SERVICE TAX SECTION

2018-TIOL-1132-CESTAT-DEL

Jetking Infotrain Ltd Vs CC

ST - Assessee is registered with ST Department under category of "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" and "Franchise Services" - They operate their own training centre and also operate through franchise - For the income received from franchise, they are paying Service Tax but did not pay service tax on the consideration received for sale of books and materials to the franchise - For this, they claimed exemption under Notfn 12/2003 ST - The only issue for decision is whether the assessee is right in their claim for exemption under Notfn 12/2003 - One of the grounds for denial of exemption is lack of documentary evidence as required for the Notification - Various books and materials were sold and their price specifically indicated in the said invoices - Hence, the claim of assessee that they have sold the books and study materials as per the commercial invoices stands established - However, the total quantum of such sale can be verified with all supporting evidence to determine the correct quantum of exemption available to assessee - This can be done by jurisdictional assessing authority - Similar dispute with reference to applicability of Notfn 12/2003 ST came-up before the Tribunal in M/s Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd 2013-TIOL-834-CESTAT-DEL wherein the Tribunal held that the exemption Notification is clear and it admits no restrictive clauses - On perusal of contractual arrangement as well as sale invoices, Tribunal is of the view that the claim of assessee for exemption under Notfn 12/2003 cannot be denied - The exact quantification of such exemption will have to be supported by documentary evidence as stipulated in the Notification - Accordingly, impugned order denying the exemption claimed by assessee under Notfn 12/2003-ST is not legal and sustainable and, as such, same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1131-CESTAT-BANG

CCE, C & ST Vs BSNL

ST - Assessee was registered under category of telephone services - They had effected adjustments of service tax said to be excess paid to credit of Central Government against their service tax liability for subsequent period - The department was of the view that assessee was not eligible to make such adjustments as per provisions of Rule 6(4A) of STR, 1994 - Issue is no longer res integra and is decided in favour of assessee by various decisions of Tribunal - In case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1870-CESTAT-DEL , the adjustments of service tax was allowed in terms of Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, under similar circumstances - Since the issue stands settled in favour of assessee by following the said ratio of the Tribunal, impugned order upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CCE Vs P Arumaiarasu

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of pharmaceutical products - The allegation against assessee is that they have manufactured pharmaceutical products using brand name of other persons and therefore benefit of SSI exemption Notfn 8/2002 is not available to them - Main basis for allegation is that the statements recorded from various buyers - It is the contention of department that these buyers have stated that the respective brand names belong to them - Assessee has requested opportunity to cross-examine these buyers - The request for cross-examination was disallowed by adjudicating authority stating that the statements given by these persons have already been incorporated in SCN - Said reasoning for denial of cross-examination to be highly unjust and against the provisions of law - Section 9D provides for relevancy of statements under certain circumstances - In various decisions by High Courts, it has been emphasized the necessity to allow cross-examination of witnesses - It is noted by Commissioner (A) that assessee had produced copies of various deeds of assignment entered between them and various buyers in which it is categorically stated that assessee is the rightful owner of product name and had right to sell the products: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1133-CESTAT-DEL

S N Modani Vs CC&ST

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of cotton as well as Polyester Viscose (PV) yarn, Cotton Yarn and Knitted Fabrics and for this purpose have seven mills in factory - The dispute is with reference to mill No. 1 which is used to manufacture the cotton yarn as well as knitted fabrics - The assessee claimed Cenvat credit on capital goods, and their spare parts used in this mill - By issue of impugned order, Revenue deny such Cenvat Credit by taking the view that goods manufactured using such capital goods enjoy exemption under Notfn 30/04, since no credit on inputs/input services are being availed by assessee - Part of export has taken place under bond (letter of undertaking) - Certain other consignments have been exported without executing LUT claiming the goods as exempted under Notfn 30/2004 - In any case it is settled principle of law that only the goods are exported from the country and not the taxes - The Central Excise law provides for clearance of goods for export either under bond in which case the terminal excise duty is not paid at the time of clearance from the factory but in the terms of the bond the manufacturer is obligated to export the goods and get the bond closed - The other option available to manufacturer is to pay the said duty and export the goods and get the excise duty so paid rebated - In any case there is no doubt that goods manufactured have been partially exported and partially cleared to DTA - Benefit of Rule 6(6) (v) is required to be extended to assessee since the goods have in fact been exported - Consequently, assessee will be entitled to Cenvat Credit on capital goods used partially for export even though domestic clearances are exempted: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT