2022-TIOL-565-CESTAT-DEL
Ceramic Tableware Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The issue involved is, whether redemption fine and penalty have been rightly imposed under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - Appellant is a manufacturer of ceramic tableware located at Jaipur - They are regular importer of their inputs 'calcium phosphate' - In regular course of business they imported calcium phosphate and filed Bill of Entries - However, due to some clerical error, description of goods was mentioned as 'Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate' - It appeared to Revenue that appellant have deliberately misclassified the goods in Bill of Entry for paying lower custom duty as total duty BCD plus IGST on 'Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate' was 10% whereas on calcium phosphate it is 28% or (10% + 8%) - There appears to be a genuine mistake in nature of clerical mistake on the part of Clerk of appellant company - This fact is evident on the basis of record, as appellant has suo motu approached the Department for making necessary rectification in Bill of Entry with regard to classification, and also offered to pay differential duty - Such suo motu offer was made before Department pointed out or issue of any notice to appellant - Thus, it is a case of simple clerical error and there is no case of contumacious conduct on the part of appellant - Impugned order of confiscation and penalty both under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA ibid is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-564-CESTAT-MUM
Klarissa Property Developers Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Issue relates to rejection of application filed under Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 by appellant declaring Service Tax liability in respect of construction of residential complex due for period from October, 2007 to December, 2012 on the ground of pendency of enquiry initiated against it before 01.03.2013 that suffered an adjudication process and gone on appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Notice for personal hearing proposing rejection of application filed under VCES was issued to Appellant on 1st September, 2015 which is admittedly after laps of one year of filing of VCES application on 18.12.2015 and therefore such a proceeding including rejection order is quashed as unsustainable in law: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-563-CESTAT-DEL
Power Finance Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The appellant is a non-banking finance corporation engaged in financing projects and has been paying service tax on banking and other financial services rendered by it - The issue arises is, whether the expenditure incurred by appellant in discharging its corporate social responsibility can be considered as input service or output services rendered by it - Undisputedly, the output services rendered by appellant were "banking and other financial services" - It is not open for Tribunal to modify or enlarge the scope of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which is a legislative or quasi-legislative function - It can only apply it as such - One cannot read words "activities relating to business" into definition of input services under rule 2(l) ibid - Therefore, appellant was not entitled to Cenvat Credit on services used for corporate social responsibility - Insofar as invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties are concerned, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion or wilful statement or suppression of facts - Accordingly, demand can only be raised within normal period of limitation - The denial of Cenvat Credit on expenses incurred on corporate social responsibility within the normal period of limitation is upheld - The demand for extended period on limitation and the penalties are set aside - Matter is remanded to original authority for limited purpose of calculating the amount of Cenvat Credit to be denied: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-562-CESTAT-DEL
Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, Excise & Customs
CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order vide which the refund claim has been sanctioned but the interest on said amount was partly sanctioned - Since the entire amount as was proposed to be recovered from assessee was got deposited even prior to issuance of SCN and since the said demands stand already set aside vide the order of this Tribunal, it stands clear that the said amount was not the liability of assessee to be deposited, i.e., it was not the amount of duty - Hence Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 creating the notion of three months as impressed upon by revenue is not applicable to the facts - The amount which stands deposited since 06.07.2012 has been kept with the department with no authority for retaining the same - Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while rejecting the claim of interest on the entire amount of refund - No justification for bifurcation have been given while sanctioning the interest only on amount of pre deposit has been given in order - Findings of claim to be barred by time are also not correct as the relevant date for recovery period is considered as date of filing the appeal - Order under challenge is not sustainable, same is set aside - Assessee is held entitled for interest on remaining amount of refund also that too at the rate of 12 Percent to be calculated from the date of payment thereafter: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-561-CESTAT-AHM
XL Plastic Vs CCE & ST
CX - The dispute is only of imposition of penalty on wrong availment of cenvat credit during period July 2009-July2010 - Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of a proposal made in SCN under Rule 15 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11AC ibid - During relevant period, there was no such provision for penalty in respect of wrong availment of cenvat credit on input services - Therefore, during the relevant period, penalty was not imposable either under Rules 15(1), 15(2) or 15(4) ibid - Rule 15(4) ibid was made for service providers whereas the appellant is the manufacturer - Accordingly, penalty is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
