2022-TIOL-815-CESTAT-DEL
TRS Logistics Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order by which Customs Broker License of appellant has been revoked with forfeiture of whole amount of security deposited by appellant and a fine has also been imposed - Appellant has submitted that Commissioner had sent a letter requiring them to file a representation to Inquiry Report and they had filed the same but Commissioner has noted in order that it was not filed - Matter is remitted to Commissioner for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the representation: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-814-CESTAT-DEL
CC Vs HLPL Global Pvt Ltd
Cus - A SCN was issued to M/s. Saay Exim Pvt. Ltd. and 21 others noticees but two respondents were not issued SCN - However, a corrigendum was issued to aforesaid SCN wherein names of two respondents were included for service of SCN - During adjudication, two respondents appeared and stated that since SCNs had not been issued to them, penalty cannot be imposed - Respondents categorically stated that only corrigendum was served on them without SCN and it is during hearing that respondents were served with SCN - They also stated that SCN does not contain allegations against two respondents - SCN was adjudicated - Penalty was imposed upon M/s. HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - It is against this order that two respondents filed appeals before Commissioner (A) who found as the fact that corrigendum alone was served upon two respondents and it was during personal hearing that SCN was served upon two respondents, but it did not contain allegations against them - Commissioner (A) allowed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner so far it related to imposition of penalty upon them - Penalty could not have been imposed upon two respondents if opportunity was not provided to two respondents to file a reply to SCN - This apart, SCN also does not contain any allegation against two respondents - No infirmity found in order passed by Commissioner (A): CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-813-CESTAT-DEL
Pr.CCGST & CE Vs Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd
CX - Appeal has been filed by Revenue assailing impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) modified the order of lower authority reducing proportionate credit to be recovered from assessee - Case of Revenue is that since part of electricity is transferred to sister unit, inputs used in generating it to that extent is an input for the sister unit as it is relatable to goods manufactured by it and they are not inputs relatable to final products of assessee - Each unit is separately registered and is a separate assessee as far as central excise is concerned - To the extent the electricity is sold to outsiders, assessee has reversed CENVAT credit - On identical issue, High Court of Rajasthan had, in Shree Cements Ltd. , allowed CENVAT credit on inputs used in production of electricity which is supplied free of cost to assessee's sister unit - A bench of Tribunal has also taken similar view in Sanghi Industries 2014-TIOL-996-CESTAT-AHM , Bilag Industries 2014-TIOL-1359-CESTAT-AHM and Hindustan Zinc Ltd . 2015-TIOL-227-CESTAT-DEL - No reason found to take a different view in this case - Accordingly, assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent the inputs are used for production of electricity which is transferred free of cost to its sister unit - Accordingly, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal rejected: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-812-CESTAT-MUM
Meegale Pneumatics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant disputes the recovery ordered under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, along with appropriate interest, and penalties imposed under Rule 15 of Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of CER, 2002 by - The disputed credit is attributable to 'inputs' stored at premises that, though not included in registration, was pending for approval of such inclusion - Considering that approval was granted, and though belatedly, without any objections thereto, it is cause for wonderment that such delay was tolerated by supervisory authority - It is also no less surprising that officials engaged in 'EA 2000 Audit' did not consider it necessary to ascertain cause of such 'unalloyed' breach of conditions; perhaps the nomenclature, permanently linked to its conception, is responsible for depriving it of robustness that audit should be imbued with if it is to have continued relevance - Authority concerned would do well to give some thought to this - Adjudicating Commissioner, despite taking note of facts narrated in response to SCN, preferred to gloss over unexplained delay on the part of his own organization and consequential illegitimizing of availment credit, has, in what can be charitably described, disposed the adjudicating obligation mechanically - It would also appear that substantive difference between insistence upon conditions of exemption notification and scheme of credit has not been appreciated by adjudicating authority - There is no allegation of mis-utilization of input goods or that these were used for manufacture of non-entitled output goods - Therefore, it is not appropriate to uphold the impugned order in light of factual circumstances in which inputs were stored 'inappropriately' - Consequently, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-811-CESTAT-MUM
Eclerx Services Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant aggrieved by impugned order ordering recovery of tax payable under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 along with applicable interest under section 75 ibid besides being imposed penalty of like amount under section 78 ibid, is in appeal with the plea that adjudication order had failed to appreciate that services rendered by them to M/s Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt Ltd was not taxable owing to privileges conferred upon recipient by SEZ Act, 2005 - Required documentation was not available for entire period of dispute but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that at some point, eligibility did exist - The procedural infirmities, for a shorter or longer time, does not in any way supplant the exemption accorded to impugned supply of services - Furthermore, findings of adjudicating authority do not arrive at a conclusion but for said procedural infirmities, eligibility of appellant to render such services without payment of tax was in question - Overriding nature of exemption afforded by section 26 of SEZ Act, 2005 and breach of conditions being procedural, demand pertaining to rendering of services is set aside - Next issue concerns finding that services had been rendered in India and consumed in India - Definition of export in SEZ Act, 2005 is substantially different from that in rules which delineate 'exports' from 'domestic supply' in scheme of service tax law and in view of section 51 of SEZ Act, 2005, have to be read in context of exemption afforded by section 26 of SEZ Act, 2005 and not in terms of Finance Act, 1994 - Consequently, prism through which adjudicatory perception has been enunciated does not apply to facts of service rendered by appellant - Accordingly, demand for allegedly rendering of services within India does not sustain - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-810-CESTAT-AHM
Nabros Pharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant is in appeal against confirmation of demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty - There is no dispute that there is a liability of service tax on reverse charge basis on services obtained by appellant from persons located abroad - Only issue before Tribunal is if an extended period of limitation can be invoked in these circumstances or not - Appellant has claimed that there was a bona fide doubt in their minds regarding liability to service tax - They were paying service tax during period 2003 onwards on reverse charge basis on similar services obtained by them - They thereafter did not pay service tax during disputed period - Decision in case of Indian National Shipowners Association 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST clarified all doubts in year 2009 - Appellant had shown service tax liability in their balance sheet and same has not been disputed - Also it is seen in case of Jayshree Impex 2019-TIOL-1079-CESTAT-AHM relied by revenue, issue of revenue neutrality has not been raised by appellant - Services of sales commission are ordinarily admissible as cenvat credit to manufacturers and therefore present situation would be revenue neutral - Intention to evade duty cannot be alleged against appellant and consequently extended period of limitation could not be invoked - Consequently, impugned order is set aside : CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
