|
2023-TIOL-310-CESTAT-AHM
Veer Enterprise Vs CC
Cus - Appellant filed Bill of Entry, same was assessed to duty on second check basis - On examination, goods were initially found to be new Aluminium, Extrusion doors and panels as against the description of Aluminium Extrusion Scrap (trade) given under Bill of Entry, however, on re-examination by Dock Officers, same were found this time as 'old and used' aluminium structures which are serviceable in nature and therefore, classifiable under CTH 7610 9010 and not under 7602 0010 as claimed by appellant - Initially mutilation request was given by party vide letter dated 24.06.2011 and later on waiver of SCN and of personal hearing was also given and goods were finally cleared under a Tariff Heading proposed by department - Appellant has also contested imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the ground that there was no fault of theirs and department failed to mutilate the goods before clearance - Goods have been cleared and duty discharged as per Tariff Heading proposed by department - The Certificate of Chartered Engineer produced by party is actually deficient, as it has been obtained behind back of Customs Officials and does not show the time and date of entry at the port for examination of goods by this expert - Even the expertise in field of Chartered Engineering is not coming forth on record, as also the language of certificate does not indicate that the author is prepared to face legal scrutiny of its document and to get it examined as per law in case of need by authorities - Therefore, same has been correctly rejected by Commissioner (A) - However, party had made a request for mutilation of imported consignment to indicate their bona fides which does not appear to have been considered by department view of their acceptance of department's stand exhibited through waiver of SCN as well as clearance of consignments - Party has already paid duty under Tariff Heading proposed by department and also shown its bona fides subsequent to import as they sought mutilation of goods before clearance - Redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the personal penalty under Section 112 to Rs. 10,000/-: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-309-CESTAT-AHM
Lathia Rubber Mfg Company Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Issue involved is that whether appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on steel goods such as M.S. Sheets, Bars, Channels and Plates for manufacture of overhead cranes, beams and roofs - In earlier round of appeal before Tribunal, the Tribunal has passed order whereby the matter was remanded to Adjudicating authority to examine Chartered Engineer's certificate in support of appellant's claim on eligibility of credit on aforesaid items - Adjudicating Authority without giving any opportunity to appellant and has not assessed Chartered Engineer's certificate and discarded the same while disallowing the cenvat credit - Thus, adjudicating authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice - Therefore, order passed by Adjudicating Authority is not legally sustainable - Consequently, impugned order is not sustainable therefore, matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after giving appellant sufficient opportunity to make their submission with regard to Chartered Engineer's certificate and also any other submission as they deem fit - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority - Since this is the second round of case and matter pertains to very old period the denovo order may be passed by Adjudicating Authority within a period of 2 months: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-308-CESTAT-MAD
P Natesan And Company Vs CGST & CE
ST - The point that has to be analyzed is, whether appellant is eligible for refund on the basis of date of receiving the tender by Government (Military Engineer Services) - Undisputedly, contract has been entered and signed on 19.03.2015 - A contract comes into effect and binds the parties only when it is accepted - As per Section 2(b) of Indian Contract Act, 1872, acceptance is defined as "when the person to whom the proposal has been made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is accepted" - Thus, acceptance refers to the act of one party agreeing to terms of proposed by another party - Merely receiving a tender or opening a tender cannot be considered as acceptance - There should be communication or intimation of acceptance - As per Section 102, service provider is eligible for exemption of service tax only if contract is entered prior to 01.03.2015 - The letter dt. 08.05.2015 explaining the applicability of exemption from service tax issued by Head office of recipient (Contract Management) cannot override the provisions of law - It has been expressly stated in Section 102 that the contract has to be entered prior to 01.03.2015 to avail the exemption - Since the contract has been entered on 19.03.2015, appellant is not eligible for exemption of service tax - The authorities have rightly rejected the refund claim - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
