CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CCE Vs SKF India Ltd

CX - CENVAT - Distribution of credit by Input Service Distributor - Renting of Immovable property service and Telephone services can be exclusively identified as used wholly by one unit - mischief of Rule 7(c) of CCR, 2004 attracted - further, if a premises is only used for trading activities then the distribution of credit exclusively attributable to such unit will result in revenue loss to the Government - apparently there is no revenue neutrality - Revenue appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 5.2, 6] - Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-401-CESTAT-BANG

Hi-Build Coating Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) has held that CENVAT credit on input service taken from 01/04/2008 in respect of tax paid on C&F agent service is ineligible and confirmed the demand - Only point for consideration in appeals is whether the assessee is eligible to avail credit of service tax paid by their consignment agent viz. C&F agent - Both the authorities have allowed credit of service tax up to the period 01/04/2008 and strangely rejected the credit after the period 01/04/2008 only on the ground that the services rendered by consignment agents are services which are required after removal of goods from the factory gate and therefore vide the amendment to Rule 2(I) effective from 01/04/2008, the assessee is not entitled for availment of credit which finding is not legally correct - Commissioner (A) has given the finding that assessee has sold their goods through C&F agents and are eligible as per Rule 2(I) of CCR - Hence the services of C&F fall under the category of C&F, assessee is entitled for credit of service tax paid on the commission given to the consignment agents - Further no fault found in impugned order where Commissioner (A) has categorically held that assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit on AMC charges on computerised tinting machines and steel racks, as both the services fall under definition of input service and Commissioner (A) has given detailed reasons for the same - Assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit on input services in respect of which tax paid on C&F agent services even after 01/04/2008: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

Coromandel International Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - the assessee-company availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Construction service - The Revenue held such availment, during a particular period, to be incorrect - Duty demand was raised for recovery of the same - Demands for interest & equal penalty were imposed too -

Held - Admittedly, the assessee reversed the credit availed, immediately upon being pointed out by the Audit team - The SCN demanding interest & equal penalty issued after one year, is barred by limitation, considering the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd vs CCE - Also, in view of the Gujarat High Court's decision in CCE & C Vs. Gujrat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. , imposition of interest & penalty is unwarranted - The same are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,6) - Appeal Allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-399-CESTAT-AHM

CCE Vs Bajaj Herbals Pvt Ltd

CX - Issue is regarding availment of Cenvat Credit on documents self created by assessee or otherwise - Assessee is a manufacturer of excisable goods and availing Cenvat Credit on Inputs and Input Services - They cleared the final products on payment of duty which were received by them and took the Cenvat Credit on finished goods received back as per the provisions of Rule 16 of CER, 2002 - During audit, same was objected by Revenue and SCN was issued for demands of said amount alongwith interest and for imposition of penalties - First Appellate Authority in impugned order has considered all the objections raised by Revenue in the grounds of appeal - The First Appellate Authority after recording the main issue to be decided by him in impugned order reproduces the provision of Rule 9 of CCR - Said findings are undisputed by Revenue as to the receipt of goods back in the factory premises and duty paid character of the same - The First Appellate Authority has taken plausible view on the issue within the framework of provisions of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 and Rule 16 of CER, 2002 - Impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference - The impugned order is upheld: CESTAT - Appeals rejected : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

Jagatjit Industries Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee has imported certain goods and stored the same in a public bonded warehouse - However, in violation of warehousing bond executed by them, assessee has failed to clear goods even after expiry of warehousing period - Such goods are to be deemed as improperly removed in terms of Section 72 (1) (b) of the Act - Consequently, goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act - Hence, no infirmity found in order passed by lower authorities to confiscate the imported goods - However, redemption fine and penalty imposed are on the higher side, same is reduced to Rs.4 lakhs and penalty to Rs.2 lakhs - However, assessee will be liable to pay custom duty along with interest: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-394-CESTAT-DEL

MC Overseas Vs CC

Cus - Dispute is with reference to correct valuation of imported air-conditioners - Customs officers conducted certain verification on information that comparable goods of identical nature have been imported by others with higher transaction value - The statement of various persons were recorded and details were collected regarding contemporaneous imports of identical goods - Original Authority rejected the declared assessable value and re-determined the same based on contemporaneous value declared for similar goods imported by other persons - All the issues raised by assessee have not been duly addressed for a detailed finding by Original Authority - The point strongly contested by assessee is denial of exemption under notfn 29/2010-cus - The exemption was denied only on the ground that no supporting evidence was submitted by assessee by way of sale bills and payment of VAT - Tribunal agrees with assessee that this is not one of the conditions stipulated in said notfn - Regarding comparison of value with reference to imports by EGPL, assessee contested certain factual findings recorded in impugned order - Based on a letter received from M/s. RAACO ONE, who is a non-authorized dealer of air-conditioners, a conclusion was drawn regarding nature of transaction of airconditioners in India - It is submitted that EGPL provided free copper tubings, commission and installation service for air-conditioners sold by them - This fact requires further examination.

One more important aspect is regarding confiscation of imported goods covered by 14 bills of entries - Original Authority ordered confiscation of seized as well as 'un-seized' goods with an option to redeem on payment of Rs.2.5 crores in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 - It is now a well settled legal principle that Adjudicating Authority cannot order confiscation of goods, which were neither seized /detained nor released on a specific bond executed by the owner - Confiscation, if any, is to be with reference to seized goods only - Accordingly, finding with reference to confiscation and redemption fine is to be re-examined for a fresh decision : CESTAT - Matter remanded : DELHI CESTAT