Northern Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee-company is engaged in trading of motor vehicles - It received certain amounts from the another manufacturer under ‘Serve to Win' reward scheme for the free services provided - Duty demand was raised & two SCN were issued as the Revenue took a view that amount received by the assessee under STW scheme is a compensation for the services provided and thus taxable - The services were taxable under the Authorised Service Station category - Thereafter, assessee filed appeal before Commr.(A) which was rejected, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Held - The scheme is discretionary in nature and is in the form of incentive to improve the quality of pre-delivery inspection, of three free services and for maintenance of complete control system -The SCN mentions that no reimbursement is being received by the assessee for the free warranty services - Following various decisions of the Tribunal the order challenged is set aside - Also, in light of the Apex Court's decision of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE the Revenue should not have invoked extended period in SCN when the same issue had come to its notice while issuing first SCN: CESTAT (Para 1, 4, 5) - Appeal Allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1885-CESTAT-ALL

CCE Vs Padam Chand and Company

ST- The assessee is engaged in civil construction of Residential Houses & Staff Colonies for various Sugar Mills - The nature of service provided by the assessee was in the form of construction of residential units for the staff of the service recipients - The Department opined that the construction undertaken by the assesse for period in dispute is taxable as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' - Duty demand was raised on free supplied goods - The tax amount already paid by the assessee was appropriated - However, penalty imposed was dropped - Hence the assessee & Revenue filed the present cross appeals.

Held - No duty demand can be raised on the goods supplied & only the service itself is taxable - If civil construction is for personal use of service recipients, then it does not qualify as construction of residential complex service - In Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus Mall Enterprises , it was held that if Civil Construction is intended for personal use by the property's owner, then it is not covered under 'Residential Complex Service' - Hence, the appeal by assessee is allowed & Revenue's appeal is rejected: CESTAT (Para 2, 6) - Appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

V K Bhuraria Vs CCE & ST

CX - Main assessee, M/s. Multi Metals Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of copper and copper alloys tubes, rods and sections and availing cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in manufacturing of final products - It is the case of department that during period 03.02.2016 to 04.02.2016, assessee has procured only the invoices without receiving the goods - The assessee made the payments through banking channel but the same was received back in cash and did not account for the same in their book of accounts - Department has made out a case against M/s. Multimetals Ltd. and various penalties were also levied on other noticees - Department has made out a case of irregular availment of cenvat credit mainly based on the statement of Shri Amit Gupta and transporters, but no cross examination of witnesses was provided to assessee - One of the witnesses has retracted his earlier statement - Surprisingly, no inquiry was made from customers of assessee company - All the transactions related to inputs purchased was duly recorded in the book of accounts and inventory records - The assessee have purchased goods from the registered dealer - When it so, then it is expected by department to make an inquiry about the genuineness of supplier - The assessee had been subjected to regular audit by department and no such allegation was ever made - The assessee have not made any payment to transporter towards freight for these consignments - Therefore, assessee was not concerned about the vehicle number mentioned in invoices as the goods will have to reach the assessee premises on the basis of FOR - It is surprising that Shri Amit Gupta has not been made a party in present proceedings - No penalty or demand has been proposed against him, especially when he is alleged to be the kingpin - Regarding the allegation that payment was made through banking channel and was received back in cash is not sustainable for the reason that no cash was seized from assessee premises - Impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1883-CESTAT-AHM

Yazaki India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee, a manufacturer of excisable goods availed cenvat credit on various input services - They availed credit on Outdoor Catering Service, Employee's Transportation Service, Flooring Service, Travel Agent Service, Hotel Charges, Maintenance & Repair Service - Duty demand was raised for recovery of credit - The Revenue allowed a part of the amount of credit and disallowed the rest - In addition, credit availed on construction service was remanded for scrutiny -

Held - In view of CCE Ahmedabad vs Ferromatic Milacron India Ltd and Honda Motorcycle & Scooter (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE , credit of service tax paid on Outdoor Catering Service (Canteen Service), hotel stay charges, travel agent charges,respectively is admissible to credit - Further, for employees transport service and construction service the matter is remanded for scrutiny of evidences in the light of changes in law - Hence, the order-in-appeal is modified : CESTAT (Para 2, 6) - Matter Remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT