2021-TIOL-586-CESTAT-MAD

Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The appellant manufactured and cleared knitting machines to 100% EOU without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. - Along with final products, they also cleared some inputs which they have received as such to the 100% EOU - All these clearances were made against Form CT-3 issued by jurisdictional Central Excise officer having control over 100% EOU - As far as clearances of final products by appellant are concerned, there is no dispute - What is in dispute is whether appellant could avail modvat credit on inputs which they have received and thereafter cleared them as such to a 100% EOU without reversing the Modvat credit availed by them - The appellant admits that they have not manufactured the goods in question nor have they removed them from warehouse - However, despite the condition not being satisfied, they are entitled to benefit of exemption notification - He further argued that they are entitled to benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57F of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and they need not reverse the Modvat credit taken on inputs received as such for supply to a 100% EOU - On specific query from the Bench if there was any provision within the Rule which permits them to take Modvat credit and still clear the goods without payment of duty to 100% EOU, appellant submits that High Court of Karnataka has decided so in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1652-HC-KAR-CX and the ratio has been followed by this Bench in case of Emerson Process and Management Chennai Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3629-CESTAT-MUM - Appellant is entitled to avail modvat credit/cenvat credit on inputs and entitled to clear the same without payment of duty to 100% EOU without reversing the input credit so availed: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-585-CESTAT-AHM

Sud Chemie Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against demand of service tax and imposition of penalties - The first issue relates to payment of service on reverse charge basis in respect of GTA services received by assessee - They had paid service tax as soon as it was pointed by auditor and again in cash when it was pointed out that it has to be paid in cash - There was no mala fide on the part of appellant - Therefore, benefit of section 80 should be extended for assessee and penalty under section 76 and 78 are set aside - The second issue relates to demand of service tax of reverse charge basis in respect of commission to a foreign entity - The period is prior to introduction of section 66A when the duty is not leviable - The assessee has already conceded that they are not contesting payment of duty - No justification found in imposition of penalty under section 76, 77 and 78, same are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT