2022-TIOL-971-CESTAT-MUM
CC Vs Aiges India Marketing Pvt Ltd
Cus - The only grievance for which Revenue has come in appeal is that since the provisions of Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 are special and provisions of Section 112 are general, order of adjudicating authority that, no penalty is levied on importer firm under section 114A as he has already penalized under section 112(a), is not legal and proper - As per proviso, penalty could not be imposed under this section if same has been imposed under Section 112(a) - Since in his order, Commissioner has held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962 and confiscated them and allowed them to be released on redemption fine, Commissioner perfectly justified in imposing penalty under Section 112(a) on respondent - Once he has imposed penalty under Section 112(a), in view of proviso, penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed - No merits found in this appeal, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-970-CESTAT-DEL
Shree Flavours LLP Vs CCT (CE & GST)
CX - The availment of Cenvat Credit to appellant has been denied relying upon Rule 7 C of Cenvat Credit Rules pre as well as post amendment - Since Rule 7C has been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and period of impugned demand is till 30.06.2016 the amended Rule 7C is not applicable in view of decision of Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-2688-HC-MUM-CX - Since appellant is observed to be dealing with same product, though an ingredient thereof, as that being manufactured by ISD finally and for which the service in question was availed, hence even though service precisely was not used in appellant premises but in different premises of ISD Cenvat Credit cannot be denied by invoking rule 7 C of Cenvat Credit Rules - Appellant was manufacturing an inseparable essential ingredient for final product of ISD that input service of sales agent availed by ISD for promotion of tobacco is held to have rightly been distributed to appellant - Coming to point of invoking of extended period of limitation while issuing SCN, it is observed that there is no denial to fact that appellant was regularly filing ER Returns - The returns contained all requisite details as that of invoice numbers, amount of invoice, amount of service tax - Nothing has stopped Department to look into those invoices - Accordingly, allegation of suppression of facts against appellant are without any basis - SCN should have been issued in normal period of limitation - Since the SCN is issued after an expiry of period of more than 2 years, same is held to be barred by time - Order of Commissioner (A) is not sustainable, same is hereby set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-969-CESTAT-MAD
V V Titanium Pigments Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - The issue that requires to be analysed is, whether the date of one year has to be computed from date of resubmission of refund claim or date of original submission of claim - Date of original submission has to be taken for computing the period of one year as it is the date on which appellant has filed the claim initially - Claim has been returned and not processed and rejected by department - When the claim is returned for resubmission, appellant is allowed to make the required rectification - On such score, rejection of refund claim on the ground that same is time-barred when computed from date of resubmission of refund claim is erroneous and requires to be set aside - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
