2019-TIOL-484-CESTAT-MUM + Case Story
Venus Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - If the Tribunal has no regard for its own orders, it cannot, and should not, expect litigants and other authorities to have regard for its orders – decision of granting early hearing was rescinded by Bench without placing the applicant on notice of intent to recall the earlier decision of the Tribunal - instead of erasing the first decision out of existence, matter could have been adjourned to a suitable date, consented to by both sides - first decision to allow early hearing concurred with - Registry direced to list the appeal for disposal: CESTAT [para 5]
- Application allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-475-CESTAT-MAD
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The assessee-company manufactures lubricants - During the period of dispute, it availed credit of service tax paid on various input services, based on ISD invoices issued by their branch office situated in different parts of the country - The Department sought to deny such credit on grounds that the input services had no nexus with the manufacture activity - Duty demands were raised seeking reversal of credit with interest & imposition of penalty - On appeal, the Commr.(A) allowed partial relief, disallowing the credit availed on air travel agent services, hotel / accommodation services and debit and credit card services.
Held: Regarding disallowance of credit on air travel agent services & hotel services, the assessee produced relevant documents before the Tribunal, claiming that these services were used for official purposes only - Minutes of the meeting show that officers of the company gathered in order to plan strategy & production requirement - As such documents were not verified, the matter warrants remand to the adjudicating authority - Regarding debit & credit card services, such activity is related to manufacture activity - Hence credit cannot be disallowed - Hence all three issues warrant being considered afresh by the adjudicating authority: CESTAT (Para 1,7,8,9)
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-474-CESTAT-MAD
Wipro Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST & CE
CX - The assessee-company manufactured Hydraulic cylinders & parts thereof during the relevant period - In such period, it availed rent-a-cab service for transporting employees to and from the office premises - The assessee claimed that employees were often deployed at odd hours & that such service was directly linked with the performance of the employees for performing their tasks efficiently - However, the Department disallowed such credit.
Held: The period involved is from January 2011 to March 2013 - The assessee is apparently eligible to avail credit for the first three months of 2011, when the scope of 'input service' was wider & encompassed credit availed for such input service - Thereafter the law was amended to allow credit only if it could be proved that the motor vehicles were capital goods for the service provider - However, the assessee failed to produce any evidence to establish that the motor vehicles are capital goods for the service provider for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2013 - Hence the duty demand must be upheld - Considering that the issue is interpretational in nature and the period involved was transitional period, the penalty warrants being waived off: CESTAT (Para 2,5,6)
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-473-CESTAT-HYD
Pravesha Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE
CX - The entire issue is in a very narrow compass in as much, whether the assessee is entitled to include value of exempted goods cleared by them to SEZ in total turnover of exported goods for the purpose of determination of eligible amount of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - The issue is no more res integra, as submitted by assessee, in the case of Repro India Limited - 2007-TIOL-795-HC-MUM-CX , High Court stated very clearly that for the export made which are exempted an assessee can follow the procedure of LUT bond and is eligible for CENVAT credit of the amount of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and consumed for manufacture of goods cleared to export - The clearances affected by assessee are only to SEZ unit and it has been settled by various decisions of Tribunal that clearances made to SEZ has to be considered as an export - If that be so, the question of refunding Central Excise duty paid on inputs which remain unaccumulated has to be held in favour of assessee - Since the refund of amount is only in respect of CENVAT credit, and if the cash refund is not sanctioned, CENVAT credit available to them is not being question, the same has to be given as a credit which the changed scenario consequent to GST brought into picture would not be possible - Accordingly, it has to be held that assessee is to be granted the refund by way of cash refund: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
