2022-TIOL-1147-CESTAT-AHM
Alicid Organic Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is that whether the conversion of waste oil/sludge into reclaimed fuel oil/re-refining used oil amounts to manufacture as per Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 and classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting Central Excise duty or otherwise - The demand is for subsequent period whereas on the same issue for earlier period, case has been decided in favour of appellant by Tribunal - From the said decision, it is clear that except for different period, issue is identical which has been settled in said order - Therefore, following the same, impugned order is not sustainable, accordingly, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1146-CESTAT-MAD
Arkkays National Engineering And Foundry Company Unit-I Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue arises is, whether credits availed on bank charges and Chartered Accountant services are eligible - In regard to bank charges, Department has denied the credit alleging that appellant has not taken Input Service Distributor registration - The High Court of Gujarat has upheld decision of Tribunal in case of Dashion Ltd. 2016-TIOL-111-HC-AHM-ST - The said decision was relied by High Court of Madras in Pricol Ltd. 2021-TIOL-331-HC-MAD-CX - It was held by jurisdictional High Court that there is nothing in statutory rules to disentitle an unregistered input service distributor from availing cenvat credit and that non-taking registration is only a procedural error which is curable - Denial of credit on the ground that appellant has not taken Input Service Distributor registration in respect of Bank charges and Chartered Accountant services cannot sustain - Department does not dispute the collection of bank charges by bank for services provided by them - Merely because the credit is availed on bank advice / bank statement credit cannot be denied unless there is discrepancy in these documents - It is submitted that there is no discussion on this allegation either in O-I-O or impugned order - Mere allegation in SCN cannot be a ground to deny credit - Disallowance of credit alleging that appellant has availed credit on debit advices/bank statements is not legal and proper - The credit in respect of Chartered Accountant services has been denied alleging that bills are not issued in name of appellant, but has been issued in name of an individual and other units of appellant - Appellant has furnished these bills before Tribunal - After mentioning the name of company, name of Kartha Mr. Ashok Ramchand Bulchandani has also been mentioned - This will not make the bills issued in name of an individual - Denial of credit alleging that these bills are issued in name of individual and in the name of other units of appellant is factually incorrect - Denial of credit on Chartered Accountant cannot be sustained - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1145-CESTAT-DEL
Krishnakunj Developers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
ST - The issue in this appeal is, whether on the refund granted is unjust enrichment applies - Appellant have not passed on the burden of tax to any third person or to buyer of flats - It is the appellant who has borne the burden of tax - It does not make any difference whether the amount is debited in profit and loss account or it is shown as amount receiveable on asset side in balance sheet, in either case the burden falls on appellant only - Appellant has passed the test of unjust enrichment - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1144-CESTAT-KOL
Suman Bairagi Vs CC
Cus - The O-I-O dated 28.02.2019 was communicated to appellant on 07.03.2019 and accordingly he was required to file Appeal before the First Appellate Authority within 60 (sixty) days i.e. on or before 07.05.2019, but however, appeal was filed only on 31.05.2019 i.e. after expiry of statutory period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of communication of order - Though the appellant had filed appeal beyond statutory period of 60 (sixty) days, but it was filed within the condonable period of 30(thirty) days - However, Commissioner (A) chose not to condone the delay and rejected the appeal before him without going into the merits of case - Limitation period has been calculated from the date of order instead of date of communication of order - Tribunal condone the delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (A) and find it appropriate to remand the matter for deciding the appeal on merits without further visiting the aspect of limitation: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT |
