ST - Petitioner has challenged O-I-O, by which, the respondent has confirmed demand of service tax alongwith interest under Section 75 of FA, 1994 and imposed penalty - Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal as being time barred - Appeal was also dismissed by CESTAT by 2014-TIOL-1999-CESTAT-MAD for the very same reason - Court is unable to countenance the stand for the reason that Commissioner (A) as well as CESTAT did not decide on the merits of issue - The Division Bench thought fit to grant liberty to petitioner to assail the correctness of SCN - This is a good indication that Division Bench was prima facie satisfied that the case was projected by petitioner - If the benefit of exemption notification is applied and if it is found that the turnover for service tax provided by petitioner firm has not exceeded Rs.10 lakhs during 2008-09, question of demanding service tax from petitioner would not arise - Petitioner point out that respondent themselves have admitted that the turnover is Rs.9,98,817/- and if that is so, benefit of exemption notification would automatically stand attracted - Thus, Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions so as to enable the petitioner to go before respondent and place the exemption notification for their consideration so that respondent can pass reverse orders: HC - Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

ST - Refund - Notification 12/2014-CX(NT) - Appellant's claim is that by virtue of Section 68(2) of FA, 1994 since liability to pay partial service tax has been imposed on them, they become service provider is misplaced - If the Government intended to provide this facility of refund under rule 5B of CCR, 2004 to service recipient paying service tax on reverse charge basis, the Government would have used the word "person liable to pay service tax" and not the word "service provider" - Section 68(2) is a special mechanism for shifting part liability to pay service tax from "service provider" to "service recipient" but it does not convert the "service recipient" into "service provider" - Rule 5B of CCR, 2004 has no application in the appellant's case - Impugned orders upheld and appeals dismissed: CESTAT [para 4, 4.2, 5, 6] - Appeals dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee had availed CENVAT credit of CVD paid on imported inputs and had exported some of inputs 'as such', without using the inputs for manufacture of final products, namely, Relays - Department took the view that assessee was not eligible to avail cenvat credit in respect of imported inputs which had been re-exported - Once the imported inputs have been re-exported, this would bring about a legal position as if the said goods had not been imported at all - This is precisely the intention of Cenvat Credit scheme, that is to allow availment of credit of duty to the extent that has been suffered by assessee - By denying the availment of cenvat credit on the CVD suffered, assessee is being put to unintended double loss - Identical situation had been addressed in case of MRF Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1573-CESTAT-MAD , wherein Tribunal held that as the inputs have been re-exported, benefit of drawback for reexport is available under Section 74 and relying on the ratio of decision of Zydex Industries case also, demand of availment of cenvat credit was held as incorrect - These Tribunal decisions are Single Bench decisions - Nonetheless, they are directly on the issue - It is also confirmed by assessee that no appeals have been filed against these decisions - Impugned order cannot be sustained and same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - the assessee-company manufactures seats for motor vehicles - Cenvat credit was availed on inputs & capital goods and on service tax paid on input services - Such credit was used on clearances of finished goods - Audit revealed certain provisions in their ledger, wherein stock of shortages & excess was accounted - Such provisional entries were made after completing periodical internal stock takings - Further verification revealed shortage of inputs - Demand was raised for recovery of credit with interest & equal penalty - Such order was upheld by the Commr.(A) -

Held - The shortage is very miniscule and is attributed to accounting error - There is no evidence of clandestine removal - Hence credit cannot be disallowed - The order in question set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,2,3) - Appeal Allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of various machines - Goods were imported on payment of appropriate duty of Customs, goods were received in factory and they were used in manufacture of final product and Cenvat credit of CVD paid on the input was availed as Cenvat credi - Only dispute was whether the photocopies of Bill of Entry for availing Cenvat credit were admissible document in view of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - When the courier agency has been permitted to file common Bill of Entry on behalf of several importers, obviously all such importers cannot be given original documents - Production of photocopies of Bill of Entry by assessee cannot be held against them - Tribunal has decided the issue in the case of Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd. - In view of the findings of precedent decision of Tribunal, Cenvat credit of Rs.8,19,655/- was admissible to assessee: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture and sale of Aluminium products - During process of manufacture of Aluminium products, Aluminium dross and skimmings were produced - Whether 'aluminium dross and skimmings' which is a waste product is liable to excise duty - Issue involved has already been settled in favour of assessee by Bombay High Court, in assessee's own case in 2014-TIOL-2266-HC-MUM-CX , wherein it has been held that aluminium dross, not being a result of any process, is not covered within the definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - Further, Supreme Court in matter of DSCL Sugar Ltd. 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX , has held that waste product/residue, which itself is not the result of any process, cannot be treated as falling within definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and in the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty - In view of said orders and also CBEC Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX , the issue now stands settled in favour of assessee as it becomes abundantly clear that Aluminium dross, being a waste product produced during manufacture of Aluminium products, cannot be subject to excise duty and therefore, impugned Orders set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - the assessee-company is a 100% EoU, manufacturing & exporting medicines in bulk - The assessee availed Cenvat credit on inputs procured indigenously and of Service Tax paid on input services received - The assessee claimed refund of unsused credit under Notfn. No. 5/2006-CE(NT) - However, the Department rejected the refund claims - The Commr.(A) remanded the matter for fresh verification -

Held - The Commr.(A) directed reconsideration in light of Board Circular which have been issued subsequent to the passing of the Order-in-Original rejecting refund - Hence nothing erroneous in such order: CESTAT (Para 2,3,4,9) - Appeal Dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

Cus - The petitioners had placed orders for import of Cartridges of 12 Bore Shotgun and the goods landed in Chennai Airport and bill of entries were filed by petitioners through their clearing agent - The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of having produced the necessary documents to show that they are renowned shooter and entitled for exemption from Customs Duty as per the Government of India notifications, the 4th respondent detained the consignment and they had to pay the duty for clearance of goods - Respondent justify the action by referring to notfn dated 01.10.2010 by which a proviso was added to serial number 2, in column (3), after condition (b) in notfn dated 13.07.1994 and it is stated that petitioner is required to produce the certificate from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary, in Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India recommending the grant of exemption and since the petitioner had not produced such a certificate, a grant of exemption would not arise - The purport and import of such inclusion by adding a provisio is to facilitate the process of acquiring imported goods duty free - If interpretation given by 4th respondent has to be accepted, no emminent sportsman in this particular field would ever be able to import any of the ammunition of arms for training purpose and he will be languishing in corridors of Department of Youth affairs for years together for obtaining appropriate certification - This is precisely the reason for introducing explanation to said provision - The respondent cannot deny the fact that both the petitioners are Renowned Shooters and National Rifle Association certified, so, considering the fact that one of them has done prior imports through the Bangalore Airport, the 4th respondent was not justified in denying the relief of exemption to petitioner - The respondents are directed to refund the customs duty collected from petitioners together with admissible interest within a period of three weeks: HC - Writ petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Cus - Petition has been filed against order of Adjudicating Authority granting provisional release of goods on the condition to furnish bank guarantee for Rupees One Crore - If the petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order, he can prefer an Appeal before Commissioner of Customs (A) - This is clear on a reading of Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner is required to avail such remedy because of complicated factual situation involved - Therefore, Court cannot test the correctness of impugned order, by making a roving enquiry into factual position, which has been placed before the Court at the instance of DRI - Therefore, petitioner should avail alternate remedy under the provisions of Customs Act: HC - Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT