Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws





Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order



Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-09

At this stage, my attention stands drawn to note sheet order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Division Bench, transferring the matter to single Member Bench. On going through the same, it is seen that the Division Bench has only referred to the amount of duty involved and by observing that since the same is less than Rs. 2 lakhs, the matter pertains to single Member Bench. It seems that attention of the Bench was not drawn to the rate of duty involved, in which case the amount involved is of no consequence. As such, I am of the strong view that the matter needs to be heard by Division Bench.

Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-05-08

So far as judgment delivered in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Delhi, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), is concerned, there also the Tribunal had not considered certain material which was very much on record and thereby it committed a mistake which was subsequently rectified by considering and appreciating the evidence which had not been considered earlier. As stated hereinabove, in the instant case, the position is absolutely different.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

He argued that HSN relies on the processes carried out on “Ores” to determine if the “Ores” have become “Concentrates” or otherwise. He argued that in their case, they had imported the product which was described as “Ore” and they had declared the same in their imported document as “Ore”. He pointed out that they had no mechanism to find out the nature of processes carried out at the supplier and located abroad. He argued that the “Concentrate” is also an “Ore”. He pointed out that there are numerous judgments where different criteria have been set for distinguish “Ore” with “Concentrate”. He argued that in this circumstance, they decided to pay the duty and interest. He argued that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Their decision regarding choice of classification between “Ore” and “Concentrate” was a genuine bonafide doubt. He argued that in these circumstances, invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified. He argued that in these circumstances, imposition of penalty and huge redemption fine is also not justified. He agreed that no refund claim of duty already paid which they have claimed as credit would be claimed. He argued that the situation was also Revenue neutral as they were entitled to Cenvat Credit as the entire CVD paid.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He pointed out that all the facts necessary for establishing that VDI and QMI are related persons have been identified in the shape of common directors, common office,mutual loans and common shareholding pattern. He pointed out that a significant amount of common infrastructure is being used. He relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of J Foundation 2015 (324) ELT 422 (S.C.) to hold that corporate veil has been lifted in the instant case. He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in following cases.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that all the buyers have admitted that they have received „coated‟ material. He argued that the sample has been tested and the same test report is applicable to all the goods. He further argued that the adjudicating authority allowed cross-examination of only one person, and on that basis allowed the appeal partly. He argued that in view of the admission of 13 different buyers, such cross examination should not have been relied.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

During investigation it was found that the primary packing of the supplies intended sale to institutional buyers contained marketing such as „railway supplies‟, „BHEL supplies‟ etc. It was also found that the MRP was not printed in respect of supplies meant for institutional buyers.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Apart from the above, we also note that the appellant’s earlier ROM application stands rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.05.2018 refers (supra). The provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act refers to the mistake in the Final Order of the Tribunal and not to a mistake in the order passed on the rectification of mistake application. This is well settled law that no rectification of mistake application can be filed in respect of an order passed on ROM. This was so observed by the Tribunal in the case of Anchor Electricals vs. CCE, Dehradun vide Misc. Order No. 50608/2018 dated 31.08.2018. It stand held that there is no provision for filing second rectification of mistake application and the same amounts to abuse of process of the law especially in view of the fact that the earlier ROM has been dismissed.

Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-05-02

It appears from the records that these applications for condonation of delay were filed seeking condonation of a delay of about 35 days in each case in filing the appeal on the ground that Shri Anand Agarwal, the applicant herein, met with an accident and was advised complete bed rest from 05.11.2018 to 20.11.2018. A copy of the  medical certificate from Apollo Hospital has also been enclosed to the applications

Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-05-01

I have heard the learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the Revenue. The respondents were manufacturers of sugar and molasses. They were removing Bagasse and Press Mud. The period covered is from 1st March 2015 to 31st March 2016. In view of the amendment in explanation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.03.2015 there was an obligation on the part of the manufacturer to pay amount under sub-rule 3 of said Rule 6 at a fixed percentage of the value of non-excisable goods removed when Cenvat Credit on input and input services were availed and such inputs and input services were used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods including non-excisable goods. Therefore proceedings were initiated against the respondent for recovery of around Rs.44.00 Lakhs. On perusal of record I note that the issue is covered by precedent decision in respondent’s own case in respect of their another unit through Final Order No.70801/2019 dated 18.04.2019. It was held in the said Final Order that Press Mud and Bagasse are not arising out of manufacturing activity and the same are agricultural waste and residue and therefore since the said Final Order is applicable in the present case I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by Revenue.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-04-30

We therefore, set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to provide order of final assessment to the appellant and thereafter on their representation, a reasoned order should be passed. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority