2022-TIOL-836-CESTAT-AHM
Megamet Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - A ppellant have paid excess duty on excess quantity of goods not lifted from SEZ and subsequently, department has amended the bills of entry in respect of actual quantities lifted by appellant - Amendment was made under Section 149 of Customs Act - The refund arises only after amendment of bills of entry therefore, relevant period of one year should be reckoned from the date of amendment and not from the date of actual payment of duty - Similar issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of Keshari Steels 2003-TIOL-191-HC-MUM-CUS wherein, it was held that if refund is arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error under Section 154 of Customs Act, period of one year provided under Section 27 is not applicable to such case - Said judgment has been upheld by Supreme Court - Period of limitation should be reckoned from date of amendment in bills of entry - Since the appellant have filed refund claim within one year from date of amendment which is well within time accordingly, refund cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-835-CESTAT-KOL
Tinplate Company Of India Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellants had submitted their respective refund claims for refund of Service Tax paid on specified services used for export of goods under certain Bills of Entry as per Notfn 41/2012-ST - A claim may contain one shipping bill or more than one shipping bill, however, no restriction has been imposed on number of shipping bills to be covered in each claim - Only requirement is that the details of shipping bills vis-a-vis details of goods exported and details of specified services used for such export have to be furnished - Further, it was observed that in Form A-1, details of shipping bill/bill of export, details of goods exported, details of specified services used for export of goods, documents evidencing payment of service tax and total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate have to be furnished - Therefore, claim is not shipping bill wise only that the details have to be furnished separately for each shipping bill - Para 3 of Notification does not impose any condition which requires the claims to be filed shipping bill wise - Further, total amount of service tax paid which is claimed as rebate has to be shown in figure and as a percentage of total FOB value in shipping bill - This goes on to show that it is not shipping bill specific when more than one shipping bills are involved in a claim - Therefore, there is no requirement to determine FOB value shipping bill wise to determine the formula under Para 1(c) or Para 3 of Notfn - On reading Para 1 in conjunction with para 3, it is evident that rebate under Para 3 may be claimed for more than one shipping bill in a single claim without going for filing separate claim for each shipping bill - On perusal of Notfn 41/2012-ST as amended by Notfn 01/2016-ST specified services means taxable services that have been used beyond the factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of said goods and refund of service tax paid on such specified services are eligible: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-834-CESTAT-MUM
Western Coalfields Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order which, under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, has determined that appellant was liable to tax on total recovery effected in their several areas between July 2012 and March 2016 being consideration for 'declared service' enumerated in section 66E (e) of Finance Act, 1994 - In addition, adjudicating authority charged interest on said differential tax liability under section 75 of Act, 1994 besides imposing penalties under section 77 and 78 of Act - Issue in dispute stands covered by decision of Tribunal in South Eastern Coalfields 2020-TIOL-1711-CESTAT-DEL - An acceptable, and judicially distinguishable, alternative has not been brought by Revenue - Respectfully abiding by earlier decision of Tribunal, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-833-CESTAT-AHM
USV Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of medicaments and exporting their products under bond and also clearing excisable goods for home consumption - The limited issue to be decided is that whether refund claim filed under Rule 5 r/w Notfn 27/2012- CE (NT) by appellant on 05.06.2013 for quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012 is time bar - The time limit prescribed under Section 11B is clearly applicable in respect of refund governed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notfn 27/2012-CE - For the period April, 2012 to June, 2012, refund claim has to be filed after completion of quarter i.e in the month of July, 2012 - Admittedly, refund claim was filed on 05.06.2013 - It is clearly established that refund claim was filed within 1 year from due date even if it is taken as 1st July, 2012 - Accordingly, refund was filed well within the time limit of 1 year as prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Therefore, same is clearly not time barred - Hence, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-832-CESTAT-MUM
Yash Logisys Vs Pr.CC
Cus - Appellant is accused of having knowledge of undervaluation committed by importer and that he has not kept the Department informed and thus they have violated provisions of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of CBLR, 2018 - It is the case of appellant that copy of offence report/information against appellant was not provided; suspension was ordered after lapse of around one year; while the custom broker at Kandla was allowed, by revoking suspension, to continue his business, appellant has been met to suffer - Department has not made out any case for suspension of custom broker license, as action was too much delayed and therefore does not display any urgency - Moreover, serious injustice was done to appellant in comparison with custom broker at Mundra - Impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside and suspension of appellant-custom broker's license is revoked: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
