|
2023-TIOL-58-HC-ORISSA-CX
UITC India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
CX - Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 27 of the CETA, 1985 - Petitioner had filed applications under SLVDRS, 2019 for availing benefit of the said Scheme - However, their applications were rejected on the ground of ineligibility by observing that in terms of s.125(1)(h) of the Finance Act, 2019, "product falling under Fourth Schedule to the CE Act is not eligible for the Scheme" - Therefore, the present petitions. Held: As per Section 125(1) of the Scheme, all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration thereunder except the following - "(h) persons seeking to make declarations with respect to excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944" - The expression ‘excisable goods' occurring in Section 125(1)(h) can only mean goods on which excise duty is payable - This is further clarified by a Circular 1071/4/2019-CX dated 27th August 2019 where against Sr.no.6 it is clarified - " The exclusions are firstly, cases in respect of goods that are still subject to levy of Central Excise such as specified petroleum products and tobacco i.e. goods falling in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944." - Therefore, when we speak of "excisable goods" it only refers to goods that are subject to levy of some duty of central excise - All the goods covered by Chapters 24 and 27 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the CET Act are not included ipso facto in the Fourth Schedule of the CE Act - Only certain goods of those two Chapters have been included - Except Process Oil falling under sub-heading 2710 1990 under the Fourth Schedule of the CE Act, all the other goods of the Petitioner are outside its (Fourth Schedule) purview - However, by virtue of the explanation offered in the additional notes to the Fourth Schedule, central excise duty is not at all leviable on Process Oil - The above interpretation placed by the Department on Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance Act, 2019 appears not to be correct - No doubt that the Petitioner's product (Process Oil 2710 1990) falls under the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act but as far as the rate of duty is concerned, what is indicated is ‘.....' - The said ‘.....' has been defined as indicating that in respect of the goods against which the above ‘.....' is found, excise duty is not leviable at all - Therefore, there is no question of the Petitioner's product being outside the purview of the SVLDR Scheme read with the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act - The Court, therefore, rejects the plea of the Department that the Petitioner would be ineligible for the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme - Court quashes the order dated 16th December, 2019 and other similar orders issued by the Department - Petitioner's applications are to be processed under the SVLDR Scheme within a period of four weeks - Writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15]
- Petitions disposed of: ORISSA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-45-CESTAT-AHM
Soni Tejaskumar Pravinchandra Vs CC
Cus - Appeals are directed against impugned order, whereby Commissioner (A) upheld the O-I-O - Adjudicating Authority has ordered absolute confiscation of one kadiwali gold chain and also imposed penalty on Shri Soni Tejas Kumar Patel - The appeal can be disposed of only on the issue of jurisdiction without going into merit of case - Both the sides have relied upon contrary judgments - However, as per Madras High Court judgments in case of Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali 2017-TIOL-202-HC-MAD-CUS , in identical issue appeal does not lie before Tribunal whereas competent authority is revisionary authority (Government of India) - Relying upon Madras High Court judgment, in present case, appeal before Tribunal is without jurisdiction - Therefore, appeals are dismissed as infructuous - Appellants have liberty to approach revisionary authority, Government of India with revision application: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-44-CESTAT-MUM
Seven Hills Constructions Vs CCE, C & ST
ST - The dispute relates to provider of service and it surely cannot be case of service tax authorities that services are required to be rendered only at the registered premises; hence the relative insignificance of registration as merely technical that is not critical to entitlement for credit - Adjudicating authority has failed to consider altered paradigm consequent upon notification of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 by which regime of taxation of receipts was substituted by taxation of accruals - Impugned order has also failed to take into consideration the liability discharged by appellant; settled law on such compliance must be given effect to - The contention of appellant that depreciation claimed earlier has since been revised and appropriate changes made in returns under Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been considered in light of judicial decision without exceeding jurisdictional competence of adjudicating authority for insisting upon acceptance of same by authorities empowered under that statute - Adjudicating authority is required to consider evidence furnished by appellant that duty liability having been discharged on 'tippers' sourced by them, as now placed on record, before concluding that credit availed therein is ineligible - Registration is not relevant in absence of evidence of nonutilization of capital goods in rendering of 'output service' and of eligibility to credit even if address on invoices is other than the registered one - That should apply to all capital goods procured after said service was made taxable - The impugned order is thus, bereft of findings based on law as enacted and judicially determined applied to the facts put forth by assessee and requires re-determination - Matter remanded back to original authority for fresh disposal of SCN : CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-43-CESTAT-DEL
Aavantika Gas Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - The issue involved is regarding computation of proportionate credit determined under rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 by taking the value of common input services used in both taxable and exempted services OR total credit taken on all input services, including common input services - Appellant has not taken credit on input and input services used in provision of exempted services - Thus, decision of Tribunal in National Steel and Agro Industries rendered for period prior to 2016 will apply to the facts of present case - The order passed by Commissioner (A), therefore, deserves to be set aside to the extent it has confirmed the demand attributed to input services used in clearance of exempted products with penalty and is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-42-CESTAT-AHM
Yamir Packaging Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Assessee is in appeal against demand of reversal of Cenvat credit, interest and imposition of penalty - Issue involved in case of Guardian Plasticote Limited is similar to issue involved in instant case that using engraved printed cylinder is an inputs - It is noticed that in instant case also, nature of goods being capital goods or inputs can be a matter of opinion - Relying on decision of Tribunal in case of Guardian Plasticote Limited and the fact that the assessee has admitted that they are ready to pay interest for disputed period, appeal is partly allowed - The matter is remanded to Adjudicating Authority to calculate the amount of interest involved - Penalty is set-aside: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
