CC, CE & ST Vs UP Police

ST - Assessee was issued with SCN dated 24/04/2012 - One of the proposal in said SCN was to impose penalty under Section 78 of FA, 1994 on the assessee - Original Authority has come to a conclusion that there was no mala fide on the part of assessee - Revenue has not raised any ground to challenge the said finding by Original Authority - No merit found in appeal filed by Revenue, same is dismissed: CESTAT - Appeal dismised: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-BANG

ST - Assessee was providing both taxable services and non-taxable services and availing CENVAT credit - It was observed that assessee had utilized credit to the extent of 20% on service tax payable regularly and continued the same after 01/04/2008 also - Due to non-following of procedure under amended Rule 6(3), it appeared that assessee had utilized excess credit - Hence a SCN was issued to assessee - During relevant time, trading activity was not amenable to service tax and therefore Rule 6 is applicable to assessee - The High Court of Madras in case of Ruchika Global Interlinks 2017-TIOL-1235-HC-MAD-ST has considered the issue and has held that trading activity was not amenable to service tax at relevant period and therefore apportionment as provided in Rule 6(3)(c) of CCR, 2004 would get triggered and High Court has dismissed the appeal of assessee - No infirmity found in impugned order - As far as interest and penalty liabilities are concerned, by following the ratio of decision in case of Bill Forge Ltd. 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX , assessee is not liable to pay interest - Further as far as penalty under Section 78 is concerned, in view of decision of Tribunal in case of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. 2011-TIOL-418-CESTAT-MUM , assessee is not liable to penalty under Section 78: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1326-CESTAT-BANG + Case Story

2018-TIOL-1341-CESTAT-DEL

CX - The assessee engaged in manufacture of electric motors in its Unit-II and also have another factory (Unit-I) where mixers and juicers are manufactured - The electric motors manufactured in are entirely cleared to Unit-I for further use in manufacture of mixers and juicers - Such mixers and juicers are entirely sold to M/s EJIPL - It is alleged that assessee was clandestinely clearing goods without payment of duty to EJIPL and also that they were undervaluing the goods cleared to them - Issue for determination is; whether assessee and EJIPL are related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of CEA, 1944 and whether the sale price of EJIPL is to be adopted for determination of duty on assessee - Assessee is a proprietorship concern with Proprietor Ms. Bulbul Dilshad David - EJIPL, on the other hand is a private limited company with Sh. Suresh Sagar, Managing Director - The two have independent existence in eyes of law as they are registered separately under various Authorities - It cannot be said that there was mutuality of interest in business of each other - EJIPL, making payment for goods supplied by assessee, 'on account' basis cannot be a reason to allege financial inter-dependence - No justification found to hold that the two entities are related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act.

The allegations of clandestine clearance have been made on the basis of outward and inward registers maintained by Security Guard at the units of assessee - The Security Guard, Sh. Azimuddin, in his statement has explained about some motors having been received for repairs - The allegation of clandestine removal cannot be upheld only on the basis of mere entries made in certain private record recovered from security - Consequently, charges of clandestine clearance are not established: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1340-CESTAT-BANG

CX - the assessee company imported a consignment of goods - Upon investigation of the importers, CHA & the transporters, it was alleged that the imported goods had been diverted & not released to their destination, i.e., the assessee's factory - Thus, the assessee was denied Cenvat credit on these goods - Duty demands with interest were raised for reversal of the same and penalties were imposed - Held - Considering the records, it is unclear as to how the Bill of Entry number has been mentioned in the bills recovered from the transporters for the containers mentioned in the SCN - The container number is different in comparison to the Bill of Entry - Also, to certify the quantity, vehicle number and the Container number, the actual invoice issued by the CHA must be placed on record - Hence matter remanded to consider the invoice based on which Cenvat credit was denied, after which fresh order be passed: CESTAT (Para 1,5) - Case Remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1339-CESTAT-BANG

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of P&P medicaments - Revenue views that assessee is availing CENVAT credit on various imported inputs on strength of Bills of Entry that were not addressed to them - Division Bench of Tribunal in case of SS Cropcare Ltd. 2016-TIOL-2151-CESTAT-DEL has decided the identical issue and has held that assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on basis of Bill of Entry which is endorsed in his favour by the importer / principal manufacturer so long there is no dispute with regard to duty paid character of inputs and received by assessee and utilization of same in manufacture of products - By following the ratio of said decision, impugned order denying CENVAT credit only on the ground of endorsed Bill of Entry is not sustainable in law: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CUSTOMS