CESTAT Weekly Round-Up

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 September 4 to September 10, 2022. M/s DRA Industries Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Tax -2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 465 The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that the HR Coils/Sheets and welding electrodes used in the repair and maintenance of the capital goods are eligible for CENVAT Credit. Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) observed that “all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer all final products” qualify as inputs under CCR. Therefore, Cenvat credit is admissible on such goods. M/s. Diamond Beverages Private Limited vs Commissioner of CGST & CX - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 464 The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata bench has held that cenvat credit is allowable on the amount of premium paid towards group mediclaim policy for the factory employees in compliance with the Factories Act, 1948. Relying on the above decision, the Tribunal observed that “the above policy has been taken by the Appellant for its factory employees and that the Appellant is registered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as well as the Factories Act, 1948, which mandates such policy to be obtained by the Appellant. Thus, by agreeing with the above view, I am of the opinion that in the case at hand also, the Cenvat credit on group Mediclaim policy cannot be disallowed.” M/s. Tej Ram Dharam Paul vs Commissioner of Central Goods- 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 466 The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh bench has held that the product “Maha Pasand Jarda Scented Tobacco” is classifiable as “Chewing Tobacco” and not as “jarda scented tobacco” for the purpose of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the commissioner has erred in not resorting to the Trade Parlance Test in the facts of the present case by erroneously observing that as the product can be classified as per the contents, there is no need to resort to the parlance test. M/s. SMA Trading Company vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 467 Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai held that Axe Brand Universal Oil is classifiable under Chapter 30 of Excise Act, attracts 12% duty. The Bench consisting of Sulekha Beevi C S, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member held that “Similar goods in the nature of Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm have been held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 as seen from the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent.” Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 468 Issue of Show cause Notice under Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act not invokable when there is no suppression of facts, so was held by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. On the issue of show cause notice being barred by limitation, it is observed that demand in question pertains to the period 2012-13 and 2013-14. The show cause notice is given in April 2018 i.e. much beyond the period of normal limitation. The extended period can only be invoked in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 i.e. only in the cases where ingredients of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade tax are present. M/s.Pankaj Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 469 Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench consisting of Sulekha Beevi CS, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member held that no question of absolute confiscation or re-export when goods have been cleared for domestic consumption. The Tribunal observed that “In our view, the issue raised before us with regard to the impugned goods have already been determined by the High Court. Once the goods have been released after inspection by authorized Chartered Engineer, as has been noted by the Hon’ble High Court, there cannot be any contrary view possible in the present appeal. Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

CESTAT Weekly Round-Up

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics