ST - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - CENVAT - Bills/invoices and statement of bills showing the purposes of expenses reveal that the appellant has used the impugned services for business purposes - Mandap keeper/Pandal shamiana services were used for arranging sales promotion events, seminars and sessions with channel partners, business meetings which are required for business operations and hence credit is available thereon; Services of Interior decorators were used for designing the office premises to carry out the business operations smoothly - without proper office designing, the business operations cannot be run properly and hence appellant is entitled for credit on Interior Decorator service; Outdoor catering service has been used for canteen facilities for visiting customers and service providers; services were used for arranging food during training sessions, sales promotion events, business seminars, meeting with channel partners which are in turn required to execute various business activities and endeavors - credit on said service of Outdoor caterers is available to appellant; adjudicating authority has denied some credit on the ground that the same was availed in respect of dredging and beauty treatment service, however, on perusal of the invoice/bills it is seen that the services are nowhere of the said category, amount involved is merely Rs.20,784/-, hence credit is admissible: CESTAT [para 4 to 7]

ST - CENVAT - Limitation - Only reason given for invoking the extended period of limitation is that the appellant has the responsibility not to avail irregular credit - Even if assuming that the credit is not available, the SCN has not brought out any fact or instance to show that the appellant has availed credit with the malafide intention or suppressed the facts - even on this ground of time bar, demand is not sustainable: CESTAT [para 8] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

ST - Dispute pertains to import of 'rubber tyred gantry cranes' and installation thereof between July 2005 to April 2008 - Impugned order confirmed tax liability as recipient of 'works contract service' from outside India and imposed penalties under section 76 and 78 of FA, 1994 - Assessee had imported said equipment for installation in premises for their dockyard activities - It is also not in dispute that in terms of Customs Valuation Rules 1988, as prevailing then, the entire consideration was subject to duties paid by assessee - Considering this peculiarity, the re-determination of tax on this value again under Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law - It is well settled that FA, 1994 is not a commodity tax - The entire value now sought to be subject to tax thereunder, having been subject to a commodity tax under Customs Act, 1962, cannot be subject to another tax - For this reason impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Assessee's appeals allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

ST - Refund of interest on pre deposit - In their refund application before adjudicating authority, assessee has clearly stated that pre-deposit was made pursuant to demand confirmed by OIO - The Tribunal's order 2017-TIOL-3508-CESTAT-CHD was passed in respect of appeals No.E/51191-51192/2014 and E/104-105/2016 - The assessee have placed on record Stay Order wherein the requirement of central excise duty demand, interest and penalty has been completely waived - Hence, pre-deposit of Rs.32,62,000/- does not pertain to the appeal of 2014 - Other set of appeals in said final order pertain to the period after 6.8.2014 for which the assessee claim to have made pre-deposit and have stated so in their refund application - This aspect has been completely ignored by adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority for the purpose of refund of interest - The finding given by first appellate authority on pre-deposit pertaining to period before Finance Act, 2014 therefore appears to be clearly erroneous - The matter is therefore remanded back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the claim of interest of assessee after verifying that they had made pre-deposit pursuant to their appeal in terms of Section 35FF: CESTAT - Matter remanded: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

ST - SCN was issued to assessee proposing to deny CENVAT credit alleging that they have availed CENVAT credit on ineligible documents that is; invoices not addressed to assessee but to M/s. SMF and that these services were rendered to SMF and not to assessee; some invoices did not contain service tax registration number of service provider and nature of services and invoices relating to certain services namely travel, security, credit card personal payments, cargo for shifting of residence, gratuity insurance, entertainment expenses which are in the nature of welfare for the staff are not eligible input services - Commissioner (A) has called for report from range officer who has reported that particulars as furnished by Chartered Accountant is correct - In O-I-A, it has been categorically held by Commissioner (A) that these services were availed by assessee and not by SMF - With regard to services which were denied on the ground that they are not eligible input services, the period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 when the definition of 'input services' had a wide ambit as it included the words 'activities relating to business' - The services are in nature of insurance, outdoor catering service and advertisement services - These services except outdoor catering services were held to be eligible services for the assessee for the subsequent period as decided by Commissioner in O-I-O - The outdoor catering services are eligible for credit for the reason that the period involved is prior to 1.4.2011: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of both dutiable and exempted products - The allegation is that the assessee had wrongly availed input service tax credit on common input services used for exempted and dutiable products - On being pointed out, assessee have reversed the entire input service tax credit availed during the disputed period - Later, on realizing that they are eligible for credit for certain services namely architect services, maintenance and repair services, consulting engineering service, management consultancy service, construction service, security agency service and banking and financial services, they have taken suo moto credit - Thus, having reversed the credit that has been irregularly availed by them, department cannot force upon the assessee to pay 10% of value of clearances - Said issue has been settled in case of ICMC Corporation Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-121-HC-MAD-CX as well as ETA Technology Pvt. Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-569-HC-KAR-CX - It is stressed that the demand in respect of 10% of value of clearances is set aside on the ground that the assessee has reversed the credit in respect of input services, which they are not eligible, being common input services used for exempted and dutiable products and which do not fall within the purview of Rule 6(5) - Assessee has submitted that they will not claim for refund of amount that has been so reversed - Assessee having reversed the credit, which has been wrongly availed by them, the demand cannot sustain, same is set aside: CESTAT [para 5] - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of sugar confectionaries and is availing the facility of CENVAT credit of inputs, input services - They were issued SCN proposing to disallow credit on various input services including insurance services - Insurance services were availed on service tax paid on standard fire insurance policy which was taken by assessee to cover the risk of fire and burglary with regard to premises, machineries, stock and stationery - The Tribunal vide Final Order for the earlier period, has allowed the credit - By following the decision in assessee's own case, disallowance of credit on general insurance service is unjustified - Impugned order in respect of credit availed with regard to general insurance is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of cement and clinker and cleared them to domestic customers on payment of excise duty - They availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services in terms of provisions of CCR, 2004 - During impugned period, assessee cleared cement to SEZ developers also in addition to the domestic customers - Such clearances were made without payment of excise duty treating them as exports - Department views that the cement cleared to SEZ developers without payment of duty are to be treated as exempted goods under Rule 2(d) of CCR, 2004 - Goods cleared to SEZ developers without payment of duty does not amount to clearance of exempted goods and Rule 6(3) is therefore not applicable - After enactment of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 w.e.f. 10-2-2006, supplies to SEZ from DTA are treated as export of dutiable goods and entitled to benefits as such, including that of exception in Rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004, of not requiring separate accounts of dutiable and non-dutiable inputs/services to be maintained - Impugned order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of Cotton Denim Fabrics and Cotton Yarn and opted to avail exemption from payment of duty of manufactured products under Notfn 30/2004-CE - At the time of switching over to the said exemption, there was Cenvat credit of AED (T&TA) amounting to Rs. 15,81,781/- and credit of Rs. 24,42,530/- lying in balance - Out of the said credit balance, they had utilized an amount of Rs. 19,180/- and 9,939/-, subsequently, in discharging some past liabilities - Also, the assessee have failed to pay Cotton Produce Cess - Consequently, demand notices were issued to them for recovery of aforesaid amounts with interest and penalty - Commissioner (A) upheld the order of Adjudicating Authority observing that Cenvat credit availed on AED (GSI) and AED (T&TA), lying in balance, as on the date of exercising option to avail the exemption under Notfn 30/2004-CE would lapse - Recording reasons, Commissioner (A) relied on Rule 9 (2) and 11 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules - A plain reading of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 makes it clear that it is applicable only to cases, when assessee has availed value based exemption - This view has been held by Tribunal in case of M/s Niranjan Decoflocks Pvt. Ltd's case 2016-TIOL-1687-CESTAT-CHD - On the applicability of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 of CCR, 2004, issue has been considered by Tribunal in OCM India Ltd's case 2016-TIOL-2355-CESTAT-CHD - Tribunal after following the judgement of Karnataka High Court in case of Gokaldas Intimate Wear observed that Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11 brought into force by Notfn 10/2007-CE w.e.f. 01.03.2007 and would be applicable prospectively - Impugned order is modified to the extent of upholding confirmation of demands of Cenvat Credit of 83,665/- and Rs. 35,340/- and the demands of Rs. 15,81,781/- and Rs. 24,42,530/- are set-aside: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Cus - Assessee had imported fruit juice vide various Bills of Entry and paid BCD at nil rate under Notfn 26/2000-Cus. and CVD @ 6% on MRP basis - Department was of the view that assessee is not eligible for concessional CVD under Notfn 1/2011-CE as the conditions have not been followed - Assessee thereafter paid the concessional CVD under protest and filed appeal before Commissioner (A) who directed the lower authority to reassess the Bills of Entry with concessional rate of duty in accordance with the decision of Supreme Court in case of SRF Ltd. 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS - Following the dictum laid down by Supreme Court, assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notfn 6/2002 - No merit found in the appeals filed by department and the same are dismissed: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Cus - The assessee imported a consignment of yellow peas via vessel MV Riva Wind - The goods were exempted on the date of entry of the vessel - On the same date the Notification No. 84/2017-Cus., was issued which had the effect of imposing the rate of duty @ 50% on the commodity imported by the assessee - As the bills of entry were filed on prior entry basis, the date of bill of entry was deemed as the date of Entry inwards granted to the vessel - However, on audit the custom authorities seized the goods on grounds that the goods were non duty paid - On appeal, the Commr. (A) ordered provisional release of the goods by furnishing bond as well as bank guarantee equal to 60% of the value of goods - The issue at hand is as to the correct date on which the Entry Inwards was granted to the vessel "MV Riva Wind" - Hence, the present appeal

Held - The assessee has produced facts which prove that the Entry Inwards was already granted prior to the publishing of the notification - Moreover, mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in clearing the consignments without payment of duty is not established - The order-in-appeal is unfair & unduly enhanced amount has been imposed on the assessee - Therefore, the goods may be released subject to submission of bond with Bank guarantee equal to 7.5% of the duty liability: CESTAT (Para 1, 6, 7) - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT