CX - CENVAT - Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 - Penalty, Interest - Excess credit availed has been reversed by appellant after being pointed out by Audit - appeal against demand of interest and imposition of penalty.

Held: From the tabulation given, it is apparent that the credit utilized in most of the months is in excess of the credit available as closing balance in the previous months -Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has not utilized the credit wrongly availed - Period of limitation would be applicable to demand of interest and demand only within five years from the date of issuance of the SCNcan be upheld - Impugned order is modified to that extent and the penalty and demand of interest is accordingly revised to that which is within five years from the date of issue of show cause notice - Appeal partly allowed: CESTAT [para 6] - Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - CENVAT - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Credit of Service tax paid on postage, courier charges and air travel expenses has been denied to the appellant on the ground that these services have no direct or indirectrelation to the manufacturing activities - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Appellant explains that manufacturing and sale of goods could not be completed unless there is timely movement of the important documents such as invoices, debit notes, papers for banks and Government authorities, cheques etc. required by various authorities, therefore, without courier/postage services, the appellant is not able to run the factory - similarly, services rendered by Air Travel Agencies are used by employees to travel abroad for business purposes - as the services are in connection with the manufacturing activity, credit is rightly availed by appellant - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 3, 3.1, 4] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - CENVAT - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Services related to construction, repairs and maintenance of residential complex, whether Input service.

Held: Though the respondent assesseehad submitted CAS-4 certificate to the Adjudicating Authority as well as before the Commissioner (Appeals), but both the Authorities have decided the eligibility/ineligibility of CENVAT credit on interpretation of definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Both the Authorities below have not verified the factual aspects whether the expenses of various services used for construction, repair and maintenance of residential complex were included in the cost of the final product which were cleared on payment of duty - Therefore, for verifying these vital facts,impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority: CESTAT [para 4] - Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit in respect of input services provided at job worker premises.

Held: Though the service was provided in the premises of job worker but the bill was raised in the name of appellant only and expenses of such services was borne by the appellant - Merely because the service was provided in the premises of job worker, it cannot be said that the service was not received by the appellant - The job worker carried out the job work i.e. manufacture of intermediate goods only for the appellant, in such case the service received even though at job work place, it is in or in relation to the manufacture of final product of the appellant, therefore, such service clearly gets covered under the definition of inputs service - Appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - DGCEI found that appellant had not paid service tax on reverse charge basis on certain services received from foreign-based firms - appellant paid tax and availed credit of the same - Case of Revenue is that such availment is incorrect in view of rule 9(1)(bb) of CCR, 2004 - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: It is apparent that Rule 9(1)(bb) is applicable to supplementary invoice, bill or challan issued by provider of output service and Rule 9(1)(e) is applicable, inter alia , to a person liable to pay service tax under Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - It is apparent that the appellant is not a service provider and, therefore, Rule 9(1)(bb) would not be applicable to them - appellant is paying service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Rule 2(1)(d) of STR, 1994 and, therefore, credit can be availed in terms of Rule 9(1)(e) of CCR - Since Rule 9(1)(bb) is not applicable to the appellant, the credit cannot be denied - Appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of bulk drugs and they are also manufacturing a product called TMQ, as named by assessee themselves - Assessee is claiming the classification of said product under sub heading 2302.00 while Department disputed the same and contended that it is correctly classifiable under heading 2941.30 - Goods were got tested in CRCL and pursuant to this Tribunal final order dt. 30.09.2004, the cross-examination of chemical examiner was conducted - After going through the contents of cross-examination, Tribunal is in complete agreement with observations of Commissioner (A) - Revenue's main ground is that in their own document TMQ has been called as Oxytetracycline Salt and therefore being a derivative of Tetracyclines, it should be classified under Heading 2941.30 - TMQ, being in process material is used as an additive to animal feed supplement and hence classifying the same as antibiotic or derivative or salts of the same was not correct - Considering the manufacturing process and in-process nature of material, issue is covered by judgment of Larger Bench in case of Tetraon Chemie (P) Ltd. - No infirmity found in the impugned order and the same is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT