SERVICE TAX SECTION

2018--1048-CESTAT-ALL

ST - Assessee is a manufacturer of electronics goods and paying certain amounts to their foreign corroborator - During impugned period, assessee paid several amounts under head of advertisement and sale promotion - Said amounts have been paid by assessee in foreign exchange - For provisions of expenditure, no actual amount has been paid by assessee - He had made only made in their books of account for those expenditure - It was alleged against assessee that they have received taxable services under category of BAS and has not paid Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism, therefore proceedings were initiated against them by issuance of SCN - Basis of demand is figures obtained by department from balance sheets of assessee - It is a fact on record that assessee is registered with their Central Excise department as well as under Service Tax and filing their regular returns - No effort has been made to find out how much amount they have paid towards Service Tax and under which head - No credence has been given to CA certificate produced by assessee - Merely on figures shown in balance sheet without assigning actual amount, demand is not sustainable - If assessee is required to pay said service tax on services received by them, same is admissible as Cenvat credit to assessee - That issue has already been discarded by adjudicating authority - Demands cannot be raised merely on basis of figures and no amounts mentioned in balance sheet in terms of decision of Tribunal in case of GSP Infratech Development Ltd. - Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fair adjudication after considering all the records placed by the assessee: CESTAT - Matter remanded : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite And Allied Ind Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Assessee had filed a refund claim of Service Tax paid on goods exported under Notfn 41/2007-ST on 29.12.2008 - Same was returned on 02.02.2009 as it was not filed before the proper authority and mentioning other deficiencies in the said claim - The assessee removed the deficiencies and filed the claim on 08.4.2009 with proper authority by reducing the claim - Both the authorities below had rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation as well as on merit - In Annexure attached to prescribed proforma, details of invoices, shipping bills, value and Service Tax paid alongwith classification of service on which refund was claimed are clearly mentioned - It is the contention of assessee that some documents were not enclosed alongwith original application, which were subsequently enclosed and filed on 08.4.2009 hence the refund claims cannot be barred by limitation - Refund claim submitted subsequently with proper authority enclosing therewith almost the same set of documents/evidences in support of the claim albeit with reduced claim, cannot be considered as barred by limitation - Besides, time bar, the authorities below had rejected the refund claims on the ground that sufficient evidences were not produced in establishing the fulfillment of conditions laid down under said Notification - Assessee submits that they are now in possession of all the necessary documents and can satisfy the Original Authority about fulfillment of all conditions of said Notfn - In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal is remanded to original Authority for deciding the refund on merit: CESTAT - Matter remanded : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018--1051-CESTAT-BANG

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of MS Billets - During the process of manufacture of MS Billets, the product Slag arises leviable to excise duty @12% but exempted by virtue of Notfn 12/2012-CE - The assessee had not maintained separate account of raw-material used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted finished goods as required as per Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004 nor had paid an amount calculated at the rate of 6% of value of exempted goods as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Rules, 2004 - Therefore, SCN was issued to assessee proposing to demand and recover an amount along with interest under Section 11AA of CEA, 1944 - This Slag is a waste product and is not excisable - Further, provisions of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of Rules, 2004 are not applicable to this case as the Slag emerges as inevitable waste and therefore, the manufacturer is not required to maintain separate account with regard to the Slag - Case of assessee is covered by decisions in ISMT Ltd. 2015--1776-CESTAT-MUM and N.S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2016--71-CESTAT-DEL - Therefore, by following the ratios of said decisions, impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018--1050-CESTAT-BANG

CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order where their refund claim has been rejected by authorities below on the premise that as assessee has paid differential duty without any protest therefore refund cannot be granted - No SCN has been issued to assessee under Section 11A of CEA, 1944 - The only dispute with regard to this appeal is whether Section 11A(2B) had been applied - Assessee has not complied with the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of the Act and therefore SCN was required to be issued for appropriation of the amount already paid by assessee as duty - As no SCN has been issued, therefore, Revenue cannot retain the said amount as duty with them without any adjudication - In the circumstances, the refund claim filed by assessee cannot be rejected - Therefore, the refund claim is allowed: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018--1049-CESTAT-AHM

Danke Electricals Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - During course of visit by DGCEI officers to assessee's factory, excess stock of 306 transformers was noticed - Since these goods were not accounted for in RG-1 Register, same were seized and provisionally released to assessee on execution of a bond and bank guarantee - Explaining the said excess stock, assessee has submitted that 242 transformers were received for purpose of testing and 64 transformers which have been manufactured on job work basis which were lying outside the factory premises due to lack of space - Further, all these transformers were serially numbered and affixed with customer's name to whom it is meant to be cleared - It is also not in dispute that all these transformers meant to be cleared to Government Electricity Board/ Undertaking, after rigorous testing and inspection - In these circumstances, it cannot be said that merely non-following of procedure laid down under Rule 10 CER, 2002 would lead to inference that these transformers meant to be cleared without payment of duty, in absence of any other evidence and invite harsh action of confiscation of excess stock found in premises of assessee - Therefore, direction for confiscation of excess quantity of transformers is set aside - However, undisputedly and admittedly, assessee have violated the provisions of Rule 10 of CER, 2002 inasmuch as, challans were not prepared and followed other formalities in movement of transformers - It is required that proper records has to be maintained for movement of goods and on receipt of the same against proper documents records to be maintained at the recipient's end - Thus, imposition of penalty on assessee is sustainable - However, penalty is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- : CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018--566-HC-MAD-VAT

Whether the hinder under third proviso to sec. 58(1) will operate even though the appellate authority has set aside an assessment order without exercising power either u/ss 51 or 52 - NO: HC

Whether when the appellate authority remands a matter highlighting only one issue, the same can be said to have directed the AO to redo the assessment afresh by setting aside the assessment order - NO: HC - Assessee's revision petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT