2022-TIOL-750-CESTAT-MUM
Cogitate Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Issue relates to rejection of refund claimed under Notfn 27/2012-CE (NT) for 4 quarters from January, 2016 to December, 2016 against unutilised CENVAT Credits accumulated on account of export of services on sole grounds of expiry of period of limitation of one year, counted from date of realisation of export proceeds - Commissioner (A) had placed complete reliance on judgment in case of Hundai Motor India Engg. (P) Ltd. and refused to acknowledge the ratio of Larger Bench judgement in case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB - Despite the fact that in case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. & others 2002-TIOL-297-CESTAT-DEL-SB a 5 Members Bench of Tribunal had made an observation as to why National Tribunal of this nature should take independent decision and follow it as judicial precedent in event of divergent opinions are made by different High Court - Impugned order to the extent of denial of a part of refund claims for all 4 quarters is hereby set aside - Appellant is entitled to get refund with applicable interest and Department is directed to pay the same within 2 months: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-749-CESTAT-KOL
Deepak Vegpro Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellants are engaged in manufacture of vanaspati/refined palm oil - They are importing crude palm oil at nil rate of duty in terms of Sl.No.30-II(A) of Notfn 21/2002-CUS as amended by Notfn 42/2008-CUS - The 'fatty acid' is not manufactured as excisable goods from crude palm oil, rather it is waste arising in course of manufacture - The Commissioner has erred in finding that they are not eligible for benefit of Notfn 89/1995-CE because they are manufacturing tin containers/HDPE jars as submitted by appellants - The Commissioner has not appreciated the fact that the tin containers/HDPE jars manufactured are also eligible for exemption under Notfn 10/1996 as submitted by appellant - The instant case is squarely covered by decision of Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Ricela Health Foods 2018-TIOL-3625-CESTAT-DEL-LB - Appellants are entitled to exemption contained in Notfn 89/1995-CE on the products which arise incidentally to manufacture of vegetable oils - The impugned order misplaced itself and the findings vis-à-vis tin containers/HDPE jars manufactured and captively consumed in the factory - Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are therefore set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-748-CESTAT-AHM
Bodal Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant bring their raw material in barrels and drums and after using raw material, empty barrels and drums are cleared on sale from their premises - Revenue is seeking reversal of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - Issue is squarely covered by decision of Tribunal in case of CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD 2022-TIOL-556-CESTAT-AHM - Relying on said decision, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-747-CESTAT-AHM
Janki Dass Rice Mills Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had exported Rice under disputed Shipping Bills which were originally booked for Iran, but investigation revealed that the consignments were delivered to UAE and hence violated the provisions of para 2.40 and 2.53 of Foreign Trade Policy - Accordingly, SCN was issued to appellant - The whole case revolves around irregularities in respect of receipt of currency with regard to exported goods - These violations relate to post export conditions - There is no doubt that any violation relating to foreign exchange are covered under FEMA, 1999 and not under Customs Act - Though the SCN invoked Section 113(d) and 113(i) of Customs Act but these provisions were invoked by only alleging violation of para 2.53 of FTP and section 8 of FEMA, 1999 - There was no violation of Customs Act in any manner - There is no dispute about description of goods, its quantity and value - The export of rice was neither prohibited nor restricted - It is a well settled law that in respect of alleged violation of foreign exchange, it is the erstwhile FERA authorities or FEMA authorities who are competent to initiate the proceedings against party - With regard to violations of Exim policy, adjudication can be done only by authorities notified under section 13 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation Act), 1992 - Hence, since it was only a case of alleged violation of provisions of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation Act) and rules made there under as well as that of Foreign Exchange Management Act, the Customs authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue the SCN for said violation. In respect of appeal filed by M/s. V. Arjoon, CHA and M/s Venus clearing Agency, it is found that the CHA had filed shipping bills as per documents provided to him by exporter - Further, M/s Venus was working on instructions of exporter - Therefore, bonafide act of appellants cannot be doubted - Further, since it is held that the goods were ultimately delivered to buyers at Iran, there is no justification for imposing penalty upon appellants, therefore, penalty imposed on all the co-appellants is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
