ST - Whether the assessee is entitled to service tax credit on 'Consultancy Engineering Services' in relation to sale of Certified Emission Reduction - As is clear from definition of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 any service used by "manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products constitutes input service" - It also includes transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal - Therefore, the test is whether the service utilized by assessee is for the manufacture of final product - The services mentioned in the Section are only illustrative and it is not exhaustive - Therefore when a particular service not mentioned in the definition clause is utilized by assesse /manufacturer and service tax paid on such service is claimed as Cenvat credit, the question is what are the ingredients that are to be satisfied for availing such credit - If the credit is availed by manufacturer, then the said service should have been utilized by manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to activities relating to business - If any one of these two tests is satisfied, then such a service falls within the definition of "input service" and the manufacturer is eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on such service - An identical issue was considered by Tribunal in case of Heidelberg Cement India Ltd. 2016-TIOL-3117-CESTAT-BANG wherein the consultancy services used for greenhouse gas emission reduction and Carbon Credit Management Services were held to be cenvatable - To the similar effect is another decision in case of Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. 2012-TIOL-1815-CESTAT-DEL - By following the ratio of said decisions, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

ST - Assessee is manufacturer/ merchant importer of bauxite - They had filed refund claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services which are used for export, in terms of Notfn 41/2012-ST as amended - On adjudication, the refund claim on GTA Services was denied to assessee as per Clause 3(b) of said Notfn observing that since the assessee is liable to pay service tax under Section 68 of FA, 1994, for receiving GTA Services, hence not eligible to refund - From the aforesaid allegation, it is clear that rejection of refund on GTA Services, was proposed only on the ground that assessee fall under the scope of Clause 3(b) of said Notfn - Issue has been considered by Tribunal in Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd's - No reason found to deviate from the observation recorded by Tribunal - Consequently, following the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

ST - Assessee is engaged in providing training in fields of design, multimedia, architectural engineering and mechanical design analysis and registered under the category of Commercial Coaching and Training services and franchise service - During the course of audit of accounts, it was inter alia noticed that the assessee had not discharged service tax on the value of books supplied while rendering the service of commercial training and coaching service - The issue stands covered by decision in case of Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2013-TIOL-834-CESTAT-DEL - Following the same, demand cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle and parts thereof - They were availing credit of duty paid on various inputs in terms of CCR, 2004 - The dispute is with reference to liability of assessee to reverse the credit on inputs which, the Revenue claimed, has been cleared by assessee without use in manufacturing process and shown in their accounts as "written off" - Identical issue for a different period has come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case 2017-TIOL-2487-CESTAT-DEL wherein it is held that when the duty paid inputs were issued for process of manufacture and later, during the course of usage, either got damaged or found not upto the mark, these are rejected and scraped - At the time of clearance as scrap, duty as applicable, are discharged - As such, in terms of the legal principle as examined by these decisions, denial of credit is not justifiable - Tribunal has followed the ratio laid down in a number of cases, before granting the relief - By following the said decision of Tribunal, for the same assessee for the different period, no justification found for denial of credit - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of safe and safe deposit lockers and strong room doors - It was noticed that the assessee has purchased various capital goods and has taken 100% Cenvat Credit thereof - In addition, it was also noticed that they had also availed Cenvat Credit of M.S. square bars which otherwise is not a capital goods - Issues to be considered are about the availment of 100% Cenvat Credit on capital goods and the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on M.S. Bars - Assessee has availed 100% of Cenvat Credit in year of receipt of capital goods itself, instead of availing the 50% thereof in said year and the remaining 50% in succeeding financial year for which, as per the Rules, assessee was entitled to avail the amount of remaining 50% of credit in following financial year - The utilization is for months of January to March, 2011 and the remaining availed cenvat credit is lying as unutilized credit - Same has nowhere been disputed by Department also, rather it is very much apparent from SCN - Since the Revenue has not denied that 50% of the availed Cenvat Credit has been reversed even prior to the SCN and that the entire amount has not been utilised except for last three months of year 2010 but has issued the SCN even based upon Rule 14 as is impressed upon during the arguments, is not sustainable - Hence it is held that the demand of entire amount has wrongly been confirmed by Adjudicating Authority - However, in view of Rule 14 as invoked in SCN and as being in view of availment/utilization of applicable credit for three months the assessee is held liable for paying the interest for the amount utilized during said three months.

As regards to the issue of availing Cenvat Credit on MS bars, the definition of capital goods is relevant for purpose to check as to whether the MS Bars used in given circumstances can be categorized as the capital goods, no doubt as per Rule 2 (a) (i) CCR, 2004, the MS Bars do not fall within the definition of capital goods being the Article of Chapter 72 - The article in question i.e. MS Bars since has not been customized / fabricated in such other form to have been exclusively fastened to the cranes herein but have merely been utilized in their existing form for a pathway meant for these cranes, the MS bars do not even fall under the definition of either component or spare or accessories of capital goods as mentioned in Rule 2 (a) (iii) of CCR, 2004 - Demand confirmed as far as Cenvat Credit with respect to the duty paid on MS Bars is concerned: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CX - The assessee is a 100% EOU engages in manufacture of bulk drugs and drug intermediates - It availed exeption under Notification No. 23/2003-CE as they were of the view that they had fulfilled the condition that the goods were manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India - The assessee procured material like Methyl Iso Butyl Ketone, Hexane, Methanol, Isopropl Alchocol IP from dealers - Thereafter, they imported the goods and sold to the assessee - The Revenue took a view that as the materials were imported they were not entitled to benefit of the notification - Duty demand was raised - However, the Commr. (A) set aside the order-in-original on grounds that goods bought from dealers were consumables & not raw materials - It relied on the Board's circular No. 614/5/2002-CX which clarified that the benefit of notification No. 8/97 should not be allowed if imported consumables are used - Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

Held - The issue at hand was whether the goods cleared to DTA which are manufactured using imported consumables, falls within benefit of notification 8/97 - The answer to this question is in affirmative - The circular No. 85/2001-CUS reversed the earlier Board circular which disallowed usage of imported consumables in manufacture - Moreover, the issue has been settled by SC in the case of Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd vs. CCE Jaipur & Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd wherein the exemption notification 8/97-CE was allowed in respect of the goods sold in DTA, even when the consumable was used which is not domestically manufactured - Therefore, there is no restriction that the consumables which are used in the manufacture also have to be domestically manufactured - Hence, the benefit of notification No. 8/97 is available - Furthermore, whether consumables would be covered within the definition of raw materials - In the present case, this question is answered against the assesse - The products in question are not consumables - It is well established principle that any exemption notification should be strictly construed against the person who is claiming it - Here, it is for the assessee to prove that the goods in question are consumables and not raw material in the process of manufacturing of final products which burden they failed to discharge - Hence, the benefit of the notification no. 23/2003-CE is not available to the assessee - The order challenged is set aside : CESTAT (Para 1, 6, 7, 8) - Revenue's appeal allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2369-CESTAT-MAD

Concorde Zoom Vs CC

2018-TIOL-2368-CESTAT-MAD

Dong A India Automotive Pvt Ltd Vs CC