2022-TIOL-721-CESTAT-MAD
Sree Rengaraaj Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The brief issues requires consideration is as to whether the appellants are eligible to avail Cenvat credit on pollution control equipment in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules and as to whether the appellants are required to reverse 10% of Cenvat credit availed by them on other inputs for the reason that steam generated is an exempted product - Coming to the issue as to whether the appellants are required to reverse 10% of the credit availed in view of the fact that the steam generated is exempt, issue stands settled by catena of judgments - In case of M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd 2020-TIOL-334-HC-ALL-CX, it was enunciated that Bagasse/Press mud produced during manufacture of sugar cannot be treated as exempted products and provision of Rule 6 of CER, 2004 cannot be applied - Steam is generated in course of manufacture and it cannot be said that appellants have manufactured steam which is an exempt product - Gujarat High Court in case of Sterling Gelatin 2010-TIOL-897-HC-AHM-CX held that a bye product emerging in course of manufacture cannot be treated as a manufactured product for the purposes of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Nothing survives in impugned order and same cannot be sustained - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-720-CESTAT-CHD
Interglobe Aviation Ltd Vs CST
ST - The service tax was paid alongwith interest and an intimation was also given to assessing officer by appellant well before issuance of SCN - According to appellant, it is covered by Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 and no SCN should have been issued to it - While, according to Revenue, benefit of Section 73(3) ibid is not available to appellant because it is covered by Section 73(4) ibid which overrides Section 73(3) ibid - Charge of service tax is not reduced or abated with efflux of time but only remedy available to Revenue goes if it is time barred - Remedy available to Revenue is also subject to other limitations under Section 73(3) ibid which is available in all cases where tax is paid before issue of SCN unless elements of fraud or collusion indicated in Section 73(4) ibid are present - Each of these elements require an intention - Case of Revenue is that the appellant had intention to evade service tax - No evidence found of it - If appellant pays service tax and can get Cenvat credit immediately of what it paid, Tribunal do not find it can have any intention to evade - All that happened in this case is by not paying service tax when it is due but by paying it late, appellant had to pay interest on it as well - Appellant had, in fact, lost by not paying service tax in time and has not gained anything at all - There is no evidence of fraud or collusion of willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contraventions with an intent to evade service tax on the part of appellant - In absence of these elements, appellant is not covered by Section 73(4) ibid and is squarely covered by Section 73(3) ibid - SCN should therefore not have been issued to appellant - Elements required to impose penalty under Section 78 ibid are identical to the elements required to invoke Section 73(4) ibid and as it is found that they are not present, penalty under Section 78 ibid should not have been imposed on appellant - Impugned order cannot be sustained, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2022-TIOL-719-CESTAT-DEL
CCGST, CE & ST Vs Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd
ST - The period involved in appeal is from April 2017 to June 2017 and issue relates to payment of service tax on amount collected by assessee towards late payment surcharge, meter rent charge and supervision charges - It is clear from judgment in Torrent Power Limited 2019-TIOL-419-HC-AHM-GST that the activities that are related/ancillary to transmission and distribution of electricity would be exempt from payment of service tax since transmission and distribution of electricity is exempted - It is also clear that all services related to transmission and distribution of electricity are bundled services, as contemplated under section 66F(3) of Finance Act, 1994, and are required to be treated as a provision of a single service of transmission and distribution of electricity, which service is exempted from payment of service tax - This as what was held by Tribunal in Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran 2021-TIOL-138-CESTAT-DEL - There is, therefore, no error in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) holding that service tax would not be leviable on late payment surcharge, meter rent charge and supervision charges: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-718-CESTAT-DEL
Girish Kumar Singh Vs CC
Cus - Issue arises is, whether penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been correctly imposed on appellant under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 - Only allegation against appellant is that he introduced the actual importer Habib-uz-Zaman and Badi-uz-Zaman to IEC holder, who agreed for use of his IEC on consideration agreed to be provided by Habib-uz-Zaman - Thereafter, there is no role of appellant forthcoming - None of the co-noticee has stated anything against appellant save and except that he has introduced the importer and IEC holder - Thus, none of the condition as stipulated in Section 112(b) of Act is attracted for imposing penalty, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
