ST - Assessee is contesting the demand in respect of two services viz., Storage and Warehousing service and Technical testing and analysis service - Assessee has paid storage and warehousing charges to foreign service provider for storing and warehousing their products till they are collected by M/s. Rane TRW Automotive Services, USA - Since such storage activities are performed outside India, the levy of service tax is unsustainable - Similarly, assessee paid charges towards inspection, reviewing quality rejects of assessee's products which are shipped - These services are also wholly performed outside India - Therefore, the demand on the said charges cannot be subject to service tax - Demand in respect of these two charges cannot sustain and requires to be set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - the assessee company provides various services in connection with telecommunication services - It is engaged in developing content like SMS, News, ringtones, games, videos, alerts & images for telecom operators - Upon audit, the Revenue alleged that the assessee did not pay service tax for various periods - Hence duty demand was raised with penalties being imposed - Held - the issue of supplying content & usage by telecom operators was examined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the BSNL case - Considering relevant findings, it is seen that an addition to the list of taxable services is merely an addition & not a subtraction from a pre-existing entry - Herein, the pre-existing entry continue to remain with the same scope & words even after insertion of the new tax entry - Thus the new tax entry is a new addition to the taxing scope - Hence duty demand under Business Support Services is unsustainable for development & supply of contents to telecom operators - Regarding duty demanded on reverse-charge basis under MMR and management consultancy, since there was no reverse charge prior to 18.04.2006, being the period of dispute, such duty demand be set aside - Regarding duty demand raised for a partnership/joint venture agreement with a foreign firm, it is seen that the element of consideration is absent - Since consideration forms the basis for service, the duty demand be set aside - Regarding the duty demanded for availing web server facility provider by foreign provider, the assessee contended that the situation is revenue-neutral and so no tax is required to be paid - However, the availability or otherwise of credit on the amount to be discharged as such tax liability cannot take away the tax liability itself - Thereby, the revenue-neutrality cannot be extended to a level that there is no need to pay tax on the taxable service - Hence except for duty demand imposed for this service, the other demands with penalties are set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,10-14) - Appeal Partly Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - the assessee company manufactured Gutka, Pan Masala and Metha Masala - The Department intercepted one vehicle carrying several bags of Gutka from the assessee's factory - The vehicle was seized as the driver could not produce duty paid documents - On visiting the assessee's factory, the Department seized several bags of Gutka, based on the presumption that they were unaccounted for - The Department alleged that the assessee sougt to clear the same without payment of duty - Statements of the driver & of the assessee firm's proprietor were taken - They admitted removal of said excisable goods without invoices & without payment of duty - They also admitted to have removed & transported excisable goods from the assessee's premises to various transporters - The goods were confiscated & later released on payment of bond - Duty demand was raised with equivalent penalty & fine - On appeal, the Commr.(A) upheld the redemption fine & confiscation but set aside the duty demanded - The penalty too was set aside on grounds that clandestine removal was not established - Held - The Department did not consider the fact that the statements were later retracted on the very naxt date of making statements - Hence they are not voluntary & have no evidentiary value - Further, the transporters never admitted to have recieved goods from the assessee - There is no evidence that the Gutka was cleared by the assessee - The allegation of clandestine removal is not backed with cogent evidence & is based on assumptions & presumptions - Hence the O-i-A warrants no interference: CESTAT (Para 1.1,1.2,6) - Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - Proceedings were initiated against assessee for confirmation of demand of duty on allegations that they have not submitted the proof of export in respect of certain ARE-I - As assessee produced the export proof, original adjudicating authority dropped the demand and interest proceedings - However, he imposed penalties for belated submission of export evidence - Appeal against said order was filed before Commissioner (A), inasmuch as, there was a delay even beyond the condonable period of 30 days, the appellate authority rejected the appeal as bared by limitation.

As regards limitation, though Tribunal agrees that appellate authority has no statutory powers to condone the delay beyond period of 30 days, as is also held by Supreme Court in case of Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX , but having gone through final order of Tribunal, which has remanded the matter to Commissioner (A) only for decision on merits, limitation grievance has not been upheld by Tribunal - Said order of Tribunal has not been appealed against by Revenue and has attained finality, once the Tribunal remands the matter with direction to decide the issue on merits, it was not open to Commissioner (A) to re-decide the issue on limitation.

As regards to merits of case, in identical facts and circumstances, Commissioner (A) vide order dated 26.11.2015 has set aside the penalties, inasmuch as, the duty and interest/being set aside - The said order of Commissioner (A) also has not been appealed against by Revenue - As such, penalties are set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - the assessee company manufactured ingots & steel castings - The Revenue alleged that the assessee availed inadmisible credit - It also alleged that the assessee availed credit on scrap, while the same was not cenvatable - Duty demand was raised for recovery of such credit & equivalent amount of penalty was imposed - On appeal, the Commr.(A) upheld the duty demand while reducing the penalty - Held - There is no allegation that the scrap was non-duty paid - There was no allegation that the inputs were not received in the factory - Hence following the Allahabad High Court's decision in Juhi Alloys Ltd the assessee's appeal is allowed: CESTAT (Para 2,5) - Assessee' s Appeal Allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT