Commissioner of GST & CE Vs Larsen And Toubro Ltd

ST - The assessee-company was engaged in the manufacture and supply of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) amongst other activities, and the same was transported to their customer's site through transit mixer vehicle - Then RMC was poured into a hopper, and subsequently pumped with the help of pumps - However, the Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee had not discharged their service tax liability on 'pumping charges/unloading charges' charged and collected from their customers - Accordingly, a SCN was issued proposing to demand service tax, education cess, interest u/s 75 and also imposition of penalties u/s 76, 77 and 78 - Thus, the adjudicating authority confirmed the proposals made in the SCN, except the penalty u/s 76 - On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed assessee's appeal - Hence, the revenue appealed.

Held: The facts of the present case and in the case of RMC Readymix are similar, in which it was held that, as the appellants had already paid service tax on the transportation of RMC, hence discharging sales tax liability on the RMC - Therefore, the activity of RMC will not fall under the category of of "transport of goods other than water through pipeline or through other conduit" - Moreover, the Revenue was not able to controvert - Thus, the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is upheld.  

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : CHENNAI CESTAT

Visa Resources India Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE

ST - The assessee is engaged in business of trading of minerals, metals and energy products in India as well as export of such goods - For the purpose of export of goods, assessee has availed various taxable services on payment of Service Tax - SCN was issued alleging that rebate claim is liable for rejection owing to certain discrepancies - The issue is no more resintegra in view of various decisions of Tribunal holding a consistent view - This Bench in case of SSK Exports Ltd. & others wherein under similar circumstances, Revenue has contended that the refund claim for each shipping bill should be examined on individual basis instead of overall basis, has upheld the order of Commissioner (A) wherein it was held that there is no requirement to determine FOB value shipping bill wise to determine the formula enumerated in Para 1 (c) or in Para 3(i) of the notification and the rebate claim should be allowed in full when the assessee has specified the said condition on overall basis - The impugned order is set aside except to the extent to Rs.143/- which was already allowed by the Commissioner (A): CESTAT  

- Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant filed two refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods - A SCNs were issued to the appellant in order to reject the refund claims for non supply of various documents - Further, to such SCNs the appellant replied by showing that the documents sought by way of SCN which had already been supplied alongwith the claim of refund - Thereafter, such refund claims were rejected - On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their refund claims - Further, the appellants presented its matter before the Tribunal where it was remanded to the AA for re-consideration - Furthermore, the AA sanctioned the part claim of refund, but, rejected the claim of interest on delay - Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the order of rejected claim of interest on delayed refund of appellants.

Held: The appellants filled initially refund claims alongwith relevant documents, but, two SCNs were issued to deny refund claims for want of certain documents - The Tribunal while remanding the matter, the appellant was ask to file refund claims in form ARE-1 which is proper form to file refund claims and which were sanctioned and the interest on delay was denied as the appellant has not filed refund claims at the time of filing of refund - Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to interest on delayed refund - Thus, while issuing SCN to deny the refund claims of the appellant, no issue was raised that the refund claims have not been filed in form - Therefore, the Revenue cannot deny interest on delayed such refund and held that the appellant is entitled to interest on delayed refund after 3 months from the date of filing of refund: CESTAT ( paras 2, 6)  

- Appellant's appeal allowed : CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd Vs CGST, CC & CE

CX - The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing Signalling relay, claimed refund under Notfn No 108/95-CX during the relevant AY - Exemption was claimed from duty paid on clearance of goods to a specified project approved by the Government of India - The project was approved by the Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., and was funded by the Asian Development Bank - Although such refund was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority, the Commr.(A) later reversed such findings.

Held: The exemption certificate furnished by the assessee provided all the details and fulfilled all the conditions for availing benefit of exemption - The certificate had been signed by the Executive Chief Project Implementing Authority/Chief Project Manager - The certificate also clarifies that this post is equivalent to Joint Secretary in Government of India in Ministry of Railways - The Commr.(A) remained silent about acknowledging all details furnished through the exemption certificate - Hence the mere emphasis upon fulfiling conditions laid down in the notification & without acknowledging complete compliance by the assessee is unappreciable on part of the Revenue - Hence the O-i-A warrants being set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,5)

- Assessee's appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

Delphi Tvs Diesel Systems Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & CE

CX - The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing fuel injection pump, injector, holder assembly & filter assembly, availed Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services - During the relevant period, the Revenue issued SCNs alleging that the assessee wrongfully availed credit on outward transportation of goods - Hence duty demands were raised with interest & penalties - Such demands were sustained by the Commr.(A).

Held: The issue at hand has been settled by the Apex Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd. - Thus the credit could not have been availed on such service - However as the issue is interpretational in nature and was subject to litigation before various High Courts, no penalty can be imposed - Hence the same is set aside while the duty demand with interest remains undisturbed: CESTAT (Para 1,5,6)  

- Assessee's appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

Modern Dairies Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing dairy products - It procured Plates, Coild & Angles for fabrication of capital goods, used for production of final products - As the dairy machinery classifiable under CETH 8434 is exempted from Excise duty under Notfn No 6/06-CE & Notfn No 67/-5-CE, the Revenue alleged that the assessee was not entitled to avail credit on inputs used - Hence the Revenue opined that the assessee was liable to reverse credit on inputs used to manufacture capital goods, u/r 6 of CCR 2004 - The assessee reversed such credit before SCN was issued - However, SCN was issued seeking to deny two other amounts of credit availed by the assessee, along with interest - Penalties were also imposed - Hence the present appeals.

Held: As per Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k), the inputs used to manufacture capital goods used in the manufacturer's factory, are entitled for Cenvat credit - In the present case, such inputs are used for fabrication of capital goods ultimately used for manufacture of final goods - Hence the assessee is entitled for Cenvat credit as per Rule 2(k) - Besides, the issue at hand stands settled in favor by the Tribunal in Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE and Vaidyanath SSK Ltd. vs. CCE - Hence the demands raised merit being set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,9,13)

- Assessee's appeal allowed : CHANDIGARH CESTAT