith interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-559-CESTAT-AHM
CCE & ST Vs Sanghi Industries Ltd
CX - The appellant had availed total Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,92,67,294/- during period June 2007 to December 2007 on various items - SCN was issued to appellant for recovery of said credit along with interest and penalty alleging that impugned goods used for civil construction purpose or repairs do not fall under definition of inputs nor do they fall under category of Capital Goods as per Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - On adjudication, out of total demand, demand of Rs. 1,71,26,939/- was dropped and demand of Rs. 21,40,371/- was confirmed with interest and penalty - The Commissioner has denied credit on Aluminium Zinc anodes amounting to Rs. 12,304/- which was used in laboratory of factory - The impugned goods were used in laboratory of appellant, which ultimately used for manufactured goods and satisfy the definition of input, hence the Cenvat credit should not be denied to appellant - As regard to denial of cenvat credit of Rs. 9,88,421/- on goods which were used in erection of transmission towers installed from power plant to factory for bringing in the electricity, relying on the case in appellant's own case, it is held that the appellant has correctly availed credit on disputed goods - As regard the availment of Credit of Rs. 11,39,646/- on furnitures, there is no dispute that the said furnitures are used in guest house and the guest house is part of factory - In Board's Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX , it is mentioned that "goods such as furniture and stationery used in an office within the factory are goods used in the factory and are used in relation to the manufacturing, business and hence, the credit on same is to be allowed" - Nothing is available on record to show that guesthouse is used for any other purpose - In view of this fact, since guesthouse used for operations of factory which has direct nexus with factory which produces excisable goods therefore Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant on the furnitures used in Guest House of the factory: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed/Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-558-CESTAT-AHM
Astral Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant imported modifier for PVC "Kane Ace B-564" from Malaysia and in ex-bond Bill of entry, appellant classified the said product under Tariff Item 3902 90 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and claimed exemption as available against entry no. 457 (I) of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus - Both the lower authorities have decided the classification of goods imported by appellant under Tariff Item 3906 90 90 ibid as against appellant's declaration underTariff Item 39022 90 00 ibid - Authorities decided the classification on the basis of nomenclature of product, i.e., picking up words Acrylic Polymer from constituents of product in question - Revenue has not firstly conducted any chemical test of product to ascertain composition of product - Moreover despite considering the composition of product they only picked up one of the constituent i.e. acrylic ester - Co-polymer does not have any single monomer unit which contributes 95% or more by weight - Co-polymers are to be classified under heading covering polymer of co-monomers unit which pre-dominates by weight over every single co-monomer unit - The product imported by appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 3902 90 00 - The Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered this statutory provision of Central Excise Tariff Act, they have also not considered the chemical characteristics of product therefore, classification decided only on the basis of nomenclature that too picking up words from the full nomenclature of the name of product is absolutely baseless and cannot be sustained - Appellant has correctly classified the imported goods underTariff Item 3902 90 00 ibid - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
