2022-TIOL-1060-CESTAT-AHM
Radhe Industries Vs CC
Cus - The goods imported by appellant is FRP rods which is not under dispute even by department - Department sought to classify said product under Tariff Item 7019 90 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The Tariff Item 7019 90 90 ibid is in respect of Glass Fibre - The product imported by appellant is FRP rod and CTH claimed by them is Tariff Item 7002 20 90 ibid - From the said entry, it is clear that Heading 7002 ibid is meant for product manufactured out of glass fibre - The glass fibre is raw material and product in question is final product - Hence, undoubtedly both items are entirely different and clearly classifiable under Tariff Item 7002 20 90 ibid - Since the FRP rods clearly specified against Tariff entry of 7002 by any stretch of imagination the same cannot be classified under Tariff Item 7019 90 90 ibid as held by lower authority - Moreover, in view of Supreme Court judgment in Kemrock Industries & Exports Ltd 2007-TIOL-52-SC-CX the product is classifiable under chapter 39 however, it is clear that under any situation the FRP rods cannot be classified under Tariff Item 7019 90 90 ibid - If this so then Anti dumping duty which is levied on goods falling under Tariff Item 7019 09 00 ibid is not applicable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1059-CESTAT-AHM
Jay Gurudev Construction Company Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is in appeal against demand of Service Tax, interest and imposition of penalty - Issue involved is, if the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. for the period 2005-06 and 2007-08 - The benefit has been denied by Commissioner (A) on the ground that appellant has failed to produce any evidence of purchase of material in respect of which deduction has been claimed under Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. or 1/2006-S.T. - Appellant has purchased some raw materials however exact quantum of same may not be ascertainable - Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. or for that matter 01/2006-ST, does not require proof of purchase of raw material to the extent of abatement - Denying the benefit of these notifications, for the reason that quantum of purchase shown profit and loss account does not match invoices produced by the appellant is improper and incorrect - Appellants are entitled to benefit of abatement under said Notfns - Matter remanded to original Adjudicating Authority for purpose of recalculation of demand: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1058-CESTAT-KOL
Zaloni Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant is exclusively engaged in export of services under head "Information Technology Software Services" in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Refund claim of appellant was rejected on the ground that services rendered by them do not meet the criteria under Clause (f) of Rule 6A(1) ibid inasmuch as it is an overseas branch office of Zaloni Inc. and are merely establishments of distinct persons in accordance with Explanation 3(b) of Section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 - Issue is no more res integra and has already been decided by Gujarat High Court in case of Linde Engineering India Pvt.Ltd. 2020-TIOL-1285-HC-AHM-ST - Supreme Court in case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. 2012-TIOL-132-SC-IT has held that a subsidiary and its parent company located in different taxable territories are totally distinct taxpayer (s) or different entities - Further, Gujarat High Court in said case has held that explanation 3(b) under Clause (44) of Section 65B ibid has been considered and it has been held that service provided by a company in India to its Hundred percent holding company abroad cannot be considered as an establishment of a distinct person and therefore such services would be export of services - Further, appellant received the charges for their services in convertible foreign exchange - Therefore by following the ratio of said decisions and considering the fact that appellant and service recipient are two distinct persons, service provided by appellant to Zaloni Inc., USA clearly falls under the category of export of service - Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are therefore set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1057-CESTAT-AHM
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Assessee is in appeal against denial of refund of PLA balance laying in their own account - Issue involved is applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund of balance amount laying in PLA account - The appellant have relied on decision of Tribunal's own case vide Order 2022-TIOL-578-CESTAT-AHM - Relying on aforesaid decision in appellant's own case, the appeal is allowed: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1056-CESTAT-DEL
Dindayal Industries Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - A SCN was issued to assessee demanding duty on the goods lost in fire, further proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 alongwith interest - The incidence of fire and loss of goods due to fire are undisputed - Fire was caused due to sparks, which have come out from the transformer due to stormy weather condition - On such fire incidence, assessee had no control nor such incidence were avoidable on their part - Assessee was manufacturing since 1992 at the said premises and this was the first incidence of fire, which has occurred - Further, as per report of Fire Department, no case of negligence has been made out against assessee - Loss has occurred including loss of finished goods due to natural causes and/or by unavoidable fire accident and further the partially damaged goods were rendered unfit for human consumption being medicines, and were also unfit for marketing - Assessee is entitled to remission as provided under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Consequently, demand of duty of matching amount is also set aside alongwith penalty: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
