|
2023-TIOL-1085-CESTAT-HYD
Agarwal Foundries Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether appellant have rightly taken Cenvat credit on various items of MS steel, utilized in fabrication of capital goods like pollution control equipment, heating furnace, casting machine, coating machine, chimney, rolling machine, reheating machine and control panel during period December, 2005 to March, 2010 - Revenue have found that appellant have fabricated various capital goods/Plant and machinery during period under dispute - With introduction of CCR, 2004, capital goods as defined in rule 2(a)(A) of CCR includes items like pollution-control equipment, storage tank which are practically immovable - Thus, concept of movable or immovable for allowing credit have been done away with - There is no such dispute raised in SCN that capital goods fabricated by appellant out of inputs have not been used for manufacture of dutiable finished goods - Appellant have maintained proper records in nature of purchase vouchers for inputs, receipt of inputs in factory of production and utilisation of same in fabrication/manufacture of capital goods - Such utilisation is also supported by certificate of Chartered Engineer which have not been found to be untrue - There is no allegation in SCN that appellant have clandestinely removed any of inputs received - So far as beams/joints, which have been used in preparation of stand, to support Plant and machinery or as structure for support of capital goods, same is held allowable by Madras High Court in case of India cement Ltd = 2015-TIOl-650-HC-MAD-CX - Further such view have also been taken in case of Mundra port and SEZ Ltd = 2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHM-CX and Thiru Arooran sugars = 2017-TIOL-1357-HC-MAD-CX , wherein it has been held that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of inputs used for construction/fabrication of capital goods, including port - Appellant have maintained proper records and have declared Cenvat credit taken and/or availed regularly in returns filed with Department - Thus, there is no case of any concealment, mis-statement or fraud on the part of appellant - As regards the capital goods fabricated out of inputs, there is no allegation that such capital goods have been sourced from any other manufacturer by appellant - Impugned Order is set aside - Extended period of limitation is not invokable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1084-CESTAT-AHM
Malani Construction Company Vs CCE & ST
ST - The present appeal was filed by the Assessee-company against tax demand raised under the head of "Construction of Residential Complex" provided to Surat Municipal Corporation under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. Held - The issue at hand stands settled vide the orders of the Tribunal in Natvar Construction Co. 2023 (4) TMI 438 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and in Khurana Engineering Limited- 2022 (12) TMI 1053 -CESTAT AHMEDABAD - The Tribunal has considered various judgment and categorically found that the service provided to the service recipient namely Surat Municipal Corporation under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission are not taxable - Hence the present appeal is disposed off accordingly: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1083-CESTAT-BANG
N S Mahesh Vs CC
Cus - The Appellant challenging the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 A of the Customs Act 1962. Brief facts of the case is that an importer Shri Rajesh Kumar had imported 475 cartons containing artificial flowers, photo frames, fancy mirrors etc. and filed a Bill of Entry on 20.06.2014. Alleging that said goods is imported by resorting to undervaluation, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice was issued. Thereafter Adjudication Authority vide Order-In-Original No.116/2016 dated 23.05.2016 adjudicated the matter and confirmed differential duty of Rs.1,41,568/- on the ground that the importer had made an attempt to evade said amount of customs duty by wilful mis-declaration - Among others appellant was also imposed with penalty of Rs.50,000/- each under Section 112A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114AA of the Custom Act, 1962, but upheld the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed under section 112(a) of the Custom Act, 1962. Held - No acts of omission or commission, which would render the goods liable for confiscation have been alleged or proved on the part of the Appellant - No charge of abetment is also evidenced against the Appellant - Moreover, finding of this Tribunal based on the very same statement is squarely applicable in present case - Considering the same, appeal is allowed - Penalty imposed on the Appellant is set aside with the consequential relief if any: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT |
|
