The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that there is no dispute as to the fact that amount lying in balance in the Cenvat credit account of the Appellant. Further, it was noted that refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit does not fall under any of the rules and that there are no express or implicit provisions in the Excise Act and the Credit Rules for grant of refund of Cenvat Credit balance lying unutilized at the time of closure of the unit.
For the purpose of availing Cenvat credit, there is no requirement that the Service tax should have been deposited by the service provider before the availment of the credit. In terms of Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the Service tax paid or payable as is indicated in the invoice.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that in terms of agreement, principals were required to maintain godown and hence, principals were liable to pay godown rent and the Appellant acted only as their agent. Similarly, bills of labour contractors for arranging loading and unloading and bills of transporters were in name of principals and not in name of assessee. Hence, payment against these bills was made by the Appellant acting as pure agent on behalf of principal. Therefore, these expenses would not be includible in assessable value.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Respondent could claim the Cenvat credit in case of the defective Products returned and it cannot be denied merely due to the fact that the refund of the duty paid on the finished goods which have been returned being defective hasn’t been claimed under erstwhile Rule 173L of the Rules.
In the instant case, Reiter India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) imported a consignment of Textile Machinery parts vide invoice no. 3506445/2000 dated May 10, 2011 valued at 997740.24 CHF vide Bill of Entry no. 3610581 dated May 25, 2011.
In the instant case, the Revenue alleged violation of conditions of duty-free import against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Petitioner) and issued demand notice cum adjudication order (Impugned Demand) directing the Petitioner to pay Central Excise and Customs duties along
PROVIDED ALSO that the Commissioner may, after giving to the dealer an opportunity of being heard, may direct the dealer to deposit an amount deemed reasonable, out of the amount under dispute, before such objection is entertained.
In the instant case, shipping agent of the Atlantic Shipping (P.) Ltd. (the Respondent) paid the provisionally assessed Customs duty on estimated quantity of bunker fuel to be consumed during the coastal run.
Arvind Ltd. was a composite textile mill engaged in the manufacture of 100% cotton fabrics which were cleared for export as well as for home consumption. The Appellant was simultaneously availing exemption under Notification No.29/2004- CE-Tariff dated July 9, 2004 (“the Notification No.29/2004”) and 30/2004-CE‑Tariff dated July 9, 2004 .
The Hon’ble CESTAT observed that Rule 2(a) of the Credit Rules provide that the condition for availing Cenvat credit on capital goods is their use within the factory of the manufacturer of final products. It was held that there was no requirement under the Credit Rules that the capital goods must be installed within the factory of production.
