CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-237-CESTAT-MUM

Rathi Dye Chem Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX – CENVAT – Input Service – Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Group Insurance Service, Courier Service and Air Travel Service are necessary for the Appellant to conduct their manufacturing and business activity - Issue since considered on various occasions by the Tribunal does not remain res-integra – Credit admissible – Impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-228-CESTAT-MUM + Story

Empire Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Outdoor Catering Services is a necessity but once said service is excludedw.e.f 01.04.2011, the use of such service, whether statutorily required or otherwise, does not render the services eligible for CENVAT - Once a service is not covered due to exclusion, irrespective of fact whether the cost of services has been taken as expenditure in the books of account does not render the services as admissible for CENVAT credit -Impugned order upheld and appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Denso Haryana Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

Central Excise - Whether assessee is liable to pay duty on the amount retained as Sales Tax collected from the customers as per the Entitlement Certificate issued by the Haryana Vat Department - Assessee engaged in manufacturing of motor vehicle parts, located in IMT Manesar, Gurgaon - During course of audit, it was observed that assessee is availing benefit of Sales Tax concession under the Sales Tax Department Scheme - Issue came up before the Apex Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited 2014-TIOL-74-SC-CX wherein Apex Court held that the amount retained on account of sales tax as per the Entitlement Certificate is to be added in assessable value - In this case periodical SCNs have been issued to assessee and demands for December, 2006 to October 2007 are overlapping by two SCNs issued to assessee - Both the SCNs cover the period of December, 2006 to October, 2007 twice - Third SCN was issued on7.5.2010 to demand duty for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 - The adjudicating authority in impugned order has accepted the plea of assessee that for period December, 2006 to October, 2007 is overlapping - SCN dated 4.5.2009 has been issued to assessee by invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore, demands for extended period of limitation in SCN dated 4.5.2009 are also set aside - Remaining demands as per SCN dated 4.5.2009 which are within the limitation and the demands as per SCN dated 7.5.2010 are confirmed - Assessee is liable to pay interest for the intervening period for these demands - As assessee has not collected any duty on the amount of sales tax retained by them, assessee is entitled to cum duty benefit - As the extended period of limitation is not invokable issue was pending before Apex Court and was settled in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., therefore, no penalty is imposable on assessee: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

E I Dupont India P Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Issue is regarding denial of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on Input service i.e., "Coaching and Training Services" - Assessee had engaged professionals to train the contract employees to manufacturing activity and other allied activities on which Service Tax liability was discharged - Both lower authorities have held that "Coaching and Training" is in respect of people who are not in the pay roll of assessee, hence, it cannot be ascertained as said services are in relation of manufacturing activity - Findings of lower authorities seem to be disjointed from the fact that is admitted that 'Coaching and Training' were undertaken in factory premises of assessee, the invoices raised by service provider were for the same - It is seen that services rendered is undisputed, but credit is sought to be denied on the technical aspects - Impugned order is not in consonance with the law laid down by various decisions one of them in case of J K Cements wherein the Tribunal held that General Accident Insurance Policy even if it is taken and in respect of contract workers, Service tax paid on such 'Insurance Services' is eligible as input service for the availment of Cenvat Credit - Extending the same ratio as the fact that the Revenue authorities has not dispelled the plea that the services of "Coaching and Training" in the case in hand was rendered for contract employees it has held that the activity of rendering such training was a part of the manufacturing activity and will become an input Service for assessee: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Elin Electronics Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Mixer Grinder Motors (U.V. Motors) and supplied the same to M/s Maya Appliances (P) Ltd. - They had raised supplementary invoices due to increase in prices of raw material - The said two invoices had been returned by M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd not accepting the increased prices - Consequently, assessee had filed the refund for duty paid on both the invoices - During scrutiny of refund claim, it has been observed that assessee had supplied the goods on the basis of Purchase Orders received form M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd. from time to time - Assessee had not enclosed any agreement regarding increase of prices on the basis of which supplementary invoices had been issued - However, it further appeared that value of Mixer Grinder Motor was shown less by assessee at the time of raising invoice for the first time and paid duty on less value and thereafter the assessee had to issue supplementary invoices for differential value and paid duty - There is no material on record based on which courts below have drawn the adverse inference of any manipulation of showing less transaction value in the original invoices - The facts stated by assessee before the Revenue in re-fund application and in reply to SCN have not been found untrue nor any adverse material available on record before the court below - Accordingly, adjudicating authority is directed to grant re-fund within a period of sixty days along with interest as per Rules: CESTAT - Matter remanded: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

United Metal Industries Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Rerolled products of non alloy steel and opted to pay duty on re-rolled products of non alloy steel as per the compounded levy scheme and filed declaration with the Commissioner of Central Excise in prescribed format - The Annual Capacity of Production was finally determined by the Commissioner - However, assessee did not discharge this duty liability according to said Annual Capacity of Production determination - Original authority vide Order dated 27.3.2003 confirmed the differential duty amount demanded as per the 5 SCN and imposed equal penalty besides demanding interest @ 18% - Assessee does not wish to contest the demand and is confining the challenge in appeal only with regard to demand of interest and penalty imposed - The Apex Court in case of Shree Bhagwati Rolling Mills 2015-TIOL-283-SC-CX has held that levy of interest and penalty are invalid - Following the same, it is held that the demand of interest and penalties imposed are unsustainable - Impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the demand of interest and penalty imposed without disturbing the duty demand: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed; CHENNAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

Raj Bahadur Yadav Vs CC

Cus – Penalty – Customs Act, 1962 - Forged and fake documents were carried by transporter concealing 100 packages of cigarettes of the brand “Djarum Black” of Indonesian origin - Story of appellant is unbelievable when appellant is in the business of transportation and he did not enquire whether questionable goods are loaded therein - When the transporter did not enquire what is meant for transportation, he runs his own risk - It is settled principle of law that doctrine of caveat emptor does not entertain such plea of innocence when the person pleading the case is expected to be aware where he stands –preponderance of probability governs the fiscal proceedings as against strict proof of defence which is warranted under the criminal proceedings – Therefore, appellant having conscious knowledge of smuggling is liable to be dealt under law for which his appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 3 to 5] - Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-94-HC-MAD-CUS

Greenglobe Exports India Pvt Ltd Vs Asst.CC

Cus - The petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to amend the shipping bills filed by petitioner pursuant to their application dated 13.4.2017 - The petitioner further stated that at the time of filing shipping bills, they inadvertently omitted to select 'YES' in the on line platform so as to claim the benefit of scheme - Therefore, petitioner sent the application dated 13.4.2017 seeking permission to amend the shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner also sent a representation dated 09.11.2017 to the first respondent reiterating the stand taken in their earlier application dated 13.4.2017 - Since the said representation is pending from November 2017 before the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court - Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to first respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 09.11.2017 requesting for issuance of a no objection certificate for amending 'MEIS Reward Detail - No to MIES Reward Detail - Yes' and such a consideration shall be made within a period of two weeks: HC - Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-93-HC-MAD-CUS

Cus - The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by Settlement Commission, particularly by which Settlement Commission holds that petitioner is liable to pay simple interest at 15% - In case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) , the Court considered somewhat a similar issue and held that as per Section 127H of the Act, power of Settlement Commission is relatable to waiver either partial or full amount of interest under the Act only and in said case, the importer was and is under obligation to pay interest not under the provisions of the Act, but, under the bond at the rate of 24% in terms of exemption notification and though the bond was furnished in terms of statutory decision, contractual character was not destroyed - Further, it was held that the rate of interest of 24% was not the interest chargeable under the Act, but under the bond, which is contractual document in nature and this contractual question has not been examined by the Commission - The decision of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Port) was approved and confirmed by Supreme Court in case of Rexnord Electronics and Controls Ltd. 2008-TIOL-35-SC-CUS - In said decision, Supreme Court held that the interest payable under the bond is not an interest payable under the Act - There is no error in the order passed by Settlement Commission: HC - Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT