ST - Assessee engaged in business of providing party hall on rent and supplying food for functions conducted in said hall and paying Service Tax on services rendered by it, after availing benefit of abatement @40% under Notfn 21/97-ST, as amended under Mandap Keeper Service and under Notfn 20/2004-ST as amended under Outdoor Caterer's Service - However, w.e.f. 01.05.2007, he started paying service tax under taxable category of Renting of Immovable Property Service - Further, assessee stopped paying service tax on activity of catering, which they undertook in their own party hall - Department initiated show cause proceedings against assessee - Assessee had separately claimed charges towards the hall rent and catering services provided to its customers - They had also reflected the value of service as well as sale of food items separately in invoices - Since the Department has not disputed the fact regarding payments of VAT on supply of food, the benefit of Notfn 12/2003 should be available to assessee - Tribunal in cases of Daspalla Hotels Ltd. 2010-TIOL-219-CESTAT-BANG , Sky Gourmet Pvt. Ltd. 2009-TIOL-915-CESTAT-BANG , LSG Sky Chef India Pvt. Ltd. 2009-TIOL-2392-CESTAT-BANG and Chokhi-Dhani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-878-CESTAT-DEL has held that VAT paid on sale of food should not be included in value of service provided and billed separately - Further, the benefit of Notfn 12/2003-ST has also been extended to assessee in those cases - No merits found in impugned order: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - Assessee has two units in Jaipur - Unit-I is a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of Halogen Bulbs as well as Halogen Capsules - In addition to export, a part of Halogen Capsules manufactured by Unit-I were cleared to Unit-II for further manufacture of Halogen Lamps, for domestic market - Investigations were undertaken against Unit-I as well as Unit-II by paying a surprise visit to said units and recovery of documents - Crux of case is on two allegations namely; goods cleared by Unit-I (100% EOU) to Unit-II (DTA) were undervalued and that some goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty from Unit-I to Unit-II - As regards to charge of undervaluation, The entire basis for rejecting transaction value is the relationship between them - Merely because the two units are related persons, same would not ipso facto be the ground for rejecting transaction value - It is settled position of law that unless the transaction value is rejected for valid and cogent reasons, the value of imported goods cannot be re-determined - It has been held by Supreme Court in case of South India Television (P) Ltd. 2007-TIOL-126-SC-CUS that before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or inacceptable, Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time - Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, question of rejecting the transaction value and determination of value as per Valuation Rules does not arise - In such circumstance the invoice price has to be accepted as transaction value - Consequently, demand for differential duty on charge of undervaluation set aside.

With regard to charge of clandestine clearance, during visit of departmental officers, a note book "MONARK' was recovered from Unit-II which indicated receipt of Halogen Bulbs and Halogen Capsules from Unit-I - The author of private note book was Sh. Satyanarayanan, Store Keeper - No statement found recorded from him on record but departmental officers has recorded the statement of Sh. Kailash Kumar Sharma of Unit-II in which he admitted that said diary contained the receipt of Halogen Capsules and Halogen Bulbs received from Unit-I - Some of entries found in note book did not have corresponding invoices and evidence of payment of duty - On basis of these statements, Department has alleged that quantity of goods mentioned in private records, which were not co-related with duty paying invoices, were transferred clandestinely without payment of duty - Other than submissions of person, there is no corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the stand of Department that goods reflected in diary titled as "MONARK" were clandestinely cleared - No discrepancies have been noticed in respect of quantity of raw material or finished goods vis-a-vis statutory documents - Consequently, charge of clandestine clearance cannot be upheld only on basis of seized private record especially in view of fact that statements admitting clandestine clearance of such goods stand reflected: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CX - CENVAT - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Corporate service, professional fees paid for conducting e-auction (for purchase of raw materials), ambulance service, medical treatment, health check-up of employees are Input Services and credit of tax paid thereon is admissible as CENVAT credit; however, as regards civil work, no documents were provided by appellant indicating the nature of service and use thereof - denial of credit to that extent is upheld - Appeal partly allowed: CESTAT [para 5] - Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Cus - Appeals have been preferred against impugned order confirming absolute confiscation of eight pieces of Foreign Origin Gold Bar bearing "Suisse" mark with 999.9 purity without any serial numbers, collectively weighing 933.120 gms and also penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - It is an admitted case of Town Seizure of Gold - Gold was seized by Police who are not the Customs Officers - Although the assessee Mohd Waseem had given a plausible explanation as to the licit import of gold but the same could not be strongly supported by him in absence of examining his witnesses and or producing his witnesses before the Revenue in adjudication proceedings - Further, in the circumstances although the case of smuggling is not made out, but assessee Mohd Waseem have failed to discharge the onus under Section 123 of Customs Act, as to the licit import of the gold originally seized by Police Officers and subsequently seized by Customs Authority - Further, gold is otherwise importable on payment of appropriate duty and is not prohibited - Thus, the appeal of Mohd Waseem is allowed in part and appeal of others are allowed - On payment of duty and fine, the gold be released forth with: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

Anti-Dumping - the DGAD receved representations from two domestic firms seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty on Ammonium Nitrate imported from Russia, Indonesia, Georgia & Iran - Upon investigation, th DGAD gave its findings recommending Anti-dumping duty on the items in question - The same were accepted by the Govt which imposed such ADD - The present appeals were filed by the importers of the subject goods - One appeal is filed by an exporter on grounds that individual duty was not fixed for the exports made -

Held - The impact of the subject goods upon the Domestic Industry (DI) has been established - The DI was compelled to reduce its prices & was unable to raise them - Its performance in terms of production and sales in India deteriorated - It suffered in terms of market share, inventories, profit, cash profits & return on investment - Besides, Net Sales Realization (NSR) is not the only parameter to determine injury - Hence the ADD is correctly imposed - Further, regarding fixation of individual duty liability, the appellant-exporter is not the actual exporter and is part of a trade chain - Since the ultimate exporter was non-cooperative in the investigation, individual liability could not be fixed - Hence the appeals lack merit: CESTAT (Para 2,10-13) - Appeals Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - the assessee was issued an SCN alleging misuse of Advance License & evasion of Customs duty - In writ before the High Court, the assessee claimed that an SCN had earlier been issued to it by the Excise authorities on similar allegations - The assessee claimed the present SCN to be a verbatim copy of the earlier SCN - When the High Court held against the assessee, it approached the Apex Court, which directed the Commr. to pass O-i-O after adjudication of SCN - When the assessee requested the adjudicating authority to allow access to certain documents and also to cross examine certain witnesses, both requests were denied - Hence the present appeal -

Held - The issue of denying cross examination stands settled in various decisions of the Tribunals & High Courts - Hence the Department is directed to follow the provisions u/s 138B of the Customs Act and permit cross-examination of witnesses by the assessee - Regarding the rejection of request to supply documents, it is seen that the assessee did not request for any particular document - In fact the assessee obtained copies of two documents by filing an RTI application - It coud easily have obtained the rest by filing another RTI application or approaching the FAA under the RTI Act - Without specifying any particular document, the assessee's grievance on this ground is very vague and cannot be entertained: CESTAT (Para 2,11,12) - Appeal Partly Allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT