SERVICE TAX

ST- The assessee was providing taxable services like Security Agencies, Business Auxiliary & Manpower Recruitment/Supply Service - It took centralized registration due to numerous branch offices - It availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices which were in the name of branch offices - However, the Revenue took a view that credit was inadmissible as the documents for availing credit was not proper - Duty demand was raised along with interest & penalty under Rule 15 (3) r/w Section 78 of the FA, 1994 - The Cenvat credit was disallowed w.r.t. credit taken on branch invoices, telephone & mobile bills were in the name of assessee-company, credit on E-bills/Xerox Copies of bills and bills for transportation of diesel to the telephone towers of the clients - on thOn appeal, the Commr.(A) upheld the OIO, however, it was held that Cenvat credit in respect of repair and maintenance was admissible - Solely on this issue, the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to compute the amount and allow the same out of the total amount of disallowance - With respect to invoking extended period of limitation, it held that assessee failed to follow the prescribed procedures and availed Cenvat credit without valid documents relating to the period prior to taking centralized registration- Therefore, invoking extended period of limitation & penalty was valid on part of the Revenue - Hence, the present appeal by assessee - Held - The branch offices in question were not operational - However, revenue generated by them has been included in the centralized accounts maintained at the HO - Moreover, receipt of services at Branches is clear from ST returns - Therefore, Cenvat credit is fully allowable when the transactions has been included in the books of accounts regularly maintained - Likewise, in the case of Manipal Advertising Services vs CCE, the Tribunal on similar issues allowed the credit - Further, following the ratio laid down in the case of Telenet Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE & CCE vs Excel Crop Care Ltd., the telephone service received on mobile phones of the assessee was held to be 'input service' and accordingly service tax paid was allowable - Besides, the proviso to Rule 9(2) provides that if the said documents does not contain all the particulars but contains the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or taxable service like assessable value, registration number of the person issuing the invoice, name and address of the recipient of the invoice is satisfied - In addition, the goods or services covered by the document have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver, the credit is allowable - Therefore, the documents on which E-bill were availed covers all the requirements of the Rule - Hence, credit is allowable - Lastly, the assessee is maintaining the mobile towers on behalf of their clients - For such maintenance they need to ensure availability of diesel for maintaining the services in case of power failure - The diesel is provided to the assessee by the client purchased by them by petro card & he transports it to the mobile towers site, where the generators are installed for maintaining the supply of service at the time of power failure - These are expenses incurred for carrying the diesel from the petrol pumps to the mobile towers - Therefore, they are essential input services for rendering the output service of maintenance of mobile towers, thereby allowable: CESTAT (Para 1, 2, 5) - Appeal Allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

ST - Assessee is engaged in providing services under category of CHA - Demand has been raised due to the difference in figures of income shown in profit and loss account and the income shown in ST-3 returns - The assessee has explained that in all their invoices, they are showing the agency charges separately and paying the service tax on such amount - Invoices included other charges like transport charges, Steamer Agent charges and Warehouse charges which will be reflected in P&L Account, on which no service tax is payable - The authorities below have not accepted the explanation observing that assessee has not produced enough documents - Assessee has requested for further chance to establish the case - Therefore, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re consider the issue: CESTAT - Matter remanded : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - ROM Application - Appeal was allowed by following the order of the Tribunal in appellant's own case reported as 2016-TIOL-2486-CESTAT-MUM which allowed credit of tax paid on services such as ‘erection, commissioning & installation', ‘consulting engineer', ‘technical testing and analysis', ‘design services' - appellant submits that out of the total credit of Rs.48,78,450/- that was denied by original authority, an amount of Rs.11,53,627/- pertains to services availed for ‘Construction and Works Contract Services' and which are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘Input service' and, therefore, the order needs to be rectified.

Held: Tribunal in its order dated 21.10.2016 - 2017-TIOL-975-CESTAT-MUM had erroneously allowed the entire credit that was denied by the original authority by following its earlier order - 2016-TIOL-2486-CESTAT-MUM - in view of the legal position, appeal is allowed except to the extent of credit of Rs.11,53,627/- used for rendering of ‘Construction and Works contract service' - appeal is partly allowed - ROM application is disposed of accordingly: CESTAT [para 2, 4, 5] - Application disposed of : MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee, a 100% EOU removed the certain quantity of Poly Wool waste and All Wool waste to DTA in terms of para 9.9(a) of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 and paid 50% of BCD leviable under similar goods imported into India in terms of Notfn 2/95-CE - Lower authorities have sought to apply provisions of paragraph 9.9(b) of the Policy to the clearance of polywool waste ana all wool waste - The assessee have claimed that prior to 1.4.2001, the provisions of para 9.9(b) of the Policy was not applicable to the clearance made in para 9.20 of the EXIP Policy 1997-2002 - In this regard, Tribunal in case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. has observed that the sale of waste is not to be included in the DTA sales permission - Impugned order relies on the amendment made in Policy on 1.4.2001 to confirm the demand and penalty - In these circumstances, no merit found in said order: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

CX- The assessee availed subsidy under the The Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme - Under this scheme the assessee got credit of certain subsidy on account of wages and loans subsidy which was credited to their account with VAT 37B challan which was used for discharge of sales tax liability - The Revenue opined that the subsidy availed is additional consideration - Duty demand was raised - Held - T he incentive is in the nature of subsidy which have been received from the State Government and therefore such subsidy cannot be considered as an additional consideration - This follows from the decision of assessee's own case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs CCE wherein cenvat credit was allowed relying on the ratio of M/s Shree Cement Ltd. vs. CCE - Therefore, the order-in-original is set aside: CESTAT (Para 2, 4, 5) - Appeal Allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - On the day of visit of officers to the factory of assessee, unaccounted goods were found lying which was placed under seizure - Assessee contends that said goods were in semi-finished condition and in support, Chartered Engineer Certificate is placed on record - Considering the fact that, no finding has been recorded by adjudicating authority, even though in their defence, the assessee has vehemently argued about the fact that the goods were semi-finished condition, on the face of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and also since the goods are still lying in the factory premises, matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact whether the goods are in semi-finished condition or in finished condition, in the interest of justice: CESTAT - Matter remanded : AHMEDABAD CESTAT