Indian Tax Solution
Recovery cannot be effected 3 years from the date of SCN
Rebate of Excise duty where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.
No SSI Exemption on manufacturing own Goods with 3rd Party Brand.
Interest is leviable on credit availed even if not utilised.
Value of Goods obtained on job-work cannot be included into turnover to calculate SSI Limit.
Section 35F do not bar Pre-Deposit out of CENVAT Credit Account.
Lessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on capital goods on which lessor has availed depreciation U/s. 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Personal Penalty on director for clearance of taxable goods as exempt is unwarranted in absence of their role in the same.
Section 11D cannot be invoked if excise duty collected been paid to Govt.
I find that it is admitted fact that the appellant have enhanced their installed capacity of production from 5000 M.T. to 15,000 M.T. which have been approved by the Central Excise Department. It is further admitted fact that the expansion in capacity took place during the period 2007 to 2009, to which the amount in dispute (input credit) in this appeal relates. I further find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant\'s own case as noticed hereinabove have by a speaking and reasoned order accepted the claim of Cenvat credit. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.5,70,549/- being the amount debited by them under protest on 1/4/13, with interest as per Rules
The Chartered Accountant\'s Certificate now produced needs to be scrutinized alongwith supporting evidences that would be produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of unjust enrichment afresh in the light of evidences on record and that would be produced by the appellant in the denovo proceedings.
In our considered view, the first appellate authority was within his jurisdiction to pass an order on the allegations regarding mis-declaration by suppressing the facts and willful mis-statement. We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue as they have not contraverted in the findings of the first appellate authority by any evidence but only are seeking to expunge these observations on the ground that they were travelling beyond show-cause notice.
Section 11AC: No Interest / Penalty on value of goods escalated by buyer retrospectively.
In the absence of any such evidence, we find that the transaction value as declared by the appellant should not have been rejected. Our this view is fortified by the apex court in Sounds N. Images 2000 (117) ELT 538 (SC) wherein the Lordships have settled the law that the burden to establish by methods known to law and in a satisfactory manner that the value of imported goods is not what the importer says it is and what that value actually is- That onus cannot be shifted to the importer. In the case in hand, this onus has not been discharged by the revenue.
Irrespective of the classification of service, if the same are provided within the port, such services should be considered as port service for the purpose of refund benefit.