The CESTAT Kolkata has ruled in favor of Haldia Petrochemicals Limited in Excise Appeal No. 762/2010. The appeal challenged the duty demand of Rs. 10,67,40,103/- under the proviso to Section 11A, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Kolkata has quashed the service tax demand imposed on Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL) in a case involving a composite contract for setting up a cement manufacturing unit. The tribunal determined that the contract primarily involved the supply of goods, and the value assigned to the bought-out items sold by WIL cannot be considered as a consulting engineer service.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the shortage ascertained during the course of stock-taking are on the basis of assumption and presumption. Accordingly, duty demand on account of shortage of finished goods unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand on supply of transmission line accessories and hardware fittings unsustainable as the same is only supply and not manufacture. Further, revenue couldn’t adduce any evidence of clandestine manufacture.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of refund claim of sugar cess on the ground of pendency of proceedings when no stay has been given by any higher court is unjustified.
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of credit of service tax stating that coal and iron ore mines situated away from the factory is unsustainable as no material has been placed on record by the revenue to substantiate that the mines were owned by separate entities.
CESTAT Kolkata held that receipt, utilization and duty paid nature of the input Sponge Iron was not in dispute. Hence, CENVAT credit duly available as input Sponge Iron is utilized in manufacturing of finished goods i.e. Pig Iron.
The CESTAT Kolkata has dismissed allegations of suppression and quashed a service tax demand in the Bimal Auto Agency Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX case, providing significant implications for the treatment of incentive-based transactions.
The issue at hand was the refund claim by Tata Motors, following a price increase and subsequent reversal due to non-acceptance by the buyer. The court had to decide whether the excise duty paid on the increased price could be refunded under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT set aside the order demanding excise duty and held that the buyer who has paid a valuable consideration could not be proceeded upon by taking the aid of a larger period of limitation as per Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless it is proved that the buyer was also involved in fraud.
