ST - Assessee is a proprietary firm and engaged in work of rubber lining and other parts thereof on job work basis for M/s Grasim Industries Limited - The semi-finished goods were supplied by M/s Grasim Industries Limited - Department is of the view that assessee is not entitled for exemption under Notfn 8/2005-ST, wherein the exemption was provided to where goods produced on behalf of client - The proviso specifies that the benefit has to be available if assessee are using the raw material supplied by the clients - The proviso does not specify that the goods should be produced only using the raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the clients - The activity of rubber lining has been carried out - It is also evident that the activity carried out by assessee in their factory are not processes which amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) - In the result, no infirmity found in impugned order which is sustained: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - Assessee had constructed approach and internal road for various parties namely, M/s. Ericson India Pvt. Ltd., Textile Weaving Park Ltd., Shree Cement Ltd. and Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board - The Department interpreted that since road constructed by those organizations are used for their Commercial purpose only and the right to use passage was with them, the roads constructed by assessee should not be considered as Public roads - Accordingly, adjudged demand was confirmed against assessee under such category of taxable service - The definition of taxable service does not specify the type of roads, whether private or public for purpose of consideration of such exclusion clause - Since the definition is specific to service provided in respect of road only, it cannot be interpreted that only construction of public roads should get the benefit of exclusion provided in such definition clause - Since there is no ambiguity in plain reading of definition and in view of the admitted fact that assessee had constructed roads for different commercial entities/organization, the benefit of the exclusion provided in definition clause should be available to it - Therefore, impugned order confirming the Service Tax demand against assessee will not stand for judicial scrutiny: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - the assessee is engaged in manufacturing Cement, which is then cleared upon payment of duty based on MRP valuation u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944 - Dispute arose for a particular period wherein cement was captively consumed within the assessee's factory - The duty on the Cement captively consumed was paid by the assessee on the basis of the cost of production of such cement & after adding profit of 10% - However, the Department opined that duty was to be paid on transaction value of Cement cleared to independent buyers - Hence duty demand was raised with interest & penalty - Held - A similar issue was settled by the Tribunal in CCE, Indore V/s Surya Roshni Ltd - Following the same, the demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,9,10) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - the assessee company manufactures Sugar & Molasses - It used Bagasse to produce electricity in its power generation unit for captive consumption - Some electricity was wheeled out a guest house & residential colony - The Revenue demanded reversal of credit on the value of electricity so wheeled out - Held - The assessee is not required to reverse any amount for electricity used in their residential colony & guest house - The residential premises are meant for the workers in the assessee's factory - Similarly, the guest house is also used to accomodate visiting officials in connection with the assessee's business - Hence the use of electricity in the residential colony & in the guest house was also for business purposes and so, no reversal of input credit is warranted under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004: CESTAT (Para 1,6) - Appeal Allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT