2022-TIOL-692-CESTAT-KOL
CCE Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
CX - The electricity generated by appellant in captive power plant is used for both production of finished goods within refinery and for other purposes including electricity wheeled out - Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court have clearly held that in respect of electricity wheeled out, benefit would not be available - Case needs to be re-examined in light of judgement in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 2009-TIOL-94-SC-CX and complete view taken in matter - Accordingly, matter is remanded back to original authority for re-consideration and re-quantification - As matter is substantially old, Commissioner is directed to decide matter within a period of 3 months: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-691-CESTAT-MAD
Santhi Steels Vs CCE
CX - Appeal filed against impugned order, whereby penalty imposed under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 has been upheld - A SCN was issued to five co-noticees since the Revenue had suspected that one of co-noticees namely, M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit and that appellant had abetted/aided, planned and conspired with other co-noticees in preparation of invalid documents - When a statutory notice was issued, it was incumbent upon appellant to at least offer an explanation to clear the doubts pointed out - The appellant, however, without bothering to do so, has only contended that documents/ evidences relied upon by Revenue were vague, despite the fact that Revenue had also relied on his statement recorded, which is not rebutted - There is no supporting material placed on record by appellant or even by M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries other than a mere statement that credit in question have been availed in accordance with law, to clear the doubts in mind of Revenue - Further, from the grounds of appeal, pleadings and arguments, Tribunal do not see any whisper about any retraction or any disputes as to their statements being not voluntary - The same are not even rebutted as having been obtained per force - Hence, statements are relevant documents - Appeal was filed in year 2013 and appellant had sufficient time to place all such relevant documents on record, but no such attempt is made - Appellant has only relied upon those very same invoices, Daily Sheets, material inward notes of M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries which form the very foundation for issuing SCN - Further, appellant has nowhere answered the various doubts as indicated - No reasons found to interfere with well-founded O-I-O, which has been upheld in impugned order of Commissioner (A): CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-690-CESTAT-MAD
Vestas Technology R And D Chennai Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - Appellant is engaged in export of services like Consulting Engineering, Maintenance and Repair and Business Support Services - They have availed Cenvat credit on various inputs services - As they could not utilize accumulated Cenvat credit they have been filing quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) - The department was of the opinion that refund claims filed by appellants are hit by limitation and they are liable to be rejected on the ground that they have been filed beyond one year of date of invoice - Appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by appellants were in time as enunciated by larger Bench - Thus, it was not possible to verify the claim of appellants that the respective refund applications have been filed within one year of realization of export proceeds in relevant quarter - This Bench will not be in a position to decide whether or not the different claims filed by appellants are covered by decision of Larger Bench in case of M/s. Span Infotech 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB - For the limited purpose of verification of relevant dates of realization of export proceeds and dates of filing of refund claims, matter remanded back to original authority to verify the same and to grant applicable refund to appellants in the light of principle laid down by Larger Bench in case of M/s. Span Infotech : CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-689-CESTAT-KOL
CCE & ST Vs Hi-Tech Bottling Pvt Ltd
ST - The respondents are engaged in carrying out job of bottling, blending and labeling of Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in their work premises - Investigation was undertaken which culminated into issuance of SCN - The SCN has been dropped as per impugned order - Hence, Revenue is in appeal - From the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' as contained in Section 65/95 of Finance Act, 1994 as amended any process which amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been excluded from definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' - The Commissioner has in his order relied upon Circular dated 27.10.2008 - In view of Circular Commissioner has held that the processes undertaken would not amount to a taxable service under category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' - No reason found to differ with conclusions arrived at by Commissioner - Nothing has been stated by Revenue while filing appeal before Tribunal: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-688-CESTAT-KOL
Vos Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had filed the appeal beyond statutory period of 60 (sixty) days, but within condonable period and had also filed a petition explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Delay condoned and found it appropriate to remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merits without going into the aspect of limitation - Accordingly, appeal is allowed by way of remand: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
