CX - The issue involved is availment of Cenvat credit on various services during period April 2006 to March 2015 - As regarsd to Management Consultancy Services, on going through the nature of services availed by assessee such as advertisement services, market research, coaching and training, finance and legal services and procurement of inputs, these services found to be an inclusive part of definition of input service after amendment as on 01.04.2011 - Therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - As regards to Business Exhibition service, prior to March 2011, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on input services which have been availed by them in course of their business of manufacturing excisable goods as per the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited - 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST - Therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - As regards to Management consultancy and Tax consultancy, said service has been availed by assessee in course of their business of manufacturing - Therefore, in the light of decision of Bombay High Court in case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited , assessee has correctly availed Cenvat credit and therefore, no merit found in Revenue's appeal - As regards to Insurance for finished goods and Inputs, assessee has opted insurance for their finished goods and inputs - Until and unless the goods are insured, in the event of any unforeseen accident wherein the finished goods or inputs destroyed before clearance from the place of removal, the said activity is attributable to manufacturing activity of the assessee - Assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - As regards to Insurance of employees family members, contention of assessee is that in terms of decision of Tribunal in case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited - 2017-TIOL-207-CESTAT-CHD the extended period of limitation is not invokable and the matter is considered on merits - Following the precedent decision of Tribunal, extended period of limitation is not invokable for denial of Cenvat credit on insurance of family members of the employees - As there is no quantification of said amount, therefore, for the said limited purpose, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority - As regards to Lease for cars, the car has been taken by assessee for official purposes to be used by employees - As the said activity relates to business of manufacturing, therefore, in terms of decision of Bombay High Court in case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited , the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - With regard to Architecture and Construction services, said issue has been settled by decision of High Court in case of Bellsonica Auto Components India Pvt. Limited - Therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - As regard to Training service, the adjudicating authority, on merits has not disputed that assessee is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit but technically it has been held that there is no service tax component shown in the invoices and assessee has not paid the service tax, consequently they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit - As it is evident from the invoice that assessee has paid the service tax, therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on training service - As regards to Pandal and Shamiana service, said service has been availed by assessee for organising Diwali function in factory for the employee and in terms of decision of High Court of Karnataka in case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited - 2011-TIOL-941-HC-KAR-ST wherein the High Court has held that for any such type of function organised by assessee, in the factory premises, for enjoyment of the employees, they are entitled to avail Cenvat credit - Assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit.

As, on merits the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit, therefore, no penalty is imposable on assessee, same are set aside: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CX - The assessee manufactures Synthetic yarn & other textile products & availed Cenvat credit on input goods & services & on capital goods - The assessee later opted for exemption from duty under Notfn No 30/2004, conditional upon the assessee not availing credit on inputs - Upon availing exemption, the assessee reversed the credit availed, whereupon some credit was lying unused - Such unused credit was later utilized by the assessee - However, the Department opined that as per Rule 11(3) of CCR, 2004, the entire credit would lapse upon opting for exemption and so the unutilized credit could not have been availed - Duty demands were raised for recovery of such credit along with interest & imposition of penalties - Hence the assessee's appeals - For a different period, the Commr.(A) held that the provisions of Rule 11(3) of CCR were inapplicable to the assessee - Hence the Revenue's appeal.

Held: The exemption granted under Notfn No 30/2004 is not absolute - It is conditional in the sense that exemption is available if the assessee does not avail credit on inputs - The provisions of Clause 2 of Rule 11(3) apply only if exemption is absolute - As the exemption is not absolute in this case, the provisions of Rule 11(3)(2) are inapplicable - Thus the unutilized credit will not lapse and can be availed by the assessee - The demands are thus unsustainable: CESTAT (Para 2,4,5)

- Assessee's appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - The ROM applications has been filed by department under section 35C(2) of CEA, 1944, seeking to rectify the mistake apparent on the face of record in Final Order dated 25.9.2015 passed by Tribunal - The appellants in all those appeals were a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs and had cleared the goods to their own DTA unit and to others - It is evident that the aspect of issue concerning clause (ii) and (iii) of Sl No. 3 of Notfn 23/2003 was very much in dispute and indeed was raised in SCN and confirmed by adjudicating authority - It is incorrect to state that there is no dispute on this matter from the department's side - Hence, the observation of Tribunal in impugned order, namely, that there is no dispute on either side insofar as clause (ii) and (iii) is concerned, is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which requires rectification - At the same time, assessee has made contentions that issue has been clarified by DGFT and Director (Cost) in their favour - These communications may not have been available to adjudicating authority - In particular, communication of Director (Cost) is issued only after the passing of impugned final order - The interests of justice would be served by taking note that the department is still in dispute insofar as clause (ii) and (iii) of SI. No. 3 of Notfn 23/2003 is concerned - However, as the Tribunal has already remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, order is modified by making additional directions to said authority to also consider the dispute regarding clause (ii) and (iii) of SI. No. 3 of Notfn 23/2003 - All the ROMs filed by department are restricted only to Appeal No. E/18/2008 - Hence, the ROM applications filed in respect of other appeals are devoid of merit and hence the same are dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT