2022-TIOL-1131-CESTAT-MUM
Sequoia Capital India Advisors Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Issue involved is about denial of refund of accumulated/unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service Tax under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) - In matter of BNP Paribas India Solution Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-831-CESTAT-MUM, Tribunal while allowing the appeal of assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid have not been complied with, refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by assessee under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied - It is settled legal position that in absence of any notice for recovery as provided by Rule 14 ibid the refund claimed by assessee under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied - It has already been held by Tribunal in matter of Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. 2018-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-MUM that in such cases the nexus between input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon - The authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim of assessee - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1130-CESTAT-AHM
Ajit Marbles Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant have challenged imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 and imposition of penalty under Section 112A of Customs Act, 1962 holding that appellant have misdeclared the quantity and value of imported Polished Granite Slabs inasmuch as appellant have declared 465.000 sqm as against the actual quantity of 520.752 - Appellant have heavily relied upon the Public Notice No. 17/2010 in support of their defense - As per said Public Notice, it is absolutely clear that even if variation is up to 5% or more than 5%, value of excess weight has to be added in bills of entry and duty shall be recovered - In case of variation is above 5% not only value shall be added but the same will be adjudicated with redemption fine and penalty - Therefore, both the impugned orders were passed in accordance with Public Notice No. 17/2010 - No infirmity found in impugned orders hence the same are upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1129-CESTAT-AHM
Shreno Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The appellants are engaged in manufacture of glass and glassware items - Demand was raised on all the scrap sold by appellant value of which is reflecting in balance sheet - Appellant while giving the information, as asked by department categorically stated that they have paid excise duty on manufacturing scrap and cenvatable scrap, they also stated that on general scrap which is neither manufacturing scrap nor cenvatable scrap, they have not paid the duty - As per submission of appellant, duty is clearly not payable - Moreover, SCN was baldly issued without carrying out any investigation that whether appellant have availed Cenvat Credit in respect to scrap which were cleared without payment of duty and also the manufacturing scrap - In absence of any such investigation, allegation made in SCN is bald - It is clear that appellant have cleared scrap which is neither generated from manufacturing nor generated from cenvatable input or capital goods - Therefore, same is clearly not liable to any duty - The identical issue was raised in appellant's own case only for different period wherein taking a consistent view it was held that scrap, other than manufacturing and non cenvatable is not liable to duty - Demand raised in SCN is not sustainable, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1128-CESTAT-AHM
Meghmani Organics Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant's unit was initially an EOU unit which later on underwent debonding - During audit, it was pointed out that there was a short payment of duty amounting to Rs. 21,38,277/- being central excise duty payable on stock of goods - There is no dispute about duty and interest which were already paid by appellant on pointing out by audit - Only limited issue to be decided is that whether appellant is liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Appellant was very conscious while debonding of unit and duty so payable on stock of goods as on 03.01.2008 was calculated and paid the duty on that basis - Departmental officers have issue NOC enabling the appellant to exit from EOU status however, there are some transaction of goods from 03.01.2008 till 28.01.2008 on which also the duty by EOU was supposed to be paid - Appellant was well aware that duty due on stock was required to be paid for debonding of EOU - Though, appellant have paid duty on the stock but knowing that some goods were lying from 03.01.2008 to 28.01.2008 but have not paid the duty - This clearly shows that once the appellant have obtained NOC and unit was debonded, they intentionally avoided the payment of short duty - It is only on pointing out by audit they have paid the duty, this fact clearly shows that appellant knowing that before debonding, on all the goods lying in factory they are required to pay the duty but they consciously not paid the duty which amounts to suppression of fact on their part - Therefore, even though they paid on pointing out by audit and despite the SCN covers period of one year, they clearly fall under four corners of Section 11AC accordingly, penalty was rightly imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on appellant - Accordingly, no infirmity found in impugned order upholding the penalty under Section 11AC ibid therefore, same is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
