2023-TIOL-74-CESTAT-MUM
Course 5 Intelligence Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
ST - The issue involved is, whether the authorities below are justified in rejecting refund claim filed by appellant under Rule(5) of CCR, 2004 r/w Notfn 27/2012 – CE(NT) on the ground of nondisclosure of availment of Cenvat Credit in ST-3 Returns - Time and again in series of decisions Tribunal has repeatedly held that non-mentioning of credit availed in ST-3 return is only a procedural lapse for which substantial relief cannot be denied to assessee but despite that the lower authorities seem to be adamant in not taking cognizance of views of Tribunal - From impugned order, it seems that although Commissioner agreed with submission of appellant about violation of principle of natural justice but according to him since he has heard appellant therefore natural justice has been restored, which is not correct understanding of law on aforesaid principle - Mistake committed by assessee is merely a procedural lapse which they tried to rectify immediately thereafter but were not permitted and substantial relief was denied to them, which is not permissible in law - Admittedly, ST-3 Returns manually filed by assessee were not verified as same were not accepted by authority below - Matter remanded to Original Authority in order to decide issue afresh: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-73-CESTAT-KOL
S L Polypack Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of Plastic Cups and Plastic Plates and received some inputs viz. Plastic Granules under the cover of input invoices issued by M/s. L.G. Polymers India Ltd. - It is the case of Revenue that credit was taken on basis of ineligible documents which resulted in contravention of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Goods covered under invoices were actually received at appellant's factory and those goods were used for manufacture of their final products - Excise Duty was paid on those goods which are subject matter of invoices - In view of documents submitted by appellants, there is no dispute that goods have been received in factory and accordingly impugned order denying CENVAT Credit in respect of invoices is not correct - The Board vide Circular 441/7/99-CX have issued guidelines that SCNs should not be issued for procedural lapses without making proper enquiries and efforts should be directed towards reduction of litigations - There is no dispute regarding duty paid character and receipt of goods - The substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds and accordingly impugned orders cannot be sustained - Appellants have vehemently fought on issue of limitation - SCN was issued on basis of audit of records maintained by appellant and therefore extended period cannot be invoked by alleging suppression since they are also submitting/filing statutory returns on a regular basis - Department was free to further investigate the matter and issue timely SCN - In view of the same, appellants have a strong case on limitation and SCN is barred by limitation - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-72-CESTAT-DEL
Prachi Resins Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CCE
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of formaldehyde having installed capacity of 3000 MT per annum - One of major raw materials is Methanol, appellant was working under modvat/cenvat scheme and was taking credit of dutiable inputs like methanol, used for production of their finish products-formaldehyde - SCN was issued on appellant company and its two directors Shri Promod Lunawat & Shri Mukesh Singhaniya and one Prachi Polymers, alleging clandestine removal of formaldehyde - There is no reasonable explanation in impugned order and also in previous order of Tribunal, whereby clandestine removal of finished goods have been alleged at 1378.595 MT of formaldehyde - The actual/installed capacity of production have been ignored, which has caused prejudice to appellant - They have already suffered civil consequence by impugned order in view of duty both on allegation of clandestine removal as well as on shortage of finished goods and raw materials - Not a single instance of clandestine removal have been found by revenue by way of interception of any consignment without proper invoices/challan - There is not reasonable basis for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Penalty under Section 11AC on appellant company and on the two directors Shri Promod Lunawat & Shri Mukesh Singhaniya under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-71-CESTAT-DEL
Sancheti Vinyl Vs CC
Cus - Issue involved is, whether refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) be claimed after period prescribed by Notfn 102/2007-Cus. - It is the first principle of law that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done - It is clear from impugned order that appellant has not been heard, for whatever reason, and without following the principle of natural justice, appeal has been decided against appellant - This ground itself is sufficient for setting aside the impugned order and therefore without going into merits of matter, matter remanded to first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving due notice to appellant for personal hearing: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT |
