2022-TIOL-1217-HC-MAD-CUS
Ramasamy Krishnamoorthy Vs DRI
Cus - DRI issued summons under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 to petitioner and seized the vehicle under mahazar - The seized vehicle was kept under custody of Anamallais Toyota Service Centre - This Court is unaware as to the identity or otherwise of facts with the facts in the case dealt with by Telangana High Court - That apart, order of provisional release has also, as on date, become final - However, there is no bar and revenue would agree on this, for the petitioner to seek modification of conditions imposed by Commissioner and attempt to persuade Commissioner to vary the conditions imposed originally - Pending Writ Petition, a SCN is also stated to have been issued to petitioner and proceedings for adjudication are stated to be ongoing - Petitioner shall cooperate in same and both parties shall ensure that proceedings are completed at the very earliest - As far as present Petition is concerned, much water has flown under bridge from the time of issuance of seizure memo, with which this Petition has been rendered infructuous: HC
- Petition closed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-875-CESTAT-MUM
JSW Steel Salav Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of copy of O-I-O - Revenue was of the view that availment of Cenvat credit on basis of O-I-O was not proper as per Rules 3 & 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Appellant has not paid any excise duty for which they are required to make claim for refund of duty - It is the case where certain credit taken by them was sought to be denied and during proceedings for denial of such Cenvat Credit, appellant reversed the entire credit sought to be disallowed to them - Subsequently major portion of such credit has been allowed to them - On this very ground case is distinguishable from the facts of BDH Industries Ltd. 2008-TIOL-1211-CESTAT-MUM-LB - The manner in which second round of proceedings has gone as per O-I-O adjudicating the SCNs issued to appellant in first round to nullity - This is not prescribed by law - If Revenue had any objection to O-I-O they should have preferred an appeal before appropriate authority - By way of issuing second SCN they could not have denied benefit granted to appellant in first round of proceedings: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-874-CESTAT-DEL
Rayban Sun Optics India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Appeal filed challenging the impugned order by which refund of interest deposited by appellant has been denied to them - It is apparent that interest has been paid by appellant under protest only that too after issuance of Memorandum-cum-notice of demand to them for non-payment of interest in terms of adjudicating order - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 makes it clear that an application for refund of duty of excise has to be made in prescribed form before expiry of one year from relevant date - No doubt, appellant became entitled to claim said refund post the Final Order of Tribunal dated 31.3.2012, however, admittedly Revenue filed an appeal against that order before High Court of Rajasthan who dismissed that appeal - Refund claim has been filed, post this dismissal of Revenue's appeal, on 16.5.2017 - So from the angle of time bar issue as invoked by Department, period of one year as per Section 11B(B)(ec) ibid is the date of decision of High Court and not the date of Final Order of Tribunal, as the appeal before High Court of Rajasthan being the one filed by Department - Hence, findings of authority below rejecting the refund as time barred are totally misplaced - Otherwise also, admittedly payment of interest was made pursuant to direction of Departmental Authorities after the issuance of Memorandum-cum-notice of demand therefore it cannot be considered as voluntary payment and has to be treated as payment under protest and Section 11B proviso is clear enough to say that limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty/interest on such duty has been paid under protest - Invoking of limitation issue is absolutely unjustified on the part of authorities below - Lastly, since the refund claim of duty deposited by appellant has been granted by Tribunal by its order dated 29.6.2021 in appellant's own case, therefore on the same lines the refund of interest on aforesaid duty is also to be allowed as it was filed prior in time i.e. on 16.05.2017: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-873-CESTAT-AHM
Gurjar Gravures Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Issue to be decided is that whether appellant's products, namely, 'Perforated Nickel Cylinders (Screen)' is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2011-C.E. - Very same issue has been decided by Tribunal in the matter of Stovec Industries Limited - From said decision, it can be seen that issue involved and facts related thereto are absolutely identical, accordingly, ratio of said decision is directly applicable to present case - Consequently, appellant is entitled for exemption Notification No. 6/2011-C.E. and subsequent exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. - As regard the heavy reliance placed by Revenue in case of Harish Industries Engineers , in said case, limited issue decided by Tribunal is classification of goods - However, dispute related to eligibility of exemption notification which has been conclusively decided by Tribunal - Therefore, decision in case of Harish Industries Engineer is clearly distinguished - Since appellant is entitled for exemption Notfn, impugned orders are not sustainable - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-872-CESTAT-HYD
OSI Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - Issue involved is denial of refund of Cenvat credit with regard to service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism after 30.06.2017 - Under transitional provision under section 142(3) of CGST Act, limitation has been done away with and the only thing required for refund is to see whether unjust enrichment is attracted - No unjust enrichment is attracted as appellant have admittedly paid service tax in August, 2018 out of their own pocket - Adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 60 days along with interest under section 11BB of CEA, 1944: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-871-CESTAT-HYD
Sri Swami Hathiramji Vs CCT & C
ST - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order, whereby their appeal was rejected as time-barred - Original authority passed an order against which appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (A) with a delay of 302 days stating that concerned accountant suffered serious illness resulting in delay - Section 35 of CEA, 1944 places limitation on extent to which delay can be condoned by Commissioner (A) - He cannot condone delay of more than one month - There is no provision in this Section for either Tribunal or any other authority to condone delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (A) in excess of one month - Impugned order is correct and legal and needs to be upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal rejected: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-870-CESTAT-AHM
PSL Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Case of the department is that HDPE compounded with 2% carbon black is not eligible for exemption under Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - The facts in the case cited by appellant and in present case are absolutely identical inasmuch as in present case also the HDPE contains 2% Carbon Black - Department has denied exemption on the ground that exemption is available only to HDPE and not for HDPE compound whereas in present case the HDPE is compounded with 2% Carbon - In the absence of any support for conclusion that product imported by appellant has been chemically modified or it is not known as HDPE in market, benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 477 has to be extended to appellant - Impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
