2023-TIOL-29-CESTAT-DEL
Mark Splendour Nonwovens Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The issue falls for consideration is, whether appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 07/2012-C.E. for nonwoven felt fabrics manufactured by it - In respect of same appellant for previous period matter was decided by Tribunal reported as Mark Splendour Nonwoven Pvt Ltd. 2017-TIOL-4582-CESTAT-DEL - ExemptionNotification No. 29/2004-C.E. is available for goods falling under Chapter 56 made of cotton and not to any other textile material - Undisputedly, products of appellant have 56 per cent cotton and 44 per cent of several other materials such as Acrylic, Polyester, wool, nylon, viscose as was found after test by CRCL - It has already been held by Tribunal that appellant is not entitled to benefit of this exemption for same products - Insofar as appellant's submissions regarding extended period of limitation are concerned, these are irrelevant because no extended period of limitation has been invoked in either of these two appeals - The benefit of exemption notification is available to goods which are made wholly of cotton whereas in this case, undisputedly the products are not made wholly of cotton - Appellant is not entitled to benefit of exemption notification: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-28-CESTAT-MUM
Crustum Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant is manufacturer of cakes and pastries - Based on intelligence that appellant was subsidiary company of M/s. Viceroy Hotel Ltd., Hyderabad and functioning as an all India franchise for Singapore based company M/s. Bread Talk (P) Ltd. and they were manufacturing bakery products and clearing the same under the brand name of 'Bread Talk' from their business outlet without payment of central excise duty - On completion of investigations, a SCN was issued to appellant - This SCN was adjudicated as per O-I-O and the appeal against said order has been dismissed by Commissioner (A) - Appellant has filed an email forwarding a written synopsis and has asked for a decision on merits - Issue involved is no longer res integra and has been decided in MEL Systems & Services Ltd. 2008-TIOL-1615–CESTAT-MAD , Otto Bilz (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2004-TIOL-1023-CESTAT-BANG and Ramani Hotels Ltd. 2022-TIOL-892-CESTAT-MUM - Following the said decisions, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-27-CESTAT-AHM
Drishty Communication Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - M/s. Surya Publicity was providing Advertising Services to its client - They were purchasing time and space in newspaper/media companies through appellant - The amount paid by M/s. Surya Publicity to appellant for purchase of time and space was sought to be tax by revenue under category of Advertising Service - No evidence has been placed from record to establish that the appellant were providing "Advertising Agency Services" - The role of appellant was limited to being an intermediary in sale of space/ time for media agency on commission basis - In view of CBEC clarification and decision of Tribunal in H.K Associates 2009-TIOL-163-CESTAT-DEL the demand cannot be upheld and is therefore set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-26-CESTAT-AHM
Keshariyaji Metal Impex Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order whereby, redemption fine and penalty was imposed upon appellant on alleged charge of misdeclaration of goods inasmuch as appellant have declared the goods as Aluminium Extrusion Scrap (Tread) as against Aluminium Tread grade (Aluminium sheet) as claimed by department - As regard the classification of goods that whether same is Aluminium Scrap or Aluminium Sheet, assessment was made on basis of department's claim and appellant have paid the duty - Said assessment was not challenged by appellant therefore at this stage, classification cannot be conclusively decided - From inspection report, it is observed that goods were found attached with panel board of Aluminium Sheet or fresh tradable goods - It cannot be conclusively held that goods are not Aluminium scrap - From the description such as panel board, it appears that same is made up article of aluminium sheet, panel board cannot be said to be fresh material or Aluminium sheet - Said goods is used material therefore, same can be classified as aluminium scrap however, Tribunal can only draw a prima facie view on nature of goods at this stage as classification of goods attained finality with assessment of bill of entry and same was not challenged - However, redemption fine and penalty imposed by lower authorities are very excessive and same are reduced: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
"TWO metres of tea please" A foreigner on a visit to a South Indian town saw a tea vendor making tea by pouring the tea from one glass to another with his hands at 180 degrees. The foreigner thought that he was measuring tea; so, he came to the shop and asked, "please give me two metres of tea"...