2022-TIOL-793-CESTAT-KOL
Kiswok Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of castings and cast articles of iron, pipe fittings - They availed CENVAT Credit on M.S. rod cuttings supplied by supplier - Department entertained a view that supplier i.e., consignor of said goods did not undertake any manufacturing activity and hence was not liable to charge and pay central excise duty - A SCN was issued to deny CENVAT Credit availed by appellant on strength of invoices issued by supplier - The jurisdictional Commissioner of said vendor has dropped the entire proceedings which has been duly upheld by Tribunal as well as High Court - Therefore, no reason found to deny claim of CENVAT Credit in hands of appellant who is recipient of impugned goods from said manufacturer - Further, legal position already stands decided in favor of appellant that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on input on the ground that activity undertaken by appellant does not amount to manufacture when he has admittedly deposited output duty on final product - Impugned Order cannot be legally sustained and is hence set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-792-CESTAT-KOL
Hari Manthan Jewellery House Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - By the impugned common order, Appellate Commissioner has rejected six appeals and upheld the Adjudication Order wherein adjudicating authority had confiscated seized goods i.e. 3 pieces of gold bars under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed respective penalties upon appellants - Appellant Vikash Agarwal, Proprietor of Agarwal Gold House has duly discharged his burden of proof under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 by producing his books of accounts, purchase invoices and bank statements in support of his statements that gold seized from appellant Mohanlal @ Ram, his employee, was part of his legally purchased/ procured gold in course of his legitimate business - Appellant M/s. Ambika Jewellers of Patna and M/s. Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi alongwith it's Director Davender Kumar had confirmed their respective deals with Agarwal Gold House and had also produced their respective books of accounts and purchase invoices from Bank or authorized bullion dealers before DRI at the very first instance, which could not be denied by authorities below - There is nothing on-record from investigating and/or adjudicating authority to controvert the evidences produced by appellants - Order of confiscation of seized gold weighing 1958.240 gms. under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 only on suspicion and presumption, is bad in law and cannot sustain and hence, same is set aside with consequential relief to claimant/ Appellant Sri Vikash Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Gold House - Consequently, penalties imposed upon appellants under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, are also set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-791-CESTAT-MUM
Freudenberg Filtration Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The appellant, in TRAN-1 reported 'carry forward' of credit balance as reflected in original return - Of differential amount of Rs. 20,23,545, amount claimed as refund on account of 'inputs' was Rs. 12,86,702 and Rs. 2,41,822 towards 'input services' - The total claim was sought under section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 - The lower authorities held that transitional provisions permitted 'carry forward' of credit into new scheme and that in absence of specific mechanism in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for monetization of credit, the balance that had not been carried forward could not be refunded to them - It would appear that lower authorities had attempted to dispose off the claim without benefit of decisions of Tribunal or constitutional courts - Matter remanded to be decided afresh by original authority taking into consideration this, or any order or judgement, in similar circumstances - Appellant shall be granted opportunity to make their submissions following which claim may be disposed off expeditiously: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
