ST - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order by which Tribunal has set aside the penalty levied under Section 78 of FA, 1994 - In the balance sheet published in June 2013, the assessee Company has shown the liability of service tax payable by them and infact, the same was paid in January 2014 alongwith interest - Thereafter after approximately of a period of one year, proceedings for penalty were initiated - The case does not fall in any of the clauses mentioned under Section 78 of FA, 1994 - Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside the penalty levied under Section 78 of FA, 1994: HC - Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

CX - the assessee company took over a no-functional unit - During the reevant AY, it sought to avail area-based exemption - Such claim was denied by the authorities on grounds that the assessee took over such unit only to claim exemption.

Held - Such facet was not examined by the Tribunal when it upheld such denial of exemption - Hence the Tribunal's order is set aside & warrants fresh verification: HC (Para 2,3,4) - Case Remanded: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CX - the assessee is an exclusive authorised dealer engaged in selling & services of Honda cars - It was registered for payment of service tax under Authorized Service Station & Business Auxiliary Service - It availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs & tax paid on better services under CCR, 2004 - The Revenue alleged that the assessee indulged in trading activities which was not liable to service tax - Hence the Revenue sought to deny proportionate credit availed on input services used in trading activities - The adjudicating authority followed the procedure for calculating the value of exempted service (trading) & disallowed Cenvat credit for two periods - Equivalent penalties were imposed as well under Rule 15 - A further penalty was also imposed u/s 77.

Held - the assessee was aware of its tax liabilities & of the eligible service tax inputs - Hence when the assessee claimed credit on activities which were not subjected to service tax, it was aware that such claim was unjustifiable & excessive - Also, the assessee did not maintain regular separate accounts in respect of non-service tax leviable activities - Hence the adjudicating authority adopted the method of proportionate turnover-based attribution - In such case, the lack of any method would only mean that a reasonable and logical principle should be applied - While an assessee has the right to organize its business in the most convenient & efficient manner, it cannot claim that that such organization is so structured that its tax liabilities cannot be clearly discerned - In such circumstances the invocation of extended limitation is also warranted as the assesseewas aware that the credit was irregularly availed: HC (Para 2,4,5,19,20) - Appeal Dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

CX - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order of Tribunal in 2016-TIOL-2708-CESTAT-CHD - The amount involved is Rs.11,01,475/- - In terms of Instructions issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, the monetary limit fixed for filing appeals in High Court stands raised to Rs. 50 lakhs, which is applicable even in pending cases - As the amount of tax involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs, the same is dismissed as not maintainable: HC - Appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-2315-CESTAT-MAD

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipes and fittings and PVC resins - During months of July 2008 to October 2008, they cleared PVC pipes for use in drinking water supply project without payment of duty in terms of Notfn 6/2006-CE - Periodical SCNs were issued proposing to deny the benefit of notfn alleging that the supplies made to contractor is not eligible for exemption for the reason that from the certificate issued by relevant authority, it is not clear whether the pipes are used to draw water from the source to storage reservoir or as a part of integral water supply project - From the said certificate, it is clear that the pipes are used for carrying water from the source to treatment plant and to the reservoirs in various villages - For such reason, it is established that the pipes are used as integral part of water project and also for drawing water from the original source to the reservoir - Assessee having fulfilled the condition in notification is eligible for benefit of exemption from payment of duty - Therefore, demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2314-CESTAT-BANG

Fourth Dimension India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - When the appeal was filed, assessee along with appeal documents has annexed the letter written by them to Commissioner of Central Excise dt. 17/08/2015 wherein he has mentioned that they will be using CENVAT account for payment of mandatory predeposit and accordingly they have informed the Deputy Registrar of Tribunal also vide their letter dt. 18/09/2015 - No objection was raised by Department on his letter and the appeal was validly and legally filed - Further, question of entitlement of assessee to the CENVAT credit on inputs is concerned, the same will be examined while deciding the case on merits - But at this stage, for the purpose of Section 35F, they can use the CENVAT credit lying in their CENVAT account - Consequently, no merit found in the miscellaneous application filed by Department and therefore same is dimissed: CESTAT - Revenue's misc application dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2313-CESTAT-DEL

Eureka Iron And Energy Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Intelligence was received that some iron and steel manufacturers are engaged in manufacture and clandestine removal of MS ingots through M/s. Monu Steels, Raipur who is a commission agent - A case has been made against assessee for clandestine removal of goods - On going through the paragraphs recorded by adjudicating authority, it is found that they are contrary to each other - Moreover, paragraph 3.1.15 never alleges that assessee manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely - Further, after repeated request of assessee, no cross examination of Shri S K Panari was granted to them, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of M/s. Ambika International 2016-TIOL-1238-HC-P&H-CX - Relying on the said decision of High Court, demand against assessee on account of removal of goods is not sustainable: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-DEL

Jaideep Ispat and Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CC