2022-TIOL-1156-CESTAT-MUM
Atlantic Bay Shipping Company Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal of appellant for noncompliance with requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant submitted that for filing of appeal before Tribunal, appellant has already deposited 10% of disputed amount confirmed against them - Since Commissioner (A) has not discussed the merits of case and simply dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with requirement of Section 35F ibid, matter should go back to Commissioner (A) for a decision on merits - Opportunity of personal hearing be afforded to appellant before deciding the case afresh: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1155-CESTAT-DEL
Globus Infocomm Ltd Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The differential duty was confirmed on the ground that appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 2/2005-Cus. for the basic customs duty - As far as additional duty of customs is concerned, it is to be paid at the rates indicated in Central Excise Tariff - The goods in question were leviable to central excise duty on the basis of Retail Sales Price (RSP) because they were notified under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and appellant paid Additional Duty of Customs declaring RSP - A new plea of change of classification to Tariff Item 8471 41 90 Central Excise Tariff is raised by appellant before Tribunal which was neither raised before Principal Commissioner nor was it considered in impugned order - This claim of classification is significant as, according to appellant, tariff rate for Basic Customs Duty itself will be NIL and exemption notification in dispute becomes irrelevant - It is also significant because of claim of appellant that goods falling under Tariff Item 8471 41 90 ibid are not covered by Section 3A of Central Excise Act read with Legal Metrology Rules and therefore, Additional Duty of Customs does not have to be determined as per RSP - If it is so, then allegation of misdeclaration of RSP will require re-examination - Additional Duty of Customs may also have to be re-determined - Principal Commissioner should get an opportunity to examine this claim for classification under Tariff Item 8471 41 90 ibid which the appellant has now made and consequential effects on demand of duty, effect of alleged mis-declaration of RSP, confiscation, fine and penalty: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1154-CESTAT-DEL
Jaisawal Neco Industries Ltd Vs Pr.CCT & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether the provisions of Rule 3(5)(B) of CCR, 2004 are attracted in case of making a general provision in books of account for slow moving/non moving inventory, without reducing the value of such inventory - Appellant have only created a general provision for slow/non-moving inventory and have admittedly not written of inventory from inventory or the asset account - In actuality, such provision have been made by appropriation in profit and loss account, without writing of any amount/value from the asset/inventory account - Rule 3(5B) of CCR is attracted only when the value of asset and/or inventory is written off fully or partially or wherein any specific provision to write off a fully or partially has been made in books of account - Appellant have made a general provision, which is not attributable to any particular asset/inventory - Admittedly, revenue have not been able to identify the details of inventory or asset, for which general provision has been made - Appellant have demonstrated that such provision has been made year to year by way of increasing or reducing the provision, depending on usage of inventory as required - Impugned order is set aside - The ground of limitation raised is left open: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1153-CESTAT-AHM
Jay Dan Gigev Welding Works Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue to be decided is that the appellant's product, i.e., power driven pump (Water Turbine Pumps) being not in conformation to BIS standard and they do not possess ISI certificate to this effect, whether the product is eligible for SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 8/2006-C.E. - Admittedly, appellant's product is not in conformation to BIS standard as specified in notification - They have not obtained any ISI certificate - Therefore, exemption of SSI Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. as amended, is not admissible to appellant - As regards the cum-duty price claimed by appellant, as of now the issue has been settled that in any case where the duty is demanded, principle of cum-duty price shall be applicable - Appellant is entitled for cum-duty price benefit - Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority shall recalculate the duty by extending benefit of cum-duty price - Since duty shall be re-quantified, appellant shall be entitled to option of reduced penalty of 25% subject to payment of re-quantified duty, interest, if any and 25% penalty within one month from the date of communication of re-quantified duty to be made by Adjudicating Authority to appellant: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
