This yearly digest analyzes all the CESTAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), granted Cenvat Credit on discharge of tax liability, thereby granting relief to JSW Steel Ltd, the appellant. The Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprised of CJ Mathew, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member.
The issue revolves around the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹1,11,92,198/- for the period between August 2005 and April 2006. The recovery of this amount was ordered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, accompanied by applicable interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a penalty of a similar amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The bench observed that upon discharge of tax/duties on procurement of inputs/service and the said ‘service’ conforming to rule 2(l) of Finance Act, 1994, the recipient of service is entitled to avail credit of such tax. There is nothing on record to evidence that ‘service’ or ‘production’ for which the impugned goods had been deployed were not taxable/dutiable. The bench further noted that the tax liability had been discharged by the appellant on the procurement of such services from abroad.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the service tax is not leviable on ground that the show cause notice (SCN) alleges rendering of commercial or industrial construction service. The Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprised of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and PV Subba Rao, Technical Member.
The bench held that “No service tax could have been demanded from the appellant prior to 01.06.2007 and for the period post 01.06.2007 the demand of service tax cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the show cause notice alleged that the appellant had rendered commercial or industrial construction service and the Adjudicating Authority has also confirmed the demand under this head.”
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the wrong claim of excise exemption notification not ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. The two member bench comprised of Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
The bench observed thus, “The appellant had claimed the benefit of an exemption notification in its self- assessment which it was not entitled to. It has been the assertion of the appellant from the time of self- assessment up to and including in this appeal before us that it was entitled to the benefit this exemption notification. Wrong claim of an exemption notification is not a ground provided under section 11A for invoking extended period of limitation.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods supplied to mega power projects based on International competitive bidding are eligible for excise duty exemption. The two-member bench comprised of Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical).
The Bench observed that the responsibility regarding proper classification/ valuation of goods is on the importer and the customs officials and not on the Customs Broker Further, it is submitted that the role of a Customs Broker is limited to filing of bill of entry based on description of goods and documents in support of the same furnished by the importer
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods supplied to mega power projects based on International competitive bidding are eligible for excise duty exemption. The two-member bench comprised of Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical).
The Bench noted that, according to Entry 91 along with condition no.19 of Notification 06/2006 -CE dated 01.03.2006 and Entry No. 400 along with condition no. 86 of Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01.02.2002, goods supplied through international competitive bidding under any Chapter of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff are classified as ‘Nil’ rated. The bench pointed out that this exemption is contingent upon the goods being exempted from the customs duties applicable when imported into India.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reprimanded the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for virtually allowing a decade-long stay on the pre-deposit to Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd.,
The bench, consisting of Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji, emphasized that the director, who had filed writ petitions and SLPs, was well aware that both the company and himself were denied the benefit of exemption from pre-deposit waiver, and their appeals had been dismissed.
The Bench further held thus, “The Tribunal in such circumstances has over-stepped its jurisdiction by allowing the application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeals and thereafter proceeded ahead with the matter for the reasons best known to it….”
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the procedural lapse cannot impede the grant of substantive benefit of Customs Duty. The two-member bench comprised Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical).
In this case Sofitel Overseas Private Limited, the appellant, filed five Bills of Entry seeking the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Customs, as amended by Notification No.25/2013-Customs, and paid duty at the rate of 7.5% during the clearance of the goods. The appeal was lodged against the adjudicating authority’s decision to reject the claimed benefit.
The Bench pointed out that in the case of India Photographic Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, the court held that procedural formality, if any cannot impede the grant of a substantive benefit. And these findings were found to be pertinent with regards to the case.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the suspension of the Customs Broker license on misdeclaration of balloons on the grounds of absence of involvement. The two member bench comprised of Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical).SP Agency, the appellant assessee imported one consignment of decorative items. The decorative items were misdeclared by the appellant.The assessee had appealed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata for suspension of the license of the Customs Broker.
The Bench held that the order given by commissioner to immediately cancel the custom broker’s license was not valid. The bench also cited the absence of involvement by the custom’s broker in the movement of decorative items for quashing the suspension of custom broker’s license.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the denial of Customs duty exemption on the grounds of procedural lapse. The two-member bench comprised of Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical).
The Bench observed that omission as pointed out does not violate any of the provisions of the Rules referred to above which could entail denial of the exemption. It was also settled law that where a more beneficial exemption is available to the assessee, it cannot be precluded from seeking duty relief thereto.
Also observed that procedural lapses, if any, cannot come in the way of disallowing a substantive benefit to the party, as long as there was no prejudice caused to the contents and the intentions of the documents.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the service taxability of an event cannot depend upon a decision taken by the foreign client. The two-member bench comprised of Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical).Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd, the respondent-assessee was engaged in the activity of management of assets of various schemes of Sundaram Mutual Fund and advises on investment to clients both in India and overseas. While providing advisory services to clients abroad they received the consideration in inconvertible foreign exchange.
The revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the sanctioning of a rebate claim of Rs.48,82,448/- to the assessee.The Bench observed that the client who is abroad can opt to accept the advice given by the assessee or reject the same. In such circumstances, a decision taken by a foreign client to invest in India cannot be said to be the deciding factor whether the advisory services amount to the export of service or not.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand on technical inspection and certification agency service on the grounds of service tax exemption. The two-member bench comprised of Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical).
Sidmak Laboratories (India) Private Limited, a pharmaceutical manufacturer and exporter, appealed against the order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 4,55,734/- along with interest. The demand was based on payments made by the assessee to the US FDA for obtaining approval for exporting drugs. The appellant argued that no service tax was applicable to these payments, while the department relied on lower authorities’ decisions, asserting the assessee’s liability for service tax payment.
The Bench observed that the US FDA was a statutory authority and its approval of pharmaceuticals to be exported to that country was the statutory function.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the rejection of the service tax refund claim on grounds of availing of CHA service before the date of export. The bench comprised of a single member, Anjani Kumar (Technical)Sigma Moulds and Stampings Pvt. Ltd, a manufacturer of auto parts that exported goods, appealed against the rejection of its service tax refund claim amounting to Rs.40,906/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the
The Bench observed that the services availed are that of the CHA whose services are required at the Port of export and therefore, the services are bound to be later than the date of removal of goods from the factory and before the actual export and the services are availed before export, the contention of the Department was incorrect.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the CENVAT credit of service tax is admissible in refund proceedings in the absence of any proceedings initiated under rule 14 of CCR. The two-member bench comprised of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial) and Anil G Shakkawar (Technical).
Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd had appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.1,22,29,342/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the denial of credit, leading the assessee to file an appeal challenging this decision. The CENVAT credit in question was accumulated on Service Tax liability discharged under the reverse charge mechanism for services procured from outside India and under the normal procedure for services availed within India.
The Bench pointed out that in the case of Capital India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, the court held that no recovery proceeding was initiated for the alleged erroneous taking of credit, and denial of the said amount during a refund preceding is not in conformity to the law.
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the appeal before the tribunal should be abated as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules when the National Law Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves the resolution plan. The two-member bench comprised of Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial), and Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical)
The appellant, Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of Edible Refined Oils and Fatty Acids, faced a show- cause notice accusing them of wrongly claiming exemption under Notification No. 3/2006-CE for clearing RBD Palm Stearin at the “Nil” rate of duty. The proposal suggested classifying the product under sub-heading 38231112 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and recovering duty, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department’s order, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the tribunal.The bench observed that the appeal abates once the IRP is appointed and/or the Resolution plan is approved. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, Rule 22, and this is the relief/Order that may be issued in accordance with the aforementioned Rule.
The Delhi bench of CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) in its recent verdict emphasized the role of Customs Broker in preventing illegal transactions.
SKH Freight Logistics, a customs brokerage agency, was found to have acted on behalf of M/s. Linwood Sales without proper authorization, violating Regulation 10(a) of CBLR.The Customs Broker was implicated in facilitating fraudulent, undervalued exports and failed to comply with various regulations, including advising the exporter on Customs Act provisions and conducting proper client inquiries. The Customs Broker’s failure to verify the correctness of IEC and GSTIN, misrepresentation of company details, and use of forged documents led to findings of violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d)10(k) and 10(n) of CBLR.The two-member bench, comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial), and Hemambik R. Priya, Member (Technical), revoked the appellant’s license based on these violations.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the service tax cannot be levied on the amount paid to the USFDA to obtain their approval for the export of drugs.
Sidmak Laboratories (India) Private Limited, an appellant assessee in the pharmaceutical industry, appealed against the order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 4,55,734. The adjudicating authority had upheld the demand under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest under Section 75. The appeal contested the service tax levy on the amount paid to the USFDA for obtaining approval for exporting drugs.The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical) held that the USFDA was a statutory authority mandated by the US laws to regulate the import of pharmaceuticals into the country.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the on-site emergency medical service set up at the factory of Saint Gobain Galss India Limited could not fall under Input service.
Saint Gobain Glass India Limited had appealed against the denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid on input services. The dispute arose over services used in setting up the factory before and after 01.04.2011. The department contended that services post this date were ineligible for credit due to changes in the definition of “input service.” The appellant argued that services received before the commencement of production fell under “Erection, Commissioning, and Installation Service,” making them eligible for credit.
The tribunal observed that the appellant availed credit on “Emergency Medical Services” for on-site use. The bench disallowed Cenvat credit on Emergency Medical Services, stating they weren’t proved for personal consumption and couldn’t be considered eligible input services.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the sanctioning of service tax rebate claim on the advisory service on the grounds of refund eligibility. The two-member bench comprised of Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical)
Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd received consideration in inconvertible foreign exchange for advisory services to clients abroad. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the sanctioning of a rebate claim of Rs.48,82,448/- to the assessee. The revenue had appealed against this decision.
The Bench observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly discussed the issue in detail and held that the refund was eligible to the assessee. Though the decision referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) had analyzed the issues based on a circular of 2009 the reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) was proper and did not require any interference.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the denial of the CENVAT credit on information technologies software services on the grounds of credit eligibility.
The Bench observed that since the input services were used in or concerning the provision of output service exported by the assessee, the benefit of refund provided under Rule 5 of the CCR should be available to it.The two-member bench comprising Suvenda Kumar Pati (Judicial) and Anil G Shakkarwar (Technical) held that so long as it is not established that services are not utilized, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that canned pineapple slices are classifiable under CTH 0804, Attracts 30% customs Duty.
Holy Land Marketing Pvt. Ltd. faced an investigation for alleged misclassification of “Canned Pineapple Slices” and incorrect customs duty exemptions. The appellant challenged the adjudication proceedings, emphasizing flaws in the show cause notice handling and contesting the invocation of the extended period. The classification dispute involved conflicting opinions by customs officials, adding complexity to the legal battle.The issue to be decided was whether The Adjudication Authority erred in classifying Canned Pineapple Slices under 0804 attracts 30% Customs Duty.
The two-member bench of the Tribunal comprising Dr Rachana Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R Priya Member (Technical Member) concluded that classification of the canned pineapple slices would be CTH 0804. However, the demand for differential duty is limited to the normal period only.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand in favor of Suzuki Motorcycle and held that no post-delivery inspection charges would be included in the assessable value for purposes of paying excise duty. The two-member bench comprised of S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical)
Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Limited had contested a demand of Rs.1,31,15,550/- along with interest and equal penalty. The dispute centered around whether pre-delivery inspection (PDI) charges should be included in the assessable value for paying excise duty. The appellant argued against the inclusion of PDI charges.
The Bench observed that in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd, the court held that PDI charges and free ASS charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act to pay excise duty.
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) observed that Iron Ore Fines are exempted from payment of Customs Duty. The judge bench comprised of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tendan (Technical Member).
The bench concluded that iron ore fines were exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.129/08 dated 07.12.2008, no duty was payable on 08.12.2008, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay duty. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the refund claim of the duty paid.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to the Tata AIG by quashing the denial of service tax credit of approximately 7 crores on the grounds of CENVAT credit eligibility. The two-member bench comprised Suvena Kumar (Judicial) and Anil G Shakkarwar (Technical)
The Bench observed that without opening an assessment of the provision of service extended by the service provider, CENVAT Credits cannot be denied to the recipient who had paid the required Service Tax through the service receiver to avail of the input services.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of scrap cleared by excise duty cannot be included in the assessable value. The division bench comprised of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Mr Anil G Shakkarwar, Member (Technical).
M/s. Shilpa Steel & Power Ltd, a manufacturer of rolled products of Iron & Steel, engaged in job work for Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), faced a dispute regarding the inclusion of the sale proceeds of scrap generated during job work in the value of rolled products. The Department claimed that the appellant should have included the sale proceeds of the scrap as additional consideration in the value of the rolled products. The appellant’s unsuccessful appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) brought the matter to the current forum.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Customs House Agent (CHA) was considered as merely the processing agent of documents for the clearance of goods and not the inspector to weigh the genuineness of the transaction. The bench was comprised of Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical)assessee as a customs broker was not liable to inspect the genuineness of the transaction.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the revocation of the customs broker license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty of Rs.50,000/-
The Bench observed that the goods were duly sealed by the exporter after obtaining self-sealing permission from the department. Hence, the assessee had no occasion to verify the quantity and weight of the goods sealed and the assessee had no means to verify the item-wise quantity or weight of the goods and, as, a customs broker, he was not required to do so.
A two member bench of the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the CENVAT credit of excise duty demand on iron and steel products used in the manufacture of final products. The bench was comprised of Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical)
In the assessee’s written submission, it was asserted that items such as Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Sheets, Plate, Coils, etc., employed in the construction of furnace equipment and furnace structure, as well as in the manufacturing of raw material handling systems and pollution control equipment, qualify for credit as ‘inputs’ used in the production of capital goods.
The Bench noted that Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Sheets, Plates, Coils, etc., when utilized in the production of furnace equipment and furnace structure, raw material handling systems, and pollution control equipment, are eligible for credit as ‘inputs.’
A two member bench of the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) held that any steel item that has been used for the fabrication of capital goods or inputs is entitled to CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 2(l)/2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
In the written submission of the assessee, the assessee stated that the iron and steel products were used for furnace equipment and furnace structure, raw material handling system, and pollution control equipment and had availed CENVAT credit on the Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Sheets, Plate, Coils etc, as ‘inputs’ as the same were used in the manufacture of capital goods.
The counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the assessee was not entitled to get the CENVAT credit.The Bench observed that in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, the court held that angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Sheets, Plate, Coils, etc used for furnace equipment and furnace structure, raw material handling systems, pollution control equipment, are eligible for credit as ‘inputs, used in the manufacture of capital goods.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the denial of CENVAT credit of excise duty on the manufacture of High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) on the ground of CENVAT credit eligibility.
The two-member bench comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) held that the demand confirmed in the impugned order was not sustainable and quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. To Read the full text of the Order.The Bench observed that the CENVAT credit on capital goods would be admissible in the hands of the factory and the denial of CENVAT credit on input services and capital goods was not sustainable.
A two-member bench of the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) quashed the confiscation of replica firearms on the grounds of non-falling goods under the category of firearms( defined under the Arms Act, 1959).
Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd, the appellant assessee filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods imported from an Overseas supplier – Denix S.A. C/Dels Bijuteers, Spain. The description, quantity, and value of the goods declared by the importer in the said Bill of Entry as per invoice.The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the customs duty demand and for the confiscation of goods under section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962.
The bench held that since the impugned order does not reflect any application of mind, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to discuss the issues on merit and quashed the confiscation of goods.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that there is no prohibition or restriction, either under the Customs Act, 1962, or the Foreign Trade Policy, regarding the import of replica firearms. The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) held that the assessee was not liable to pay the customs duty demand imposed against the assessee.
Windlass Online Stores Pvt. Ltd., the appellant assessee, submitted a Bill of Entry for the clearance of goods imported from an overseas supplier, Denix S.A. C/Dels Bijuteers, Spain, specifying the description, quantity, and value of the goods as per the invoice.The assessee challenged the order issued by the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the customs duty demand and ordered the confiscation of goods under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The tribunal noted that the certificate/declaration from the supplier/manufacturer stated that the imported goods were classifiable under CTH 83062900, and therefore, there was no prohibition or restriction under the Customs Act or the Foreign Trade Policy for importing “Replica Firearms.”
A two-member bench of the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and K Anpazhakan (Technical) held that all the mild steel (MS) items for manufacturing of capital goods within the factory premises are eligible for CENVAT Credit.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the CENVAT Credit demand taken on Capital goods and inputs used for Capital goods
The bench held that the capital goods that are embedded are required for the manufacture of the finished goods, and CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the Customs duty demand on the import of antique finished rifles without verifying the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) quashed the Customs duty demand against the assessee.
The Bench observed that the antique finished rifles cannot discharge a projectile in their present condition and these are not firearms as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. Though, it was submitted that after modification the same could be used as firearms, in the present state, they are not firearms as defined in the Arms Act.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the CENVAT credit of excise duty demand which taken on the capital goods on the ground of absence of sufficient evidence. The two-member bench comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and K Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the CENVAT credit demand imposed against the assessee.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for confirming the CENVAT Credit demand taken on Capital goods and inputs used for Capital goods.The Bench observed that the assessee had filed their Monthly Returns properly declaring the CENVAT credit taken by them on various counts and interpretations, suppression clause cannot be invoked against the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could have the bonafide belief that they are eligible for CENVAT Credit.
A two member bench of the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising of Muralidhar (Judicial) and Anpazhakan (Technical) held that refund claims filed on account of Service Tax paid by mistake, are not governed by the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944. The two-member bench comprising) held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable in this case.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The bench pointed out that the refund claims filed on account of Service Tax paid by mistake, are not governed by the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and in the present case the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (time limit) would not be applicable.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
