|
2023-TIOL-87-CESTAT-AHM
CJ Shah And Company Vs CC
Cus - The issue involved is, whether Anti-dumping duty on Propylene Glycol which was imposed by Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. and which came to an end on 08.10.2009 by virtue of Section 9A(5) of Customs Act, 1962 can be demanded in respect of goods imported after 08.10.2009, when the same had not been extended before said expiry on 08.10.2009 and whether the extension after said expiry by Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. is valid in law - The Notification No. 105/2004-Cus., admittedly expired on 8-10-2009 - Thereafter, said notification was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. - Since the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. was expired on 8-10-2009, on 13-10-2009 the Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. was not in existence - Accordingly, on 13-10-2009, it could not have been extended - Therefore, the result is that no anti-dumping duty can be levied in view of Notification No. 105/2004-Cus. which was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. during the period after 8-9-2009 - Accordingly, demand confirmed by adjudicating authority is not sustainable, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-86-CESTAT-AHM
ICFAI Branch Vs CCE & ST
ST - The appellant, M/s ICFAI was a constituent of Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India (ICFAI) which was inter-alia engaged in imparting educational programmes in areas of finance, banking, insurance, accounting, law, management, information technology, arts, commerce, education, science and technology, at bachelor's and master's level on full time campus and distance learning modes - An investigation was conducted upon appellant and its associates all over India, which resulted into issuance of multiple SCNs proposing demand of service tax along with applicable cess, interest and penalty, for the period of October 2007 to September 2009 - Issue in hand has already been considered by Tribunal at various benches - In view of decision of Tribunal in appellant's own case wherein it is held that the matter can be decided considering the submission regarding Commercial or Coaching Service provided by the appellant is vocational training, issue is no longer res-integra - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-85-CESTAT-AHM
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appeal filed against de novo order whereby the Commissioner denied Cenvat Credit in respect of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess under invoice issued by 100% EOU - There is no dispute on merit that appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid by 100% EOU - Appellant's submission is that denial of Education Cess was not subject matter of SCN - Demand of Cenvat Credit is not only in respect of basic Excise duty but also of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess - Therefore, it cannot be said that the order denying Cenvat credit on Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess is travelling beyond the scope of SCN - Hence, demand was rightly made by adjudicating authority - As regard the submission made by appellant that they had accumulated unutilized credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess while switching over to GST regime - This fact can be examined at the time of recovery of amount confirmed in impugned order - Hence, no conclusive finding cannot be given on said submission - As regard, penalty imposed on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of appellant's Company, issue of correct calculation of Cenvat Credit on invoice issued by 100% EOU was always in dispute, therefore, mala fide cannot be attributed to employee of Company - Moreover, he is not beneficiary of any wrong doing by Company - Accordingly, penalty on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of Company cannot be imposed under Rules 26 of CER, 2002 - Hence, penalty on Shri. Suresh Nair is not sustainable, accordingly, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-84-CESTAT-DEL
AFT Tobacco Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Appeal filed against impugned order confirming demand of interest on late payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) in respect of Unit-I and Unit-II - Interest is payable for default in depositing tax by due date voluntarily or after determination of amount of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Here both the conditions are not available to Revenue as admittedly neither there is any determination of duty liability of NCCD under Section 11A ibid, nor there is voluntary default in deposit of amount of NCCD - In absence of condition precedent in Section 11AA ibid, no interest can be demanded from appellant - Appellant was prevented from deposit of dues, due to glitch on the portal, which is wholly attributable to inaction on the part of Revenue - Thus, Revenue cannot take advantage of its wrong doing, by levy of interest - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
|
