2022-TIOL-1185-CESTAT-AHM
Colour Boy Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant is engaged in providing services in regard of construction work of stadium to M/s. Rajkot and not paid any service tax - Impugned order upholds the confirmation of demand of service tax however, directs the lower authority to grant benefit of Notfn 01/2006 as claimed by appellant - The order with said direction to lower authority has not been challenged by appellant - The appellant has only challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 76,77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - In view of decision in case of FIRST FLIGHT COURIER LTD 2011-TIOL-67-HC-P&H-ST , penalty under both Section 76 and Section 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously - Penalty under section 77 is also not sustainable - It is also noticed that appellant has paid service tax before issue of SCN - Keeping in view the facts invoking Section 80, penalty under section 76,77 and 78 are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1184-CESTAT-KOL
Charanjit Singh Vs CC
Cus - Appellant filed the appeals against imposition of penalty under Section 112(a), 112(b) & 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - The allegations are made that appellant had actively participated in operations regarding fraudulent import of said cars and undertook the clearance of cars, where said car was cleared as per declaration - There was no mis-declaration at all as these documents were being forwarded from foreign countries - At the most, appellant has acted as mode to hand over all documents - Appellant is not aware about contents of documents - Allegation of abetment charged upon on appellant are totally false and baseless in nature - Authorities below had discussed in detail in respect of imposition of penalty on appellant - It is evident from record that in some of the cases, appellant's involvement cannot be denied - However, quantum of penalty is quite excessive - Proceeding is hit by bar of limitation - Availing of benefit of Notfn, which the Revenue subsequently formed an opinion was not available, cannot lead to charge of misdeclaration or mis-statement, and even if an importer has wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption, it is for department to find out the correct legal position and to allow or disallow the same - Quantum of penalty is reduced @10% of penalty imposed in each case: CESTAT
- Appeals disposed of: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1183-CESTAT-KOL
Aic Iron Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether appellant had availed irregular CENVAT Credit as arrived by Department holding that it was paper transaction without receipt of raw materials - Second issue is whether extended period of limitation can be invoked - There is no other evidence on record of cash flow-back or any inculpatory statement to substantiate that CENVAT Credit was taken irregularly based on paper transaction i.e. without receipt of raw materials against invoices - The statements of transporters are not corroborated with any evidence - Only on the basis of third party's statement, demand cannot be made - There is no evidence which can show that records maintained by appellant are not correct - Only on the basis of statement of some of transporters, credit is sought to be disallowed whereas the statements are in isolation with any corroboration - Therefore, entire demand of excess CENVAT Credit in absence of any corroborative evidence is nothing but based on presumption which is not permissible under the law - Allegation of suppressing the facts from Department does not hold good in the event of periodic audits of appellant's records - As such, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - Therefore, impugned order for disallowance of credit to appellant is not sustainable and as a consequence, penalties imposed upon both the appellants are also not sustainable and are accordingly set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
