SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-3773-CESTAT-MUM
CCGST Vs Reliance Capital Ltd
ST - Original authority had denied credit of the Central Excise duty paid on Chair, Table, paper shredder etc. on the ground that the same were not required for providing the taxable service by the appellant, however, Commissioner(A) had set aside the order holding that though the disputed goods were considered as capital goods by appellant, the same should be considered as Inputs for purpose of availment of CENVAT credit in view of Board Circular 943/04/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011 and Tribunal decision in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-367-CESTAT-MUM wherein the CENVAT credit benefit was extended on the disputed goods - no justifiable reason to take a contrary view than the stand taken by the Commissioner(A) - since the issue is no longer res integra, order of Commissioner(A) cannot be disturbed - Revenue appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 5]
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-3771-CESTAT-MUM
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant removing finished petroleum products without payment of Central Excise duty under warehousing procedure from refinery - demand of interest on duty payable on transit/storage losses - appellant had made payment of Rs.1,59,17,602/- towards cumulative losses beyond condonable limits on account of storage, handling and delivery by pipelines - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Delhi High Court in case of Kwality Ice Cream - 2012-TIOL-252-HC-DEL-CX has held that the limitation prescribed u/s 11A would equally apply to the demand of interest as well - In the instant case, the demand has been raised for the period April 2001 to December 2007 on 21.06.2007, therefore, the same cannot be sustained as it is beyond the normal period of limitation - no element necessary for invoking the extended period of limitation has been invoked in the said notice, thus notice is clearly barred by limitation - appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3770-CESTAT-MUM
Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - CENVAT credit availed on Input services of insurance in respect of family members of employees, whether admissible.
Held: Group insurance is mandatory only for employees and not mandatory for families - earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case have been given on an erroneous assumption - in view of Tribunal decision in Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-965-CESTAT-MUM where there is a specific discussion in respect of the said services while denying the credit, no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant - CENVAT credit of service tax paid in respect of insurance service for family members is denied - insofar as imposition of penalty is concerned, there can be a bonafide doubt in the mind of the assessee as it can be an issue of interpretation, therefore, penalty is set aside - Appeal is partly allowed: CESTAT [para 4 to 6]
- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3769-CESTAT-MUM
Tata Steel Company Ltd Vs CCE
CX - CENVAT credit availed on services of maintenance of garden at the training centre/guest house and at residential quarters of executives denied by lower authorities - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Demand pertains to the period 2008-09 to 2010-11 during which period the definition of ‘input service' in rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 encompassed all activities relating to business qualified by a representative sample of typical services that could be treated as eligible and which undoubtedly cover maintenance activities at the training centre/guest house and at the residential accommodation of the executives of the appellant - In view of the provisions of law in vogue then, impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 5]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2018-TIOL-3774-CESTAT-ALL
RKG International Pvt Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
Cus - The assessee company filed bill of entry for imported goods, declaring the consignment as heavy melting steel scrap - The assessee produced the requisite documents such as invoices & pre-shipment inspection certificate - On inspection, the Department found anomalies in the actual dimensions of the goods & the descriptions given by the assessee - The Department also opined that the goods were classifiable as 'cut pieces', 'cutting of breakage' & 'bearing' of the used strip - Alleging mis-declaration, the Department rejected the valuation put forth by the assessee - The goods were confiscated with imposition of redemption fine & penalty - The valuation was also enhanced - Such findings were accepted by the Commr.(A).
Held: The imported goods have been agreed upon between the assessee & the seller as being melting scrap - This is substantiated by the documents - The Department's case is built on visual examination of goods & not any expert opinion - There is no evidence suggesting excess payment to foreign supplier - Hence the demands merit being set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,3,4)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3772-CESTAT-MUM
Unique Trading Company Vs CC
Cus - DRI investigated exporters and alleged that they had inflated the FOB values of their exports significantly and obtained the DEPB scrips/DFIA licences against such exports and which have been sold to various transferees including the appellants - Case of DRI is that goods could not have been imported by appellants against such scrips and by availing exemption under notifications 89/2005-Cus & 40/2006-Cus - impugned order issued confiscating the goods imported and demanding duty and penalties from appellant-importers - during the pendency of investigation, DGFT cancelled DEPB scrips/DFIA licences ab initio - appeal before CESTAT.
Held: Issue is squarely covered by Tribunal decision in Sumit Wool Processors & Ors. Vs. CC(Import)/(Export) - 2015-TIOL-2090-CESTAT-MUM and where it is held that since the transferees had no knowledge of mis-representation by the exporters and in view of the same, confiscation of the goods imported does not arise; that demands of duty and imposition of penalties fail - Bench also observes that the present appeals are also arising out of the same order of the Commissioner(Adjudication) which was set aside vide the order (supra) - following the same, appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 7, 8]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
