ST - Appellant is engaged in the business of container depot operations and offering services to its clients for storage, handling and repair of marine containers belonging to shipping lines - appellant had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the Services used for repair and maintenance of the hard surfaced container yard installed in the ground located within the yard - such credit was denied and, therefore, appellant before CESTAT.

Held: It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant had constructed the platform for the first time during the disputed period to transact its business - On perusal of the documents as well as photographs, it transpires that no new construction activities were carried out by the service provider in order to fall under the exclusion clause provided in the definition of Input service in rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 - since the activity of repair is specifically finding a place in the inclusive part of the definition, the benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied - impugned order set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 5]

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

ST - Appellants are providing taxable services namely Interior Decorator Services, Design Services, servicing of motor vehicle and Management Consultancy Services - It was observed that appellant had not paid service tax from December 2011 onwards and, therefore, SCN issued on 25.02.2014 demanding service tax of Rs.1,93,17,035/- along with imposition of penalty/interest - appellant contended that non-payment of service tax was on account of financial difficulties; that they paid Rs.24,76,250/- even prior to investigation and entire amount along with interest paid prior to issue of SCN - Commissioner confirming demand along with interest and appropriating the amounts paid and imposing penalty of Rs.96,58,517/- u/s 78 of FA, 1994 and also giving the appellant the option of payment of penalty of @25% of tax demanded - appeal filed against penalty imposition.

Held: From the facts of the case it is quite evident that the appellant was aware of his responsibility for payment of service tax and in fact, he was collecting the same from his clients but the same was kept with himself on the pretext that he was going through financial hardships - since the appellant was aware of his liabilities in the law as he was filing his returns indicating the tax liability and was wilfully not depositing the tax collected, his conduct is not of simple ignorance but of willful default to hold the tax money for personal gains - in such a situation, penalty as imposed needs to be upheld - Appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 5, 7]

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Asian Paints Ltd Vs CCE

GP Petroleums Ltd Vs CCE

KKTC Autotech India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

Cus -AR raised a preliminary objection that since the issue relates to import of goods as baggage and the penalty on the appellant imposed is being contested, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner(A) cannot be challenged before the Tribunal in view of first proviso to s.129A of the Customs Act, 1962; that against such order, revision application lies before the GoI as mentioned in the preamble to the impugned order.

Held: In view of the specific stipulation contained in the first proviso to section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, jurisdiction of this Tribunal is ousted in cases relating to import of goods as baggage and the revision application against such order would lie before the Govt. of India - appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable: CESTAT [para 5]

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Cus - The assessee company imported Aluminium Scrap & cleared the same on payment of Customs duty & CVD - The additional Customs duty was also paid @ 4% which is refundable as per Notfn No 102/2007-Cus - Hence the assessee filed refund claim which was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority, based on the CA certificate stating that the goods had been sold to the consignment agent who further paid VAT on them - Also the VAT paid by the consignment agent was re-imbursed by the importer - On Revenue's appeal, the Commr.(A) set aside the order sanctioning the refund.

Held: The original adjudicating authority noted tha tthe CA certified that the importer re-imbursed VAT to consignment agenct - Such condition was introduced vide Board Circular No 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 - No condition in the Notfn only requires re-sale of such goods on payment of VAT - It is also well settled law that no extraneous conditions can be introduced in the notification - Besides, the fact that the assessee did not re-imburse the quantum of VAT to the consignment agent is incorrect - The Revenue also failed to submit evidence to rebut the findings of the original adjudicating authority - Hence there is no reason to deny refund to the assessee: CESTAT (Para 1,2,3,6,7,8)

- Assessee's appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT