2022-TIOL-823-CESTAT-HYD
DRA Industries Ltd Vs CCT
CX - The issue to be decided is, whether HR Sheets/Coils and welding electrodes which are used for lining the plant and in its maintenance qualify as inputs under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004 - All goods used in factory by manufacturer in all final products qualify as inputs under CCR - Therefore, Cenvat credit is admissible on such goods - There is no dispute that welding electrodes were used for maintenance of plant and HR Coils/Sheets were used in making lining around furnaces in plant - Evidently, plant will be within the factory - Since the HR Coils as well as welding electrodes are used within factory of manufacturer, Cenvat credit is admissible on both as inputs - Issue is no longer resintegra and High Court has in case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. 2011-TIOL-1054-HC-AP-CX held that goods used in their repair and maintenance qualify as inputs under Rule 2(k) of CCR - Respectfully following said judgment, it is held that appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit as inputs on HR Coils/Sheets and welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of capital goods - Impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-822-CESTAT-DEL
CCGST, Customs & Excise Vs Maihar Cement
CX - Appeals filed against order by which SCNs were adjudicated on common issue whereby Commissioner have been pleased to drop proposed demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit, proposed under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - SCNs are misconceived for any demand under Rule 6(3)(b)/6(3)(i) ibid due to admitted fact that appellant have admittedly reversed proportionate credit on input/explosives for limestone cleared from captive mines to Unit-2 - Rule 6 ibid provides for a mechanism to reverse Cenvat credit either proportionately, if it can be calculated, and in alternative, if same cannot be calculated with ease, Rule provides for reversal of Cenvat credit taken on common inputs by reversing a specified percentage of sales/transfer value of exempted product - Such reversal is restricted to opening balance of credit in Cenvat account at the beginning of period as modified by Cenvat credit taken during accounting period - As appellant have reversed proportionate credit, facts are covered squarely by ruling of Supreme Court in case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd 2002-TIOL-41-SC-CX - Since appellant have reversed proportionate Cenvat credit in terms of Rules 6(3)(ii) of CCR, thus, there is no application of Rule 6(3)(i) ibid - Situation is wholly revenue neutral, as both the units under common management and ownership are paying duty on their dutiable finished product namely cement and clinker - In case, duty was paid in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) ibid, same was available as credit to unit 2 as input credit - No merit found in appeals of revenue - Accordingly, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-821-CESTAT-DEL
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Customs Broker License of appellant has been revoked by exercising powers under Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 for the reason that appellant had connived with Kultar Singh and abetted illegal withdrawal of Duty Drawback by filing export documents on behalf of six non-existent firms, thereby knowingly aiding export of overvalued 'Floor Coverings' - A SCN dated 24.01.2020 was issued to appellant proposing to revoke Customs Broker License of appellant by considering the SCN issued under provisions of Customs Act as offence report - Appellant contends that since SCN dated 22.10.2019 that was issued under Customs Act was primarily based on investigation earlier carried out and arises out of same offence report dated 16.02.2015, present SCN dated 24.01.2020 is beyond ninety days and, therefore, proceedings initiated against appellant culminating in revocation order dated 30.09.2020 would be without authority of law - There is considerable force in submission advanced by appellant - Department clearly committed an error in initiating proceedings for revocation of Customs Broker License of appellant by issuing SCN dated 24.01.2020 treating the SCN dated 22.10.2019 as the offence report - SCN dated 24.01.2020 proceeding to revoke the license of appellant could not have treated SCN dated 22.10.2019 as the offence report because said SCN dated 22.10.2019 arises out of offence report dated 16.02.2015 - Appellant had filed only one Shipping Bill in respect of M/s. Dwarka Trading Company and this Shipping Bill was considered in earlier SCN dated 02.02.2016, which had been quashed by Delhi High Court - No other Shipping Bill was submitted by appellant and indeed none has been pointed out by department - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-820-CESTAT-MUM
Tirupati Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
ST - Dispute pertains to availment of CENVAT credit on 'inputs' and 'input services' used in common for both taxable and exempted services rendered by appellant and is centred around receipt of 'interest' in course of rendering service that is not liable to tax - Entire proceedings is founded upon 'interest' being consideration for rendering of 'exempted service' and that only option available to appellant was to be charged the appropriate percentage on value of such 'exempted service' during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 - It would, therefore, appear that lower authorities had not considered the manner in which reversal was to be handled as per rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and that 'exempted services', as defined in rule 2 of Rules, 2004, should have been the basis for determining ineligibility for continued maintenance of credit availed - In absence of details of credit taken during disputed period and utilized, Tribunal is unable to come to conclusion of reversal, if any, required under CCR, 2004 - Matter remanded back to original authority to consider the submissions of appellant: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-819-CESTAT-AHM
CCE & ST Vs Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd
ST - Entire case of department is on presumption that respondent have not recovered facility charges from M/s ESTIL whereas they recovered said charges in case of other customers - Neither it is a case of extra consideration flowing from service recipient to service provider nor there is any proof of such extra consideration, therefore the gross amount charged by respondent to M/s ESTIL being sole consideration will alone be liable to Service tax and no any other notional amount will be added on assumption and presumption basis - From the agreement entered into between Respondent and M/s ESTIL, it was evident that the charges for cargo handling and port services were negotiated rates, on understanding that 25 million MT of cargo would be handled from 2012-13 onwards and that there would be a 3% escalation on agreed base rate - Tribunal don't find any force in department's contention that respondent has not included value of "facility charges" in related taxable service charges - No infirmity found in findings of Order under challenge - Accordingly, impugned order is sustainable on merit itself - Respondent have correctly made full and true disclosure of value consideration of service provided by them - There is no column in ST-3 return form to declare any notional value which is not the part of consideration - The contract was submitted to department from time to time which contains all terms and condition of service provided by respondent to service recipient M/s ESTIL - Therefore, there is absolutely no suppression of fact on the part of respondent - Accordingly, demand proposed in SCN is not sustainable on limitation also - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
