|
2023-TIOL-12-CESTAT-MUM
Bhakti Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Commissioner (A) vide impugned order has upheld the original order wherein, adjudicating authority had ordered for confiscation of 'Potassium Humate First Grade Powder' and 'Potassium Humate Granular' with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty - Appellant has assailed impugned order on the ground that remanding the matter back by Commissioner (A) to original authority is not proper and justified inasmuch as all facts involved in appeal were pleaded before him and thus, there was no occasion for remanding the matter for a fresh fact finding - Further, appellant has stated that since the issue involved is purely question of law, Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the appeal without referring the matter back to original authority - No infirmity found therein, in so far as it has remanded the matter to original authority for a fresh fact finding on the issue involved - This being an old matter, order passed by Commissioner (A) should be implemented expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 weeks: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-11-CESTAT-MAD
Chettinad Cement Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - Issue involved in appeals is, denial of CENVAT Credit on the ground of alleged irregular availment of CENVAT Credit and demanding of duty thereon - The Original Authority has not followed directions of this Bench inasmuch as there was a specific direction to take into account the submissions, in said order, which refers to various judicial pronouncements - Moreover, there is also an observation that in respect of two of judicial pronouncements, facts were more or less similar to the one in case on hand - The Bench further permitted the appellant to produce any additional evidence, in support, but same was not a direction - In de novo order, Tribunal do not find any reference to binding precedents contained in such judicial pronouncements and moreover, merit found in contentions of appellant that job description in work order was referring to "operational and maintenance charge for dry fly ash collection system…", which is contrary to conclusion drawn by Adjudicating Authority - Thus, O-I-O cannot stand as same is passed not only without adhering to directions of this Bench, but also omitting to properly take note of contents/job description in work orders reproduced by him - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Matter is once again restored to file of Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to appellant: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-10-CESTAT-AHM
Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant have received services such as construction service and CHA Service in their SEZ on payment of service tax - Subsequently, refund claim was filed under Notification No. 09/2009-S.T. as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-S.T. - Refund of Rs. 77,669/- was rejected on the ground that construction service was received wholly within SEZ therefore refund is not governed by Notification No. 09/2009-S.T. - Once it is admitted that service tax payable on service received and consumed within SEZ, same is not taxable and is to be refunded even without applying Notification No. 09/2009-S.T. - As regards CHA Service, refund of Rs. 1,82,928/- was rejected on the ground that it is not CHA service as invoice shows various costs such as salaries and other expenses - Even though total service charge of CHA was bifurcated under different heads but the fact remains that service was provided by CHA towards CHA service only - Therefore, merely because the invoice is for amount towards various expenses but the same were in relation to CHA service by the CHA, hence, refund cannot be rejected - As regards refund of Rs. 5,548/- for the construction service received from Jay Khodiyar in relation to construction of trenching and pipelines, it is found that construction was exclusively for SEZ only - It is very obvious that a part of the same will be outside the premises of SEZ but that does not mean that service was received for other than authorised operations of SEZ - Accordingly, on the admitted fact that trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in operation of SEZ is admissible and refund of the same is clearly admissible - Appellant is entitled for refund - Accordingly, impugned orders are set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
