SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1569-CESTAT-MAD
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - the assessee company is a leading provider of telecommunication services - It availed Cenvat credit on some capital goods - The Revenue denied such credit on grounds that invoices for the capital goods mentioned the address of the assessee's office at Puducherry, while the capital goods were dispatched and used in various exchanges and installations of the assessee - Duty demands were raised to recover the same.
Held - A similar issue stands settled by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a previous year - Therein, it was held that the assessee had centralized registration - It was also held that there was no proof that the capital goods were received at single registered premises - Following such decision, the availment of credit cannot be denied & no duty demand can be raised for its reversal: CESTAT (Para 1,2) -
Appeal Allowed
: CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1568-CESTAT-MAD
Shriram Value Services Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - the assessee are registered for providing various output services - On audit, the Revenue noted that the assessee availed Cenvat credit on on common input services which were used for trading activities as well as for providing output services - The Department opined that no credit could be availed on trading activity and since some inputs were used exclusively for trading purpose, and issued SCNs proposing disallowance of such credit - Later, duty demands were raised with interest & penalties were imposed.
Held - The SCNs were issued after invoking extended limitation - During the period of dispute, there were conflicting decisions regarding the eligibility of credit on trading activity - The assessee maintained separate records for the common inputs used in trading and taxable output service - This reflects bona fide belief of the assessee that it could avail credit on trading activity - It also filed its returns periodically - Hence the assessee cannot be charged with intentionally evading payment of duty, without there being evidence showing that the assessee is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - Hence the extended limitation is not invokable - Thus, the SCN is time-barred: CESTAT (Para 1,5) -
Appeal Allowed
: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1567-CESTAT-MUM
Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Vs CCE
CX - CENVAT - Refund - Appellant debited Rs.22 lakhs through the cenvat credit account along with payment of interest due to observation made by the Audit officers - subsequently SCN was issued and adjudicated by Additional Commissioner on 31.12.2015 wherein demand of Rs.5,72,217/- was confirmed along with interest of Rs.21,634/- - appellant filing refund claim and which was sanctioned by the original authority - Commissioner(A) allowed the Revenue appeal on ground of time bar for the reason that the refund was filed on 17.02.2016 i.e. after one year from the dates of reversal of credit made on 01.01.2014 and 24.01.2014 - appeal before CESTAT.
Held: Refund is in respect of the amount which was debited and involved in the litigation pending before the adjudicating authority, therefore, before adjudication of the demand of CENVAT credit, no refund claim could have possibly arisen - refund arose only after the adjudication order was passed on 31.12.2015 - as the period of one year has to be reckoned u/s 11B of the CEA, 1944 from the date of such adjudication order, the appellant has correctly filed the claim within one year i.e on 17.02.2016 - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5] -
Appeal Allowed
: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2018-TIOL-1566-CESTAT-MAD
Precot Meridian Ltd Vs CCE & ST
Cus - Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and export of Cotton Yarn falling under Chapter 52.05 of CETA 1985-Duty demand was raised on imported raw cotton by denying exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus- Department was of the view that cotton waste generated out of duty free imported raw cotton was above the permissible limit of 25%-Cotton waste which is cleared to DTA is an excisable good falling under Chapter heading 52.02- Assessee mentioned that another Assessee filed appeal arising out of the same Order-in-Appeal wherein the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the Assessee.
Held- The Tribunal relied on the order passed in M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles arising out of the same O-I-A wherein it was observed that no SION or percentage of waste was set by the Exim Policy which governed the Assessee for the purpose of import and export, therefore the demand is set aside: CESTAT (para 3, 5) -
Appeal Allowed
: CHENNAI CESTAT |
