CESTAT Kolkata held that cenvat credit is available in respect of iron and steel, cement, welding electrodes etc. used in manufacture of storage tank and pollution control system.
CESTAT Kolkata held that NIDB data cannot be relied upon when it is relating to different quantity and quality of goods. Further, enhancement of value based on LME prices untenable in view of unambiguous certificates from the manufacturers of the impugned goods.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act would not be applicable to amounts paid under mistake of law.
It is seen that the Certificate from the Chartered Accountant is mandated under Para 3(i) of the Notification if the refund claim amount is more than 0.5% of the FOB value of the goods exported. Since legislative intention is not to export the taxes, I feel that an opportunity can be given to the Appellant to file the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate in terms of Para 3(i) of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29/06/2012.
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of retracted statement and in absence of any independent corroborative evidence unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Kolkata granted redemption of prohibited goods as against absolute confiscation as importer was not aware about the amendment in policy and importantly policy was amended when the shipment was in process.
Tribunal has taken view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of value of imported goods, would be appropriate in case of imports violating Exim Policy Provisions.
HC held that, procedural lapses cannot be a ground for denying substantive benefits to assessee. Further held that, Show Cause Notice issued before the passing of such order was barred by limitation.
There is no restriction in CENVAT Credit Rules that Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products, CENVAT credit cannot be denied
The issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services obtained by the appellant for removal of coal fly ash from the captive power plant which is used for generation of power, which in turn, is captively consumed for manufacture of excisable goods, can be held to be an eligible cenvatable input service.
