2022-TIOL-701-CESTAT-KOL
Computer India Vs CCE & ST
ST - The appellant is a distributor of SIM Cards of M/s BSNL - He entered into an agreement with BSNL for causing sale of products - For the activities of sale undertaken by appellants, BSNL would give him trade discount of 4.5% - Revenue was of the view that appellant was providing taxable service under category of "Business Auxiliary Service" against consideration of 4.5% of sale value - A SCN was accordingly issued to appellant demanding duty - Issue involved is squarely covered in favour of appellant by various decisions of Tribunal - The Chennai Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s JR Communications & Power Controls 2008-TIOL-1274-CESTAT-MAD has followed the earlier decision in case of R.Venkataramanan 2008-TIOL-2386-CESTAT-MAD , to set aside the demand made - Similar views have been expressed by Principal Bench of Tribunal in case of G.R.Movers 2012-TIOL-2012-CESTAT-DEL - Accordingly, no merits found in impugned order and same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-700-CESTAT-AHM
CMR Nikkei India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Dispute is regarding valuation of goods imported by appellant - Assessing Authority re-assessed the imported goods at values higher than what was declared by appellant in Bills of Entry for self-assessment - In spite of acceptance before Assessing Authority, appellant challenged the valuation/assessment of goods by filing appeals - Commissioner (A) upheld the impugned reassessment observing in impugned orders that the appellant had given their written acceptance of enhanced value and thereby has forgone his right to speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act - No doubt acceptance of enhanced value in writing waives the requirement of issue of speaking order under Section 17(5) ibid - However, requirement of Section 14 and Customs Valuation Rules need to be satisfied for enhancement of value - Nothing is forthcoming from the record of case that what is the basis for such re-assessment - Other than admission on the part of importer, no basis for adoption of enhanced value is given - The assessment orders do not assign any reason for discarding transaction value nor do they mention under which rule of Customs Valuation Rules, value has been determined - In spite of admission on behalf of importer, Revenue is required to satisfy the requirements prescribed under Section 14 of Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rules before any enhancement of valuation - Matter remanded to Original Assessing Authority for sharing the basis for such re- assessment with the importer: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-699-CESTAT-AHM
Spray King Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue arises is as to whether Duty is payable on intermediate products viz. Brass Casted Road, manufactured at their unit own by appellant and Job Work Basis and further used in manufacture of exempted final products viz. Brass Parts of Agriculture Products which is exempted from payment of Duty - Adjudicating authority denied the exemption Notfn 67/95-C.E. in respect of intermediate products viz. Brass Casted Rod used captively for manufacture of exempted goods on the ground that exemption contained in said Notification does not apply to inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products which are exempted from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to 'NIL' rate of duty - Appellant has discharged the obligation under Rule 6(1) accordingly they are legally entitled for said exemption Notfn in respect of their intermediate product - Adjudicating Authority disputed benefit of notification only on ground that appellant have cleared their raw materials or semi-finished goods to job-worker and received intermediate goods viz., Brass Casted Rods manufactured by Job-Worker without following prescribed conditions, without preparing job- work challans and without maintaining any records - However, the said notification grants exemption to specified goods manufactured in a factory of job worker subject to only condition that supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods gives an undertaking to proper officer having Jurisdiction over factory of Job Worker - In impugned order, Adjudicating authority itself admitted that appellant has given undertaking - Therefore, benefit of said notification cannot be denied on this ground alone - Without prejudice, as regard the said issue, even if benefit of job-work notification denied to appellant, duty liability rests on job worker - Therefore, SCN demanding duty from appellant on the goods manufactured by Job-worker cannot be sustained - Since duty demand has been made on Brass Casted Rods and appellant is not a manufacturer of same, demand is not sustainable and accordingly, impugned order demanding duty from appellant is legally not correct - Demand on this count is quashed and set aside - Since the entire demand has been set aside, consequently penalties and demand of interest are also set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
