|
2023-TIOL-1611-HC-DEL-MISC
Delhi Gymkhana Club Vs Commissioner (Luxury Tax)
Whether Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to tax under Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 - YES: HC
- Assessee's petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1041-CESTAT-BANG
CC Vs Inu Exports Pvt Ltd
Cus - The Assessee imported several consignments of edible-grade Palmolein Oil and filed Bills of Entry for the same - The goods were warehoused in the customs bonded warehouse pending test report from the Customs Revenue Laboratory Cochin - The goods were cleared on execution of Bank Guarantee and by filing Ex-bond Bills of Entry claiming its classification under Chapter Subheading 15111000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the benefit at Sl. No.34 of Notification No.21/2002 dated 1.3.2002 as Crude Pal Oil, Edible grade on payment of applicable duty - As per the test report received on 3.12.2004 from the Chemical Examiner, Customs Revenue Laboratory, Cochin Customs House, it was found that the samples were containing carotene (as beta carotene) below 500 mg / kg., hence, the condition of Sl. No.34 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002, as amended, not satisfied - Consequently, the same is classifiable under subheading 15119090 read with Sl. No.434 of the Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002. Accordingly, the show-cause notices were issued to the respondent proposing classification under the aforesaid heading and denial of the benefit of the Notification as claimed by them. On adjudication, the respective Bills of Entry have been assessed by classifying the product under CTH 15111000 extending the benefit under Sl. No.34 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Held - The Commissioner (A) following the principle of law laid in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Mangalore and has observed that since there was inordinate delay in drawal of samples and receiving the test reports, the carotene level of vegetable oils reduces with passage of time, hence, the test reports of the Customs Revenue Laboratory cannot be relied and accordingly, he has confirmed acceptance of the test report of the goods at the load port by the adjudicating authority - Accordingly, he has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority - There is no discrepancy in the said reasoning of the Commissioner (A) - Consequently, the Revenue's appeals are being devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1040-CESTAT-ALL
Moser Baer India Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
CX - The Appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of CDR, CD Rom, DVDR, DVD Rom, SSM Devices etc, falling under Chapter Heading 8523 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - They are clearing excisable goods for DTA sales as well as for export - On the goods cleared in DTA they are paying Central Excise duty as leviable in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Central Excise Act read with the Notification No.23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - During the course of scrutiny of ER-2, it was noticed that Appellant for the month of April, 2008 onwards were paying Central Excise duty on the goods cleared in DTA sales but were not showing payment of Additional duty of Customs (SAD) as they started payment of VAT on removals from the EOU, as declared and admitted by them in their letter dated 10.09.2008 - It was assumed that on clearances of the samples vide Invoice No.AGLD 9922 dated 01.02.2008 under the numbers of CDRs were cleared/marked as sample and they had not charged CST/VAT in respect of these goods, this indicating that they were not charge VAT in respect of these clearances - From the scrutiny of the ER-2 returns for the period January, 2011 to June, 2011, it was observed that appellant had paid additional duty of SAD @ 4% adv. amounting to Rs.73,565/- under protest on clearances effected from their EOU against the samples during the period 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011 - Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant proposing to raise duty demand, being Special Additional Duty @ 4% pertaining to free samples cleared - On adjudication, the demands were confirmed - Hence the present appeal. Held - In the present case the goods in dispute are not specified in schedule I or Schedule IV of the U P VAT Act hence are not exempt from payment of VAT, but the clearance of samples from EOU are not part of the taxable turnover as per the provisions of this Section 7 - The transactions in respect of sample do not fall under the category of exempt goods as defined by the U P Vat Act, 2008 - These clearances were not subjected to the VAT in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 - There is agreement with the contention of the Appellant that as these goods were not exempt from payment of VAT and sales tax but were not taxable under VAT being samples - The wordings of proviso of the notification No No 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 as amended by Notification No 22/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 are unambiguous and they refer to exempt goods under VAT Act - In the present case the goods are not specified as exempt goods as defined under the VAT Act, but are not the part of taxable turnover - The Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] held that w here the raw material is not liable to excise duty or such duty is nil, no Excise duty is, as a matter of fact, paid upon it - To goods made out of such material the notification will not apply, it was further noted - Hence the order passed in the present matter is without merits: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1039-CESTAT-MAD
Mahabir Packaging Vs CGST & CE
CX - Appellants are engaged in manufacture of corrugated boxes classifiable under chapter sub heading 48191010 and are discharging duty @ 4% - They also manufacture corrugated boxes by using duplex paper or paper board and classified these goods also under 48191010 and discharged duty @ 4% by availing exemption under Sl.No.96E under Notfn 4/2006-CE as amended by Notfn 10/2010-CE - The department was of the view that concessional rate of duty available to corrugated boxes made up of corrugated paper or paper board is not available to boxes which also use duplex paper - It was submitted that issue is covered by decision of Tribunal in case of Balaji Packaging Industries 2019-TIOL-3810-CESTAT-MAD - The Tribunal in said case had taken into consideration the circular issued by Board dt. 24.02.2012 which had clarified that concessional rate of duty is available to cartons, boxes and cases of corrugated paper or paperboard, whether or not pasted with duplex sheets on outer surface - Following the said decision, Tribunal opines that the facts being identical demand cannot sustain: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
