CX - Merely by adding the excipient, the medicine which has a character of basic drug does not get altered - benefit of notfn. 4/2006-CE cannot be denied to Natural Micronised Progesterone sold under the name 'Sugest' - Revenue appeal rejected: CESTAT [para 4 to 6] - Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of cement and concrete blocks and are availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services - During course of verification of records of assessee, it appeared that assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 3(l) of CCR, 2004 as they had wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on capital goods / spares which have not been installed in their factory but elsewhere - As far as availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid in respect of services of their crusher unit, which is located 25 km away from the factory, geographical distance does not make much difference as has been held in cases of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2002-TIOL-138-CESTAT-DEL-SB , J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. 2002-TIOL-196-CESTAT-DEL and Vikram Cement 2006-TIOL-04-SC-CX-LB - Therefore with regard to input service availed at crusher unit, assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit but since in this case, assessee has supplied surplus quantity to others and therefore they have indulged in trading activity also - With regard to input service tax credit proportionate to the credit in regard to trading, matter remanded to original authority to determine proportionate cenvat credit relating to trading which is ineligible and with regard to remaining quantity which is consumed as captive consumption, assessee is entitled to input service tax credit - As far as imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR read with Section 11AC of CEA is concerned, assessee have informed the audit party that they have informed the Department vide their letter dt. 25/05/2010 and 04/06/2010 that they are owning the crusher unit which is functioning away from the manufacturing unit - Availing and utilising cenvat credit was truly and fully reported in monthly ER1 returns - In view of this, suppression cannot be invoked and penalty cannot be imposed: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

CX - Assessee is allotted preferential quota by M/s BSNL/MTNL for supply of various equipments irrespective of the facts, whether, their tender is accepted or not - However the price is determined on the basis of lowest price quoted by manufacturer/supplier in its tender - The customer places advance purchase order giving therein the description of goods, quantity of each goods and provisional price thereof - M/s BSNL place Advance Purchase Order for supply of 32 Channels, DWDM equipments listed in its Annexure "A" - The prices of each equipments were finalized and revised PO showed the price of hardware and software separately - As such, supplementary invoice were issued accordingly - Since customized software was exempt from payment of duty vide Notfn 06/2006-CE, it resulted in excess payment of duty for which refund claims has been filed - Same was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment and on the ground of non-production of documentary evidences - Assessee submits that they are in a position to establish that unjust enrichment does not stand attracted, in as much as, payments were received by them from BSNL only in terms of revised final purchase order - However, they fairly agrees that certificate of BSNL, now placed before Tribunal was not before the Authorities below - In as much as, the issue relates to verification of documents, which can only be done at the level of Original Adjudicating Authority, matter remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority for examining assessee's claim and to re-decide the same in light of law declared by various judgments of Tribunal relied upon by assessee: CESTAT - Matter remanded : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - Pursuant to final order of Tribunal, assessee approached the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for grant of refund by their request letter dated 23/03/2017 - In said letter, assessee had also mentioned that they are entitled to interest on delayed refund under provisions of Section 11B r/w Section 11BB of the Act - Concerned Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Mahabir has taken notice of the date of application of refund, as 25th May, 2006 in his order, but ignoring the judgment of Supreme Court which is binding on him, has ventured to make his own different interpretation, which is also in disregard to the instructions and circulars issued by the CBEC from time to time - Said action of Mr. Mahabir amounts to interference in process of administration of Justice - Mr. Mahabir, Deputy Commissioner is directed to file an explanation/show cause reply, as to why not a reference be made to Allahabad High Court for drawing proceedings of contempt under Contempt of Court Act for disobeying the mandate of law amounting to interference in dispensing of Justice - However, one last opportunity is given, in the alternative, to grant interest to the assessee and file compliance report, on or before the next date: CESTAT - Appeal disposed of : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - Issue is regarding transfer of cenvat credit lying unutilised to assessee's credit on change of ownership/shareholding pattern and whether permission is required from jurisdictional authority and is it mandatory for availment of Cenvat credit - Lower authorities specifically admitted that PAN number and ECC number which were held by Multi Pack System was the same even ownership of said Multi Pack System has been changed to assessee - It is on record that assessee has taken over the running unit of said Multi Pack System with all its assets and liabilities and would mean that the unit has undergone only a change in the name - It is also on record that manufacturing activity under Central Excise registration number of Multi Pack System was the at very same place and subsequently, continued in same place in the name of assessee - Both the lower authorities have interpreted the provision of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit in case of change of ownership - Provision of Rule 10(1) clearly indicates that if there is transfer of factory due to change in ownership, manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the Cenvat credit lying unutilized to such transfer merged manufacturer - The findings recorded by first appellate authority that sale which took place was not accompanied with completer transfer of liabilities from Multi Pack system to the assessee is without any basis as the fact remains that PAN and ECC numbers of Multi Pack is the same as is of assessee - If assessee is functioning under different name and style from the very same place, mere change in shareholding pattern being accompanied by the change in the name of the transferor i.e. Multi Pack System cannot be said as change in ownership: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CX - Issue relates to eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on "sales commission" - Considering the number of appeals on same issue and categorical observation of Gujarat High Court in Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd.'s case 2014-TIOL-237-HC-AHM-ST that the judgment is binding on all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, it would be inappropriate, to decide the issue following the Division Bench judgment when the matter is on Board of High Court - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and others following the principle laid down by Larger Bench, disposed of the matters, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the cases pending before the higher forum - Following the said judgment, appeals disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of High Court in pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s case 2016-TIOL-520-CESTAT-AHM filed by the Revenue: CESTAT - Appeal disposed of : AHMEDABAD CESTAT