ST - Assessee is registered under taxable Category of 'Authorized Service Station' and provided table space to various financial institutions in their premises for processing/preparation of loan documents and received commission/charges for providing such table space from financial companies - Alleging that they have provided BAS, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of Service Tax for the period of 01.07.2003 and 30.09.2005 with interest and penalty - The issue of leviability of Service Tax on such commission/charges for providing table space is no more res-Integra being settled by Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Pagariya Auto Center's case 2014-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL-LB - There is no contrary evidence produced by Revenue to show that the assessee had acted as Direct Selling Agent (DSA) for the banks, instead of providing table space to the executive of respective banks - Thus, following the principle laid down in said case, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT -Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

ST - Assessee is registered with Service Tax Department for providing security agency services - Pursuant to audit, it was noticed that assessee had not paid the service tax collected from their customers for period April 2008 to December 2008 and had thus short-paid the service tax - The assessee has made it clear that they are not contesting the amount which is confirmed and appropriated in impugned order - The contest is confined to the penalty imposed in respect of the said amount as well as the demand of Rs.13,21,165/- which according to assessee is the amount received for the security services which have been outsourced by assessee - Assessee has relied upon Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST and argued that the said services have been sub-contracted and they are not liable to pay service tax - It is also argued that the demand has been arrived taking into consideration the wages and salary in the total value of taxable service - The said issue therefore requires to be reconsidered - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - On question of penalty, in respect of services which the assessee was rendering directly, they have discharged the service to the tune of Rs.17,05,817/- which is much prior to the issue of SCN - Therefore, the penalty imposed on this count cannot sustain - The department has issued SCN incorporating these amounts as well as the amount involved for the services which have been outsourced - Assessee on bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on services outsourced had not discharged demand on such amount - The penalty imposed is set aside: CESTAT -Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - The dispute pertains to the period October, 2007 to December, 2012 and pertains to Keshav Dev Malviya Institute of Petroleum Exploration (KDMIPE), Dehradun which is a Division of ONGC - The Department, during audit observed that the assessee had incurred a total expenditure on the Institute to the tune of Rs. 1671 crore - But the total taxable value provided was about Rs.19.74 crore but paid Service tax of about Rs. 2.09 crore - SCN was issued to assessee alleging that Service Tax was irregularly availed by them - Department, vide impugned order, has sought to disallow the cenvat credit totally amounting to about Rs. 4.42 crore - The Departmental Officers noticed that the total value of taxable output service was only a very small fraction of total cost incurred by assessee in providing such service - It was also noticed that cenvat credit accumulated was disproportionately high in relation to total service tax liability payable for output service - Further, Revenue has adopted a thumb rule in determining what would be the allowable amount of input service credit - The Department worked out the ratio of value of total output service in relation to the total amount of expenditure incurred during the year and proceeded to restrict the cenvat credit allowable in same ratio - This thumb rule adopted by Revenue has been seriously challenged during the course of this appeal - The restriction/ reversal of cenvat credit on the basis of thumb rule / formula adopted by Revenue has no legal basis - Once the cenvat credit has been availed in respect of input services falling under Rule 2(l) the same cannot be disallowed by taking recourse to any thumb Rule or formula - Revenue has not brought on record any ground to allege that the credit availed is in respect of ineligible input services - In the absence of any such ground, cenvat credit availed cannot be denied to assessee - The adjudicating authority has held that the KDMIPE is a Division of ONGC who also renders service to other ONGC Divisions - In respect of such services, no service tax is paid and hence the restriction of cenvat credit has been ordered - The service, if any, rendered to other ONGC Divisions is in the form of service to self and levy of Service Tax is not justified: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Veterinary Feed Additives, Mineral Food Supplements and Water purifying tablets - The assessee claimed classification of product under CETH 29336910 but Revenue was of the view that such goods are to be classified as 'disinfectant' under CETH 38089400 - Further, Revenue was of the view that goods are required to be charged to excise duty on MRP based valuation - The goods manufactured by assessee are cleared under several brand names - The nature of goods has been confirmed by Revenue during investigation - Such goods are used for disinfectanting/ sanitizing of water and hence, are in the form of disinfectants - There is also no dispute on the fact that such goods are prepared in form of tablets and are packed in unit containers with 10, 20, 50 and 100 tablets - Undoubtedly, such packaging is meant for retail sale and individual tablets are in measured doses - Section Note 2 to Section VI is relevant for classification of impugned goods - Keeping in view the fact that goods are packed in retail packing, classification of impugned goods ordered under CETH 3808 of Central Excise Tariff.

As regards to valuation of goods, duty is to be charged under Section 4A of Central Excise Act only in respect of those goods which are mandatorily required to declare MRP under the Legal Meteorology Act and rules - It is evident that the goods are manufactured and packed for retail sale - Even if such goods packed in retail containers are further packed in bigger wholesale packages, goods are liable to duty in terms of MRP based assessment under Section 4A: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of electric storage batteries which are normally sold to independent buyers - However, a small portion of goods manufactured are also sold by assessee to M/s. Caldyne Automatics Ltd. which is a subsidiary unit of assessee - The dispute during period April, 2001 to December, 2006 relates to valuation of goods cleared by assessee to its subsidiary - The duty on such clearances was paid on the basis of mutually agreed price - Department views that since the subsidiary has further sold the batteries at higher price, excise duty was required to be paid at the price at which said subsidiary is selling the goods to independent buyers - Goods stand sold through subsidiary which in turn has sold the goods at higher price, but duty has been paid at the time of clearance at mutually agreed price which is claimed to be the price at which goods are sold to independent persons - Applicability of Rule 10 of CEVR, 2000 and circumstances in which it can be applied have been clarified by CBEC vide their Circular dated 01.07.2012 - From the said clarification, it is evident that when goods are partly sold to related persons and partly to independent buyers, there will be no applicability of Rule 10 - Under similar circumstances, Tribunal has held that duty is payable only at the rate of which goods are sold to independent buyers as long as 100% of the production is not sold through related persons - There is no justification for insistance on payment of duty at the price at which goods are sold by related persons - It is submission of assessee that mutually agreed price at which goods are sold to related persons is at par with the price of such goods sold to independent buyers - Adjudicating Authority is directed to consider the submission made by assessee and accept the mutually agreed price if it is on par with the selling price to independent buyers: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

Md Badrual Islam Vs CCE & ST