2023-TIOL-49-CESTAT-DEL
Cipra Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is in appeal against order of confiscation of goods and penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 and redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs - It is evident that appellant made a wrong claim of export benefit under MEIS, being mis-advised by CHA - However, it was responsibility of appellant to understand eligibility and conditions before making a claim for export benefits - In the facts and circumstances, that the goods were not prohibited goods, fine and penalty are on higher side - Accordingly, redemption fine is reduced and penalty under Section 114(iii) ibid is also reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-48-CESTAT-AHM
IDMC Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appeal has been filed by appellant against denial of capital goods Cenvat Credit on steel rack used for storage in premises of appellant's factory - Tribunal in case of Ashok Leyland John Deere Construction Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. has examined exact issue and observed that storage racks used for storing raw materials is an integral part of the final manufacturing activity of assessee and credit has to be allowed - Relying on aforesaid decision, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-47-CESTAT-AHM
Bright Engineering Works Vs CCE & ST
CX - Originally when appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006, same was allowed by refund sanctioning authority - Revenue has challenged sanction of refund claim on the ground that as per Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) , which is issued in suppression of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) , the amount that is claimed as refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be debited by claimant from his cenvat credit account at the time of making claim - Refund sanctioning authority also has held that appellant have fulfilled conditions laid down under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) - The charge of double benefit made by revenue is absolutely incorrect on face of records in as much as appellant even though did not carry forward and debit the refund amount in their cenvat account - Non transfer of unutilised cenvat credit is as good as reversal of cenvat - The charge of double benefit will sustain only when appellant in one hand claim the refund and in other hand utilise the same amount for payment of duty on their clearance of goods, which is nobody's case - Hence, allegation of double benefit of same amount does not even exists - Commissioner (A) has erred in rejecting appellant's claim for refund - By following the ratio of decisions, mainly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX wherein Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on expiry of period of three months from date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1) ibid, appellant is entitled for interest - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-46-CESTAT-AHM
Omega Elevators Vs CCE
ST - Interest on delayed refund - It is an amount paid by appellant as service tax during course of investigation - This fact is not in dispute - When any amount paid during investigation, it is only a predeposit made by appellant - On succeeding in appeal, predeposit made in connection to said appeal is liable to be refunded with interest - The order of Tribunal has attained finality - In that circumstance, appellant is entitled to claim interest from date of deposit till its realization - Further, issue is no longer res integra as Division Bench of Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd. 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL , following the ruling of Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 2006-TIOL-07-SC-IT have held that such amount deposited during investigation and/or pending litigation is ipso facto pre-deposit and interest is payable on such amount to assessee being successful in appeal, from the date of deposit till the date of refund - Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in eyes of law, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
