ST - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of Aluminium Fluoride, Hydrofluoric Acid and Sulphuric Acid - A demand has been confirmed under Management Consultancy Service - Though the assessee argues that this amount is not received towards consideration and the amount is only towards ticket charges, no documentary proof has been placed by assessee - However, taking into consideration that the assessee has declared the amount in their accounts from where the department has come to know about the receipt of the same, the penalty imposed is unwarranted - The assessee has given sufficient explanation for failure to pay service tax, since he was under the impression that the amount received being ticket charges is not subject to levy of service tax - Penalty imposed under section 78 of FA, 1994 is set aside - In the result, impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed without disturbing the duty amount or the interest thereof: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - The assessee is CHA and registered for such services with the department - On the basis of intelligence that they were receiving incentives from various airline / shipping liners @ 2% of the basic freight, in the name of brokerage, and is not discharging service tax on such amount received, SCNs were issued for the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 under category of 'CHA' service demanding service tax along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty - The issue has been sufficiently discussed in case of Lee & Muir Head Pvt. Ltd. 2008-TIOL-2383-CESTAT-BANG - Same adjudicating authority vide O-I-O in case of St. Johns Freight Systems Ltd. had confirmed the demand of service tax under category of 'steamer agent service' and vide O-I-A, the Commissioner (A) set aside the demand - The department has not filed any appeal against such order and the order has attained finality - The activity of assessee as CHA is to provide services to importers/exporters and the disputed activity was only a facility arranged by them to their clients - The assessee has no obligation to arrange transport of cargo through a particular shipping liner - Therefore, the amount received cannot fall within the category of 'commission' so as to be subjected to levy of service tax - Following the decision in case of Lee & Muir Head Pvt. Ltd. , demand is unsustainable: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - Assessee have applied for refund for the period April 2008 to June 2008 in respect of service tax paid on various services received by them and used for export of their motor vehicles, in terms of Notfn 41/2007-ST as amended - On the issue of invoices issued by M/s. Natvar Parekh Industries relating to port services, matter is fully covered by Tribunal decision in case of SRF Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2241-CESTAT-DEL - In the event, that part of impugned order rejecting the refund claims relating to invoices for port services issued by M/s. Natvar Parekh Industries is set aside and appeal on that score is allowed - On the issue of exact period of refund, there is some confusion - The SCN indicates that the amount of Rs. 10,23,976/- is related to export clearances made prior to 01.04.2008 - However, that aspect is not forthcoming from the annexure to SCN - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of this issue as per law, laid in provisions, notification, Circular and case laws applicable thereon - So also, with regard to the portion of refund claim pertaining to courier services, matter is being remanded to enable the assessee to produce all the related invoices issued by service provider - Once the assessee is able to establish the co-relation between the goods exported and/or export documents and the invoices issued by such service provider, the refund should be sanctioned as held by Tribunal in Antak Agencies (International) 2017-TIOL-1551-CESTAT-ALL : CESTAT - Appeal disposed of : CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Branded goods manufactured in Goa unit situated in ‘rural area' and exemption availed - no cause for clubbing the clearance value of Goa unit with that of Mumbai unit where SSI exemption notification 9/2001-CE availed - earlier order dated 10.07.2008 passed by Tribunal has not been appealed against by Department - there is no valid and justifiable reason in deviating from the aforesaid judgment - impugned order denying exemption and confirming demand/imposing penalty is set aside - Appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 6] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - The SCN was issued to assessee on the ground that they have contravened the provisions of Section 11D and 11DD of CEA, 1944 - The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated by SCN - Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by Revenue - The reversal of amount was done by assessee Belgharia Unit from where the Bogies and Couplers were collected without payment of duty by assessee - There is no dispute about the reversal of 8% or 10% - The amounts were duly debited by TEXMACO Belgharia in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules and it was not alleged that TEXMACO Belgharia raised appeal for recovery of said amount separately from where was recovered through the bill has been paid - Tribunal in assessee's appeal by relying upon the Larger Bench decision in case of Unison Metals Ltd. 2006-TIOL-1337-CESTAT-DEL-LB and CBEC Circular No. 870/08/2008-CX have discussed the issue in details and allowed the assessees appeal - Regarding the allegation of education cess has not at all paid to the Government, Adjudicating Authority has discussed the same in his Order and it is observed that the same relates to some supplementary claim for which claim was once raised and disputed by Railways and those were paid by their supplier i.e. Belghoria Unit prior to April, 2005 - No infirmity found in impugned order and same is hereby sustained: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : KOLKATA CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of fabric based blinds for window covering which they had classified under CETH 6303 and claim nil exemption under Sl. 16 of Exemption Notfn 30/2004 - Department views that the fabric in question was impregnated with "scotch gard", a chemical which surrounds each fibre of fabric providing an irresistible shield against dust and sail apart from imparting a strain proof quality; that the chemical coating predominantly consists of synthetic polymer and hence the said blinds are required to be classified under CETH 39253000 - Chapter 39 will cover only "plastics and plastic articles thereof", namely, those materials which have been formed under external influence like heat or pressure by moulding, casting, extruding, rolling or other process into shapes which are retain on removal of such external influence - Without doubt, the chemical compound scotchgard will not fall under such a category - CETH 5903 can include only those "textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics" - As "scotchgard" is not a plastic, impugned goods cannot fall in this Chapter also - In consequence, impugned goods will be required to be considered only as a textile fabric / material, which has been coated with a chemical compound which is not predominant in nature and the fabric per se even after such impregnation will continue to be considered only as a textile fabric - This being so, the made up textile articles made out of such fabric and in particular, interior blinds will be correctly classifiable under CETH 6303 as contended by assessee - In consequence, impugned goods will be eligible for duty exemption under Notfn 30/2004-CE : CESTAT - Assessee's appeals allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of Lubricants, Hydraulic Brakes Fluids and Lubricating preparations - They were also engaged in trading of imported goods - They availed input service tax credit on common input services used for manufacture of finished products as well as trading activities - The allegation is that the assessee had not maintained separate accounts under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and had not exercised the option to reverse credit as provided under Rule 6(3) - In SCN itself, it is noted that assessee has reversed the credit in proportion to the credit availed in respect of trading activity / traded goods - The only reason for raising the demand to the extent of 10% / 8% / 6% of traded goods for the disputed period is that the assessee have not filed declaration as contemplated in Rule 6 (3A) - Tribunal in case of Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd. 2017-TIOL-113-CESTAT-DEL has followed the decision in case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd 2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-MUM , wherein it was observed that the condition given in Rule 6(3A) to intimate the Department is only procedural matter and the delay of such procedural matter is condonable and therefore, substantive right given in said Rule cannot be denied for such procedural lapse - Following the same, demand cannot sustain and same is set aside.

As regards to limitation, the jurisdictional Commissioner had passed an order holding that the credit was to be reversed on clearing and forwarding agency service based on proportionate value of traded goods - Assessee had been reversing the credit availed on common input services and informed the department whenever the details were asked for - Thus the department was fully aware that the assessee was conducting trading activity - Therefore, demand raised invoking the extended period is without any factual or legal basis: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2354-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd

2018-TIOL-2353-CESTAT-MAD

CCE Vs International Components India Ltd