ST - Assessee was the owner of 'Riverside Mall, Lucknow' and had seven tenants at said mall and were registered with Service Tax for providing Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, Renting of Immovable Property Service and Cleaning Services - They also filed their ST-3 returns - Revenue scrutinized ST returns filed by assessee and ledger account of capital goods and input service and also the ledger of rental income and entertained a view that the value shown in ST-3 returns and the gross income as per balance sheet were at variance - Original Authority has held that common area maintenance charges were received on actuals and they are not related to any service rendered by them to tenants and further held that the common area management charges are subjected to service tax at the end of such service providers and therefore, if the same demand is confirmed against assessee then it would amount to double taxation - Therefore, he dropped the demand in respect of above stated three issues - The findings by Original Authority are sustainable - The grounds of appeal are repetition of SCN and the findings by Original Authority have not been rebutted by Revenue - Therefore, no merit found in grounds of appeal: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of automobile forged products - The dispute relates to period 2002-03 i.e. before the units were taken over by management of assessee - The Department conducted investigation of activities of assessee by visiting the premises of assessee and seized various documents vide Mahazar and also recorded the statements of few persons and thereafter assessee was issued SCN proposing to demand duty on dies / tools / moulds and steel rods allegedly cleared without payment of duty and appropriate the duty already paid by them - The demand pertains to period 2002-2003 and during the relevant period, there was no recovery mechanism incorporated under Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules to recover the CENVAT credit availed on inputs which was sent to job work but not received back after completion of 180 days - The demand of Rs. 14,80,599/- relating to demand of CENVAT credit on inputs sent for job work not received back within 180 days is not sustainable in law - Further demand of Rs.3,52,346/- on captively manufactured moulds, dies and tools without payment of duty, sent for job work and did not receive back within 180 days is also, not sustainable - As per erstwhile Notfn 214/86-CE, the said notification provides for exemption to items if manufactured in a factory as a job-work and used in the manufacture of final product or cleared as such from the factory of supplier of raw materials or semi-finished goods - Even if duty is paid on said capital goods, same would be available as CENVAT credit to assessee - As far as limitation is concerned, case pertains to period 2002-03 and SCN was issued on 14/11/2006 by invoking the extended period of limitation - But the Department has not produced any material to show that the assessee has suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of duty - Therefore, entire demand is also time barred - Appeal succeeds on merits as well as on limitation: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of fabricated items of steel - As per Revenue, the stock taking of raw materials revealed that C.R Sheets/Coils to the extent of 162.63 MT, on which the assessee had availed credit was not available in their stock - Statement of director Shri Mohd Naim was recorded wherein he accepted that the raw material in question has been sold in cash at a profit of Rs.1 per kg. - Proceedings were initiated against assessee by way of issuance of SCN proposing to recover the duty by denying Cenvat Credit so availed by them in respect of said Coils/Sheets - Notice also proposed imposition of penalty on both the assessees - Admittedly, assessee have maintained their records and availed the credit on raw materials - The entire case of Revenue is based on alleged shortages of raw material detected at the time of visit of officers - Apart from the fact that Revenue has not referred to any of the buyers of said goods, they have also not produced any evidence to reflect upon any alternate mode of procurement of raw materials by assessee - Undisputedly, final product cannot be manufactured out of vacuum and require raw materials - If assessee have sold the said material in market, it is not only impracticable but impossible for them to manufacture their final goods which stands manufactured and cleared on payment of duty - As such merely on the basis of shortages detected at the time of stock taking, which are also being assailed by assessee and are doubtful, no justifiable reason found to deny the credit to assessee and to confirm the demand against them or to impose penalty upon them - Accordingly, impugned orders set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of transmission and power shift transmission elements and parts thereof for M/s FIPL, which are being manufactured out of the raw materials supplied free of cost by M/s FIPL as well as by procuring and using their own raw materials - During audit, it transpired that landed cost of raw materials supplied free of cost was enhanced by M/s FIPL from 2010-2011 upto November 2013, however, the assessable value of components/parts supplied to M/s FIPL was not enhanced for payment of Central Excise duty - On being pointed out, assessee agreed to objection raised by department and paid a differential amount of central excise duty alongwith interest - A SCN was issued to assessee for demanding and appropriation of amount of central excise duty alongwith interest deposited by them and the SCN also proposed to impose a penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Supreme Court in its various pronouncements has held that only non-payment of Central Excise Duty because of certain innocuous omissions cannot be compared with collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts as provided under Section 11A of CEA, 1944 - Tribunal refer to Supreme Court's judgment in case of M/s Uniworth Textiles 2013-TIOL-13-SC-CUS in this regard - Assessee was not in a situation of control and revision of prices of his manufactured product, squarely depended on M/s F.I.P.L. providing the correct value of their F.O.C. components - As soon as the assessee came to know that the value of F.O.C. products has been revised on higher side for past years by M/s F.I.P.L. the appellant has immediately deposited the excise duty short paid alongwith interest - The short payment of Central Excise duty on account of re-revised prices of F.O.C. products was neither deliberate nor with any malafide intentions and it was because of the facts that the circumstances of matter were beyond the control of assessee and therefore though Central Excise duty is certainly leviable on revised value of assessees products supplied to M/s F.I.P.L. but the case is certainly not made out for levy of penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Central Excise duty short paid on the clearances effected with the assessable value which was determined on the basis of re-revised value of F.O.C. components/raw material is recoverable under Section 11A of CEA, 1944 alongwith interest as leviable under Section 11AA/11AB of the Act, 1944: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATIONS

dgft18not030

Corrigendum to Notification No. 25/2015-2020 dated 17th August

dgft18not029

Export Policy of Bio-fuels

dgft18not028

Amendment in Para 3.24 (j) of Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-2020

CASE LAW