2023-TIOL-66-CESTAT-MAD
Komatsu India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The only issue that arises is, whether rejection of refund of cash security deposit as confirmed in impugned order is correct - It is not the case of Revenue that what the appellant claimed was refund of duty paid and there is also no dispute that appellant claimed only the security deposit made - The jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. has considered a similar issue - From the same, it is very much clear that refund claim of security deposit is not governed by provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act and consequently, lower authorities have clearly erred in rejecting and confirming rejection of refund claimed of security deposit by invoking provisions of Section 27(1) ibid - Impugned order is not sustainable and hence, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-65-CESTAT-DEL
Classic Interiors Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order whereby they partially allowed appellant's appeal and modified the provisional release order passed by Additional Commissioner to the extent of reducing bank guarantee for provisional release of seized goods to 10% of value of goods - There was allegation of mis-declaration of value of goods which has been admitted to by appellant in letters and statements - SCN demanded differential duty which the appellant has already deposited - The SCN has also proposed confiscation of goods under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) - After adjudication, if goods are held liable for confiscation, they may be released on payment of redemption fine - If goods are confiscated and allowed redemption on payment of fine such fine has to be recovered from appellant and some security is necessary to cover it if goods are to be released provisionally before adjudication itself - Impugned order is modified reducing the amount of bank guarantee to 5% of value of goods: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-64-CESTAT-DEL
S Q Fabrication And Engineering Vs CCE & CGST
ST - There is controversy with regard to service of SCN on assessee - As Commissioner (A) have dismissed the appeal for want of compliance of Section 35F, this ground could not be decided - Accordingly, matter is remanded to the file of Original Adjudicating Authority to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after hearing the assessee - Adjudicating Authority shall also record the fact of service of SCN, which is the condition precedent before passing adjudication order: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-63-CESTAT-AHM
Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The issue involved is that whether appellant's refund claim made under Notfn 15/2009- ST can be rejected on the ground that input services are not approved as per approval list by approval committee of SEZ - Refund claim is pertaining to period March to May, 2009 and appellant had applied and approval was given in September, 2009 - Even though belatedly the facts remains that the input services were approved by Approval committee - Without prejudice, it is found that issue is no longer res- integra as in various judgments, Tribunal has expressed clear view that approval of input services by approval committee is only a procedural requirement and due to this procedural lapse refund cannot be rejected - Accordingly, refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground - As per revenue Commissioner (A) has not given finding on the time bar therefore for this purpose, matter is remanded to give finding on the issue of time bar: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-62-CESTAT-AHM
Cosmo Films Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant have suo-moto re-credited an amount for which they had given bank guarantee at the time of provisional release of seized goods - This amount was subsequently appropriated against confiscation of seized goods ordered by Assistant Commissioner therefore, amount of bank guarantee has been converted to redemption fine against confiscation of goods - On succeeding in appeal before Tribunal, appellant was supposed to file a refund claim for refund of amount of redemption fine - Whereas appellant have taken suo-moto re-credit as cenvat credit - Amount of redemption fine is not eligible as cenvat credit as same is not a duty which was paid on any input received by appellant - The right course of action about refund of amount of bank guarantee adjusted against redemption fine is to file a formal refund claim - Amount of Redemption fine which was appropriated from bank guarantee executed by appellant at the time of provisional release of goods cannot be treated as cenvat credit - Hence, appellant has wrongly availed the cenvat credit - Appellant is otherwise eligible to claim the refund of Rs 3,75,000/- from department in terms of section 11 B of Central Excise Act,1944 - Since the appellant have followed wrong procedure by re-crediting the amount of cenvat credit but otherwise the appellant is prima facie eligible for refund - The period right from taking re-credit till the filing of refund claim is reduced for purpose of limitation as prescribed under section 11 B - Appellant has liberty to file a formal refund claim under section 11 B within three months: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-61-CESTAT-AHM
Tennco Exhaust India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The appeal has been filed by Tennco Exhaust India Private Limited against demand of Central Excise duty, interest and imposition of penalty - Notfn 67/95-CE exempts goods including capital goods used for manufacture of excisable good within the factory of production - Plain reading of said Notfn suggests that as long as the goods are not cleared physically from the factory of production and same are used for manufacture of excisable goods, benefit of Notfn cannot be denied - Thus, so far as goods used within the factory of production for manufacture of excisable goods are concerned, duty cannot be demanded - As regard the goods cleared from factory to Pune Unit of appellant, plea of Revenue neutrality has been raised by appellant in their appeal memorandum - No data of Pune Unit has been submitted and how and in what manner goods have been used in Pune has not been stated - Demand in respect of these goods cleared from factory to Pune Unit is confirmed - Extended period has been rightly invoked in respect of goods cleared from factory to Pune Unit - Demand of duty and penalty on those goods is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
