ST - A SCN was issued to assessee for short-payment of service tax and after due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalties - The grievance of assessee is that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of being time-barred - The Commissioner (A) has powers to condone the delay to an extent of one month - The assessee contended that they have not received the copy of order - However, department has furnished documents showing that the copy of order has been dispatched by registered post on 9.4.2015 - The acknowledgment is also furnished by them which shows the signature and stamp of assessee - However, no date is endorsed by assessee while receiving the copy of the order - In any case, when the order has been dispatched on 9.4.2015, the same ought to have been delivered to the assessee at Thiruvander Koil, Puducherry - It would take only a maximum of ten days - The O/o Assistant Commissioner as well as the address of the assessee is within Puducherry limits - Thus, it is seen that the contention of assessee that they have not received the copy of the order and that they applied to the Assistant Commissioner on 28.9.2015 is not supported by any probable evidence - The Commissioner (A) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation - The decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Singh Enterprises - 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX settles the law that Commissioner (A) has no power to condone delay beyond a period of one month - The impugned order does not call for any interference: CESTAT

- Apeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - The assessee was engaged in providing services to Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) & India Glycols Limited (IGL) by way of transportation of coal through contractors tipping trucks including loading of coal into tipping trucks by their pay loaders - It appeared to Revenue that such activity was classifiable under 'Cargo Handling Service' - Assessee was engaged in transport of coal within the mining area and loading and unloading were ancillary to the same and issue was covered by CBEC's Circular 186/5/2015-ST dated 05.10.2015 wherein it has been clarified that if GTA Service provider is providing certain ancillary services such as loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, transshipment and temporary storage in course of transport of goods by road then value of such ancillary services should be counted towards GTA Services - Original Authority has relied on said CBEC Circular as one of the grounds for his decision - After going through joint "statement of facts and grounds of appeal" filed by revenue, revenue could not satisfactorily establish that transactions are not covered by said clarification dated 05.10.2015 issued by CBEC - Further, revenue did not contradict the finding of original authority that same service has been subjected to payment of service tax treating the same as GTA Service - Ground of appeal raised by revenue found to be not sustainable: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CX - The issue involved is that the assessee has availed exemption under Notfn 33/99-CE - Consequent upon retrospective amendment of said Notification brought about vide Section 153 of FA, 2003, an amount was demanded from assessee being the excess refund granted to them during period from May, 2000 to 22.12.2002 by Appellate Revenue - The assssee paid the amount by way of debit in their Cenvat Credit account in pursuance of Demand Notices - The assessee has stated that they are not manufacturing any other than one on which, refund has been demanded in pursuance to the Notifications granting such refund - Immediately after the retrospective amendment in year, 2003, under Section 153 of FA, 2003, the assessee reversed the credit through Cenvat Credit Account - In this case, only one product was manufactured by assessee and even if, the refund was to be granted through PLA account, the same would have been available by way of cenvat credit to the assessee making situation revenue neutral - This argument of appears to be valid and needs to be considered - The issue about the retrospective amendment has been discussed at length in aforesaid letter - Considering the submissions, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner (A) - Accordingly, the same is required to be upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker and sales their cement/clinker from their factory to both the dealers as well as to the various institutional buyers - When these goods are sold to these dealers and institutional buyers, the freight and transportation charges are borne by assessee which is on FOR basis - The proceedings were initiated against assessee by issuing of various SCNs on the ground that place of removal for clearance of goods are only factory gate /depot and not beyond that and hence the Cenvat Credit availed on GTA service is not admissible as it does not qualifies as input service, defined under Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004 - The issue is no longer res integra and in view of changed definition of input service after April, 2008 the assessee is liable to pay service tax as per the prevalent rate only - As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, Tribunal do not find this to be a fit case in view of judgments of Tribunal, wherein it has been held that the extending period is not invocable in such cases where Cenvat Credit was held to be admissible to the asssessee and the issue was settled only after the decision of Supreme Court in case of Ultratech Cement - 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX - Therefore, this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - Assessee held a valid import licence in furtherance of which he imported cement from Bangladesh through Authorised Land Customs Station - Irregularities in import through LCS & misappropriation of Customs duty were noticed by the Department - Penalty was imposed on assessee u/s 114A, 114AA & 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Held - The Tribunal found that there was laxity in approach by officers of the Customs department in dealing witrh Government records on account of which there was no documentary evidence against the assessee & any evidence hadn't been received from Bangladesh Customs Department. Also the investigation had not uncovered any evidence even till 2018, which further made the impugned order ipso facto bad in law: CESTAT (Paras 1 & 8-12)

- KOLKATA CESTAT

Cus - The primary critique of assessee that it is assumptions and premises such as these and far removed from facts that was relied upon by first appellate authority does give cause to pause and ponder - Besides pointing to this interpolation of an hitherto unrecorded proposition that shark hunting so rampant in Somalia as sufficing to establish that squalene, acknowledged to be shipped by a vendor in that country, is of marine origin and thus to be re-classified before being confiscated as prohibited goods attempted to be illicitly imported, he was also at pains to caution that the imported goods, though described in import documents as 'squalane oil 80%', was not an oil but acyclic hydrocarbon containing impurities that required extraction - The samples of imported products were subject to testing at different laboratories - There is no clear cut finding of presence of 'oil of marine origin' though, at the same time, not entirely ruled out - The dominance of 'squalane' is beyond question but its source may yet taint the import - Beneficiation is a consequence of blending of compounds containing higher concentration with those of lower concentration - With the maximum concentration of 'squalane' in compounds, irrespective of origin, being, admittedly, less than the concentration in imported goods, that doubt remains unanswered - Assessee has, therefore, not been able to sustain their contention that the goods are not of marine origin - But for the special circumstances of the present facts, the failure on the part of Revenue to conclusively establish coverage under the heading proposed by them would have sufficed to allow the claim of importer even if that not be on especially firm ground - The special circumstances are that the samples and/or the imported goods are available, that the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption or that normal period of limitation has not elapsed since and that, most important of all, it behoves the administration of India, as a responsible constituent of the polity of nations comprising of responsible humanity, not to be a willing accessory in the reprehensible slaughter of endangered species - Hence, it is necessary to make good the inadequacy of analysis in the earlier test reports and thus eliminate the possibility of any taint in the imported goods - To enable that remedy, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the assessing authority for having an appropriate test undertaken at such institution that has expertise in oceanography: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT