2022-TIOL-879-CESTAT-AHM
Olive Health Care Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant have sold Physician Sample of PP medicine on Principle to Principle basis to Brand Owner - The valuation under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was correctly done by appellant - The proposal by department that valuation should have been done by appellant on pro-rata of MRP is not applicable for the reason that such valuation was already opted by appellant in case of removal of goods manufactured on job work basis for the reason that said transaction does not involve sale - Since the transaction is clearly of sale on Principle to Principle basis, principle of pro rata of MRP shall not apply - In case of manufacture and sale of Physician Sample, valuation is governed under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA, 1944 - Therefore, issue is no longer res- integra - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-878-CESTAT-HYD
KPR Fertilizers Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
CX - A SCN was issued to assessee proposing to classify micronutrients manufactured by assessee as plant growth regulators under Tariff Item 3808 93 04 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff and consequently recover differential duty under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB ibid - It was further proposed to impose penalty on them under section 11AC and under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 - Clearly, macronutrients, micronutrients and plant growth regulators are three distinct known to agricultural experts, as known in market and as clarified by CBEC - The formulations as presented clearly show that assessee's products indeed, had Nitrogen or Phosphorous or Potassium or more than one of these three as an ingredient in them - Nothing found in Chapter note 6 to Chapter 31 which says that Nitrogen, Phosphorous & Potassium cannot be part of chelating agents or chelating agents are not essential ingredients - No reason found to go merely by assertion of revenue - Since one of these elements is available, classification of goods under Heading 3105 ibid is clearly sustainable - The alternative classification as plant growth regulators is not sustainable - Dispute is regarding classification viz., opinion of assessee versus the opinion of Revenue and it is not a case of fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement - No ground, whatsoever, exists for invoking extended period of limitation - Similarly, there is no ground, whatsoever, to impose any penalty - Appeal allowed in favour of assessee both on merits and on limitation: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-877-CESTAT-MUM
Ishanika Impex Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein Commissioner (A) had dismissed their appeal filed before him on the ground of limitation since there was delay of 23 days in filing appeal - Condonation of delay by Commissioner (A) is a discretionary power that can only be exercised favourably in the event sufficient cause is shown for such delay - Therefore, in absence of proof of delivery of appeal memo allegedly sent through Postal Department by appellant, interference by this Tribunal in the order passed by Commissioner (A) is uncalled for - Hence, impugned order is hereby confirmed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-876-CESTAT-KOL
Pragati Agri Products Ltd Vs CCGST & Excise
ST - The assessee is in appeal against impugned order, whereby Commissioner (A) has allowed the Department's appeal by disallowing Rs. 70,980/-, which was sanctioned by Adjudicating authority - Said issue is no more res integra and same is a settled proposition of law - Refund in respect of services availed by them at the port of export is available to exporter - Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. has been given retrospective effect by amendment Notification No. 01/2016-S.T. - In view of Notifications as have been brought to notice as on day and have simultaneously being conceded by Department, it is held that all these Notfns were not available to adjudicating authorities below - When present matter came before Commissioner (A), he had no occasion to verify BRC, which was received by appellant as impugned order was passed ex-parte - Accordingly, in view of subsequent amendments, which have been given retrospective effect and details as submitted by appellant, which entitled the appellant for rebate, order in hand is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (A), who could decide both the issues: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
