2020-TIOL-435-CESTAT-BANG

Millennia Realtors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - The assessee provides services falling under the category of renting of immovable property services - The issue at hand is whether the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on input goods & services consumed or utilized in construction of commercial complex.

Held: It is settled position in law that the period is prior to April 01, 2011 and the assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on both input goods and input services utilized for construction of complex, utilised for output service of Renting of Immovable Property service - Hence the subject orders denying credit are set aside: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-434-CESTAT-DEL

Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs CCGST, CE & C

CX - The assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing Aluminium products falling under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule to the CETA 1985 - It availed Cenvat credit on various input services received in the course of acquisition of land for industrial use, wherein the assessee was to pay appropriate compensation for acquisition of land also had to re-settle persons who had been displaced, by constructing residential accommodation as per the rehabilitation policy - All such activities had to be done in order for the assessee to set up its Aluminum Smelter Plant - The assessee acquired a piece of land in a remote village after paying compensation for its acquisition and after construction of the RR Colony for setting up of its Aluminium Smelter Plant as a part of the CSR - It was mandatory on part of the assessee to construct RR colony, failing with the land could not procured and so manufacture process would not have been possible - The assessee set up its plant in the relevant period and obtained Central Excise registration and thereafter cenvat credit was availed thereafter - After taking the registration and availing of credit in books of accounts, the assessee regularly filed ER-1 returns - The credit lying in the assessee's books of accounts remained unutilised till production of finished goods - Upon audit the Revenue observed availment of credit on various inputs services such as construction, works contract, consultancy, in relation to setting up of plant & machinery as well as development of rehabilitation centre - SCN was issued pointing out various infractions in availment of credit used in relation of manufacture activity - On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed - Hence the present appeal.

Held: The issue at hand pertains to availment of Cenvat credit on various input services required for the setting up of the Aluminium Smelter plant by the assessee, for which the assessee acquired land and paid compensaton and also constructed rehabilitation and resettlement colony for displaced persons - The same was required for setting up the plant which would be required for manufacturing the final products by the assessee - Accordingly, the Cenvat credit on input services has been used in or in relation to setting up of plant, which is covered under the main clause of definition of input service - Besides, a similar issue stands settled in the assessee's own case for a previous period, wherein it was observed that demand was raised by invoking extended period of limitation but there was no suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - It was also observed that the issue involved was one of interpretation - Hence by following the findings in the assessee's own case, the duty demands merit being set aside on grounds of limitation alone: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-433-CESTAT-CHD

Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of insecticides/pesticides and are packing them in pouches of 10gms or less than 10gms and are affixing MRP thereon - such pouches were further packed in a bigger box and on that box, appellants are affixing MRP and paying duty in terms of s.4A of the CEA, 1944 - Revenue is of the view that since the pouches are of 10 grams or less than 10 grams, the appellant is not required to affix MRP in terms of rule 34 of the PCR Rules and consequently the goods should be assessed in terms of s.4 of CEA - SCNs issued alleging that since valuation was arrived at in terms of s.4A, the appellant had obtained excess refund of duty paid in cash by them in terms of notification 56/2002-CX - demand confirmed by lower authorities and, therefore, appeal filed.

Held: Section 2(p) of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976, specifies that in case of multiple pieces packed in a bigger box, the manufacturer is required to affix MRP thereon - therefore, appellants have rightly paid the duty by adopting section 4A valuation - Consequently, the appellants have correctly taken the refunds under Notification No. 56/2002-CE of duty paid in cash - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5]

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT