CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-87-CESTAT-BANG

CCE Vs Associated Cement Company Ltd

CX - the assessee-company manufactures cement & clinker - The assessee receive Welding Electrodes & use them for maintenance of plant & machinery - The assessee availed credit on such inputs - Welding electrodes were used to hold the machinery as part of initial installation & during maintenance and repair - The Revenue disallowed credit claimed on such inputs & raised duty demand for recovery of the same - Interest & equal penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 was imposed as well - The Commr.(A) set aside such order -

Held - Welding electrodes are valid 'inputs' - Hence the assessee can avail credit on them - Such issue already covered in several judgments, which are applicable to the assessee's case - Hence the O-i-A in question merits no interference: CESTAT (Para 1,5) - Appeal Dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-86-CESTAT-BANG

Kems Forgings Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Forgings of Iron & Steel, Transmission Elements Steel Die Blocks and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on various input services under CCR, 2004 - The construction was raised at Hosakote factory but assessee has wrongly taken the credit at their Maruthalli factory and when it was pointed out during the audit, the assessee paid back the credit which was appropriated by Revenue - Period in dispute is March 2008 during that time, the construction service fall in definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) under the phrase 'setting up of a factory' and Commissioner (A) has wrongly applied the amended 'input service' definition which came into force from 01.04.2011 which is probably wrong - Further, during the relevant time Construction of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service was among the seventeenth taxable services listed under Rule 6(5) for which manufacturers were allowed to take full credit and therefore even under Rule 6(5) before it was omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the manufacturer was entitled to take the full credit - Contractor corrected the invoice subsequently and on the correct invoice, service recipient's address was Hosakote factory and this defect is curable under Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 but Commissioner (A) has not considered this aspect also - Further, subsequent demand at Hosakote factory is barred by principles of constructive res judicata as it amounts to double demand for the same service and it is not permitted under law - Impugned order denying the cenvat credit on construction activity is not sustainable in law: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-85-CESTAT-ALL

CCE, C & ST Vs Victor Pushin Cords Pvt Ltd

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Power Cords, Connectors & PVC Wire - The assessee had allegedly availed Cenvat Credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s VKMW without receipt of any material - Said allegation was levelled against assessee in view of an investigation carried out by DGCEI against M/s VKMW alleged supplier of goods to assessee wherein it came to notice that M/s VKMW had no manufacturing facility at their declared factory premises and were engaged in issuing fraudulent invoices to their customers showing fictitious production of copper ingots in their unit - Findings of Commissioner (A) have not been assailed by Revenue except bald allegation - The grounds of appeal are more or less repetition of SCN - Revenue itself after due verification had granted registration to said M/s VKMW - It is an admitted fact that Revenue have taken action against said M/s VKMW only in year 2010 - Thus, during the period of transactions 2004 - 05 and 2006 - 07, assessee have entered into transaction with said M/s VKMW bona-fide - It is also admitted fact that neither Revenue had cancelled the registration certificate of said M/s VKMW nor given any public notice as to the fraud committed by said M/s VKMW - Thus, assessee acted bona-fide and have procured the inputs from said M/s VKMW on payment of duty by making payment for invoices through the banking channel - Accordingly, assessee have discharged their onus as regards genuineness of the transactions in question: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt02_2018

CBEC notifies Viramgam in Ahmedabad for import / export purposes

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-84-CESTAT-MAD