2018-TIOL-601-CESTAT-DEL

CST Vs Finn Air PLC

ST - Assessee engaged in selling air tickets and also providing airport services - The first issue is for demand of Service tax on account of taxable airport services and passenger service fee - Identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in case of Royal Jordanian Airlines & others 2017-TIOL-4578-CESTAT-DEL wherein issue is settled in favour of assessee - Next issue relates to levy of penalty on demand of service tax which was paid during the course of investigation - The issue came up before the Tribunal in case of American Airlines 2016-TIOL-2400-CESTAT-DEL wherein also issue is covered in favour of assessee - No reason found to interfere in impugned order: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHII CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-604-CESTAT-MAD

CCE Vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker and cleared in the form of 50 kg per bag, on payment of central excise duty at concessional rate availing the exemption vide Sl.No.1C of Notfn 04/2006 as amended - Since the cement manufactured by assessee was cleared to industrial and institutional consumers and cement packages carried the remark 'not for resale, meant for industrial/institutional consumption', assessee availed benefit of said Notification - A SCN was issued to assessee alleging that exemption under said notfn is applicable only when both the conditions (a) & (b) of Rule 2A of PC Rules were satisfied together and not in isolation - The provisions of Rule 2A (a) and Rule 2A (b) are mutually exclusive and the use of semi colon between the two clauses clearly indicate that the two clauses are to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively in view of Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1433-CESTAT-MUM and ACC Ltd. 2017-TIOL-3820-CESTAT-MAD - I ssue has also been settled in favour of assessee in their own case for same period and is no longer res integra - In Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit-I) 2008-TIOL-2328-CESTAT-DEL , it was held that cement bags cleared by assessee would be covered under Sl.No.1C of the said Notfn by relying on the CBEC Clarification dated 12.06.2008 - Appeal filed by department is devoid of merit and same is dismissed: - CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-603-CESTAT-MUM

CCE Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd

CX – Exempted goods can be exported under bond/undertaking in terms of rule 19 of CER, 2002 – Law settled by Bombay High Court in the appeal by Revenue being CEA 39 of 2013 by order dated 25.06.2014 – Revenue appeal dismissed and impugned order upheld – respondent is entitled to consequential benefit in accordance with law: CESTAT [para 3, 4] - Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-602-CESTAT-DEL

Luminous Power Technologies Vs CCE

CX - Penalty - appellant imported certain goods and paid CVD and SAD thereon - During investigation, when it came to the knowledge of Department, assessee paid the amount attributable to SAD along with interest - Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by issuance of SCN to assessee to demand duty to the extent of Cenvat Credit availed on SAD along with interest and to impose penalties under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 r/w Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - If an assessee is paying excess duty, and could not pay the duty due to the failure in their system cannot attribute that assesee was having malafide intentions not to pay duty - In that circumstances, content of malafides are missing - In that circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed on assessee - Assessee paid excess CVD at the time of clearance of goods, same is required to be adjusted against short payment of SAD made by assessee along with interest: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft17not051

Amendment in the Foreign Trade (Exemption from application of Rules in certain cases) Amendment Order, 2017

CASE LAW

2018-TIOL-600-CESTAT-DEL

CC Vs Rashid Ali

Cus - Notice was issued by the DRI, covering the period prior to 2.2.2011, who is not the competent authority, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Mangli Impex - Similar issue has come up before the Tribunal on many earlier occasions also - The Tribunal remanded the cases to the original adjudicating authority - By following the ratio laid down by High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL (supra) as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, impugned order set aside and matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Supreme Court decision in case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained: CESTAT - Matter remanded: DELHII CESTAT