2022-TIOL-657-CESTAT-DEL
Mohit Industries Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is engaged in import of Cold Rolled Grain Oriented (CRGO) Electrical Steel Sheet/Coils - Impugned consignment was detained and was proposed to be confiscated for want of proper BIS certificate - This being a Bureau of India Standards certificate is issued by respective Ministry in favour of manufacturer who further issues same to its buyers - The certificate on impugned goods was the one bearing no. IS 3024:2006, whereas, as per Indian standards specification for CRGO the ISI marka at the relevant time, stood revised as IS 3024:2015 by the competent Authorities - Further, employee of appellant who was admittedly responsible for preparing the import documents including BIS certificate i.e. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Accountant of the appellant in his statement, admitted the recovered laptop to belong to him - He also admitted the documents retrieved there from to have been prepared by him including the excel work book named as BIS certificate saved in local disk of said laptop - Not only this, he also admitted for those excel sheets to be received in soft editable form of BIS/Mill Test certificates - Admittedly, the certificate bears nobody's signature - The investigating team has also reached CHA of appellant, the partner thereof has denied any knowledge about certificate to be fake - He only deposed about receiving all imported documents from Shri Birender Prasad, proprietor of appellant and thereafter to process the import documents for clearance of consignment - The documents on record do not support the defence taken by appellant - The admission of Mr. Manoj Kumar, appellant's accountant, about preparing BIS certificates on their own on editable formats procured rather stands corroborated from the e-mail sent by exporter about impugned certificate to be fake which otherwise does not bear signature of any competent authority - Hence, there is no infirmity in findings arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) - Order is accordingly upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-656-CESTAT-AHM
Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of sophisticated machinery like Induction Melting and Heating Furnace, Induction Welding Equipment and also parts of such machinery - The only ground on which department has been denying exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus. is that the subject imported goods are exempted only if it is imported and used by IT Industries whereas, in appellant's case the industry is not IT Industry but it is induction melting and heating furnace as well as induction welding equipment manufacturing unit - There is no dispute that the subject imported material are clearly specified in table given in notification, the notification does not prescribe a condition that imported goods are eligible for exemption only for IT Industries therefore, so long the goods are specified in notification against the given Sr.Nos. as mentioned, the exemption cannot be denied - The same issue in appellant's own case has been considered by Tribunal in its final order and held that the appellant are eligible for exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus. - The judgment of this Tribunal was passed against the OIA dated 09.12.2019 therefore, this case being only for subsequent period on the same issue, following the aforesaid previous order, the impugned order will not sustain - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-655-CESTAT-AHM
Nirmal Construction Company Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is in a ppeal against demand of Service Tax, interest and imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - They are engaged in all kind of activities relating to up keep of residential colony - It involved cleaning of not only open spaces but also various facilities located within residential colony - The CBEC Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, has clarified that such cleaning services in respect of non-commercial buildings and premises thereof would not be covered within purview of Service Tax under this category - The residential Colony would therefore not be covered under description 'premises' appearing in Section 65 (24b) - Demand of Service tax on this count is set aside - Next issue relates to cutting of trees and grass shrubs and maintain it over a period of time in Gas collection Centre of service recipient namely ONGC - Activity of appellant cannot be treated as horticulture from description - Activity undertaken by appellant is in nature of cleaning activity and therefore demand on this ground is upheld - Penalty under Section 78 has been imposed amounting to double of total duty confirm - Said penalty is excessive so revised to equivalent to the duty confirm - The penalty under Section 77 ibid is upheld as the appellant had not taken registration or filed ST-3 return: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-654-CESTAT-KOL
Eastern Engineering Enterprise Vs CCE & ST
ST - The main ground of appeal of appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that appeal is hit by limitation - Against O-I-O dated 10.08.2016, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 08.06.2017 - Case of appellant is that they never received O-I-O, which was dispatched on 18.08.2016, certified copy of which was received by appellant on 27.04.2017 - It would not be out of place to mention that appellant is not going to gain in adopting the delay tactics in filing the appeal as has been observed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Against the adjudicated demand of Rs. 11,36,469/-, appellants have already paid Rs. 10,19,283/-, which has also been appropriated in O-I-O - By following the judgement of Madras High Court in case of OSA Shipping Pvt.Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2345-HC-MAD-ST , matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without going into the aspect of limitation - A reasonable opportunity of hearing be given to appellant: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
