2022-TIOL-1179-CESTAT-DEL
Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - The issue involved is regarding computation of proportionate credit under rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - For the reasons stated in decision of Tribunal in Chambal Fertilisers , it has to be held that appellant had correctly reversed the proportionate amount of CENVAT credit - The two orders passed by Commissioner (A), that have been assailed, therefore, cannot be sustained and are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1178-CESTAT-MUM
Oberoi Constructions Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellants had imported "Aluminium Profile", classifying the same under Tariff Item 7604 29 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The Bills of Entry were self assessed by them and subsequently were re-assessed by department, in changing classification of product to Tariff Item 7610 90 30 ibid - The reassessment order was accepted by appellants insofar as change in classification of goods are concerned - However, appellant has assailed said re-assessment order, insofar as it had imposed redemption fine and penalties on them - Description of goods namely 'Aluminium Profiles' indicated in import documents was the same as declared by appellants in Bills of entry filed before authorities at the port of import - Insofar as change in classification of product in question is concerned, appellants bonafidely believed that product should appropriately be classified under Tariff Item 7604 29 90 ibid and accordingly, filed the Bills of entry classifying the product under said CTH - It is not the case of Revenue that appellants had mis-declared goods with an intent to evade payment of duty - Since, Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 provides for confiscation of goods in eventuality of misdeclaration of goods, which are absent in present case, redemption fine and penalty cannot be imposed on appellants - With regard to confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, Supreme Court in case of Northern Plastic Limited 2002-TIOL-1889-SC-CUS have held that when description of goods have been correctly furnished in Bills of entry, said statutory provisions do not apply for penalizing the importer-appellants - No merits found in impugned orders, insofar as imposition of redemption fine and penalty are concerned - Accordingly, impugned orders to such extent are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1177-CESTAT-MUM
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
ST - Appeals arise from unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films, in an arrangement by which several distributors participate in sharing of revenue with appellant - The tax authorities concluded that these are distinct entities rendering service in de-mutualized capacity on 'principal-to-principal' basis and do not acquire status of partners in consequence of their agreement - Tax liability for the period from 2014-15 to 2015-16 was ordered for recovery under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 along with appropriate interest under section 75 ibid besides being imposed with penalties under section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 - Issue in dispute stands resolved by decision of Tribunal in Reliance Mediaworks Limited 2022-TIOL-264-CESTAT-MUM - Following the said decision, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
