These two appeals are against impugned orders, both dated 01/07/2010, passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellant is an institution created by an Act of Parliament – The Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (EPMF & MP Act).
Honble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts gave the rulings that reversal of Cenvat credit will amount to not taking Cenvat credit and accordingly benefit of relevant exemption notifications was held to be available to such assessees who reverse Cenvat credit earlier taken.
Appellant was supervisor to provide technical assistance for the purpose of erection and installation. Therefore Revenue is correct in its approach to bring the service provided by the appellant as Consulting Engineer, providing consultancy for the said service.
Value of goods obtained on job-work basis cannot be included into turnover of appellants. By excluding this value items manufactured by appellants comes below limit prescribed for S.S.I. Exemption.
Mittal International Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) Refund claim was denied on the ground that the said goods have been exported and drawback is allowed on the export of goods. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants have claimed drawback on export of the goods, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim […]
In view of the above observations, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. All issues are kept open. Appellant be granted adequate opportunity of hearing to present their case. Both sides are at liberty to produce evidences in their favour.
From the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely paper and paperboard falling Chapter Heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,50,149/- on capital goods, procured on lease basis from one M/s B.G. India Energy Services Pvt. Ltd
In as much as the brand name owner M/s Hindustan Machines has been held to be entitled to the benefit of Notification, the other units using the said brand name would become entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification as they are not hit by para 7 of the Notification.
It was not even alleged that they collected a amount as ‘duty’ but not paid it to the exchequer. None of situation specified in section 11D is applicable in the present case. In fact, in such a situation, there should not have any grievance to the parties since the appellants had paid the amount whatever they collected and paid it completely.
