This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from August 27to September 3, 2022.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the mere introduction of an actual importer to Importer – Exporter Code (IEC) holder does not attract a penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal has held that “I find that none of the conditions as stipulated in Section 112(b) of the Act is attracted for imposing the penalty. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal”.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of New Delhi has held that the interest on refund is allowable for amount deposited during investigation.Mr Anil Choudhary, member (judicial) held that the appellant was entitled to grant of interest under Section 129EE of the Customs Act, for the period from the date of deposit till the date of refund and interest @12% P. A is payable. The appeal was allowed.
The Allahabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can’t be made of debit in an electronic credit ledger under GST.The Tribunal held “that the defect is not cured. However, four weeks is granted to the appellant to make the mandatory pre-deposit, to remove the defect.” The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi bench has held that the delayed refund of excise duty paid during the period of investigation is eligible for interest under section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1941.“Further, following the ruling of the Apex Court in the case Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), it has been held that interest shall be payable @ 12% p.a. Further, Single Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Riba Textiles Ltd vs. CCE & S.T., 2020(2) TMI 602-Chandigarh have also granted interest @ 12% p.a. under Section 35FF. This order had been appealed against by Revenue before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CEA No. 8/2022, by its judgment dated 14/03/2022, High Court has upheld the grant of interest @ 12% p.a., relying upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd,” the Tribunal said.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has upheld the rejection of duty drawback and imposition of penalties for deliberate mis-declaration and overvaluation of imports.The Coram of Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) while deleting the appeal has held that “the plea of innocence as taken by the appellant that too solely based upon the letter dated 31.01.2017 has rightly been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals)”.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has held that the sales promotion, being a post-manufacturing activity, is not eligible for CENVAT credit.The Tribunal held that “we are not inclined to accept the reliance of the appellants on the judgments of the Tribunal in Essar Steel Ltd. and Federal Moghul. We find that the appellants are not eligible to avail of CENVAT credit on the Sales Commission paid to M/s L&T Ltd. We find that the appellants have also submitted that in case the bench takes a contrary view to the judgments of the tribunal in Essar India Ltd and Federal-Mogul, they may refer the issue to a larger Bench. We find that in view of the elaborate discussion and categorical finding of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila (supra) and in view of our discussion as above, no such reference to the larger bench is warranted.”
The Principal Bench of the New Delhi Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of undue export benefit is not sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence.It was observed that the adjudicating authority failed to examine the statements in terms of section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 and the appellants have also agitated the issue of jurisdiction of DRI to issue Show Cause Notice under Rule 16/Rule 16A of Drawback Rules and Section 28 of the Customs Act,1962 relying on the judgments in the case of Syed Ali, Cannon India and others.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore bench has held that the change in business model shall not be s reason for rejecting the transaction value under the Customs Act, 1962.The Tribunal held that the findings of the impugned order are cryptic and not reasoned. We find that commissioner has based his conclusions on the basis of the business model of the appellants and the description of the item in Bills of entry.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that the place of receipt outside India qualifies as export service and the denial of service credit is not sustainable. The Tribunal held that “the orders of lower authorities denying Cenvat credit on impugned services are not sustainable in law and therefore the appeals filed by the appellant deserve to be allowed. The said authority is directed to dispose of the refund claim within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving a proper opportunity to the appellants.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
