SERVICE TAX SECTION

2018-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM

ST - CENVAT credit - Appellant had wrongly taken CENVAT credit on structural materials - appellant had reversed the irregular cenvat credit taken by them on pointing out by Revenue and before issuance of the SCN - interest for irregular availment of CENVAT credit is payable in view of the Bombay High Court decision in GL And V India - 2015-TIOL-1210-HC-MUM-CX - therefore, appellant is liable to pay interest of Rs.16,89,878/- for wrong availment of cenvat credit - Though the Revenue has invoked the extended period of limitation, they have not been able to bring on record any material which shows that there was suppression of fact or fraud or collusion etc. with intent to evade payment of tax - therefore, penalty imposed against appellant is dropped - appeal is partly allowed: CESTAT [para 6, 6.1] - Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-MAD

ST - Assessee entered into agreement with M/s.IOCL as clearing and forwarding agent and received Rs.2,91,000/- per month from IOCL and did not discharge service tax on said amount - Department views that said amount is also includible in total taxable value in respect of C&F Agency services and therefore SCNs were issued alleging short payment of service tax from said service - Assessee is receiving a fixed amount of Rs.2,91,000/- as charges for infrastructure facilities and it is not clear whether these are actual receipts by assessee which requires verification - Further it is also to be clarified whether these charges are borne by assessee on behalf of IOCL - In respect of these two issues, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - Penalty imposed is unwarranted and same is set aside - For limited purpose of re-consideration whether the amount received is reimbursable expenses or not and whether the decisions relied upon would apply to the case, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-BANG

CX - Assessee is manufacturers of candles, fragrance oil and agarbathis - Prior to August 2014 they were registered as EOU and they were availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services - During July 2014, they opted out of EOU scheme and converted into DTA unit - It is the contention of Department that they have availed credits when they were operating as EOU and there are no specific provisions under CCR, 2004 to transfer credit when EOU is converted into a DTA - Hence, a SCN was issued to them - Considering the decision of Tribunal in case of Tecumseh Products India P. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-3066-CESTAT-BANG , it is found that the credit has been denied by invoking Notfn 21/2014 which was issued to amend Rule 4(1) and 4(7) of CCR, 2004 which prescribes the Rule for availing credit to the period of 6 months - Commissioner (A) has observed that the credit of duty paid on debonded goods was availed after a period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty and the date of bill of entry and therefore, same is ineligible in terms of said Notfn - Though the Commissioner has allowed transfer of unutilized cenvat credit from EOU to the DTA unit of assessee by relying upon decision of Tecumseh Products - Further, said Notfn became effective for invoices raised post September 2014 and in present case credit was availed prior to September 2014 therefore, assessee is not affected by said Notfn - Commissioner (A) has also traveled beyond the SCN and has raised completely new ground for denying the credit which is not permissible under law - Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1035-CESTAT-MAD

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts - During audit, they had shown certain amounts as "discrepancy noticed on physical verification of inventories" and same were reflected in their annual reports - Revenue proceeded to raise the demand in respect of finished goods found short as also proposing denial of Cenvat credit availed on various inputs - Apart from shortages there is no other evidence on record to show that assessee had cleared their final product or cenvatable inputs in a clandestine manner - The entire case of Revenue is based upon the shortages detected by assessee himself and reflected in their audit report - The assessee have already explained that such shortages are only to the tune of around 0.29%, in which case the value of the shortages of inputs, keeping in view the voluminous operations of assesee, cannot be of much importance - The demand of duties based upon such shortages, without any allegations or evidences of clandestine activities cannot be upheld: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CCT Vs Executive Engineer, Upper Ganges Canal

Whether construction material supplied by the Govt to the contractor, cost of which is deductible from the final bill, comes within the ambit of "sale" being included in the tender price - YES: HC - Revenue's revision petition allowed: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT