CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Urea which is meant for fertilizer - Case of department is that Urea was diverted and used for industrial purpose, therefore there is a demand of differential duty in chain from manufacture up to consumer, there are various persons involved on them and the penalty was imposed under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - All these set of cases made out primarily on the basis of statements of various persons who are witnesses and also some of them are noticees - Crossexamination of witnesses was not carried out properly - The High Court in two identical cases of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd and Vijay Chandrakant Handrakant Mulchandani, considering the fact that no cross-examination was allowed but same is necessary for passing a reasoned order by adjudicating authority, directed the adjudicating authority to conduct cross examination - This Tribunal also in case of Dhanlaxmi Pigments Pvt. Ltd and others 2019-TIOL-2728-CESTAT-AHM remanded the matter to adjudicating authority - In view of the said decisions, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after complying provision to Section 9D of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CX - Issue involved is only in respect of penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Undisputedly, entire amount was paid by appellant prior to issuance of SCN as has been recorded - The Commissioner has himself concluded that in same situation the assessee was acting under a bonafide belief and no malafide intention could have been attributable to them for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Then what the Commissioner has held in respect of these demands cannot be sustained - No justification found in imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

ST - The issue arises is whether service tax was leviable under "Investment or Management Service under ULIP" under Section 65(105)(zzzzf) of Finance Act, 1994 on Policy Administration Charges, Front End Load and Switching Charges collected by appellant from Policy holders and other issue is whether SCN is hit by limitation - Appellant did not have any bonafide belief in not paying service tax on administration charges under dispute and accordingly prays for dismissal of appeal - Issue is no longer res integra and has been allowed in favour of Insurance Company in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-27-CESTAT-ALL , wherein by a Coordinate Bench, wherein it has been categorically held that prior to 1.5.2011, policy administration charges are not chargeable to service tax - Further, in view of clarification by Board vide TRU Circular dated 26.02.2010, that such policy administration charges are chargeable to tax under Section 65(105)(zx) - Thus, Revenue cannot be permitted to be taken u-turn in light of Board's Circular - Further, Board circular are binding on the officers of Revenue Department - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - The ground of limitation is left open: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

ST - Appellant, a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking are engaged in providing various IT services - They also receives various input services, on some of which, they are liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Pursuant to audit, it appears that appellant have taken irregular credits of Swatch Bharat Cess, availed cenvat credit 'on rent-a-cab service', which did not qualify under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules for taking credit of common input services, for which an amount was reversible under Rule 6(3) - Appellant have maintained proper records of transactions and issue is wholly interpretational in nature - The appelant is entitled to benefit of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 as they have deposited the amount demanded pursuant to audit, which is prior to issue of SCN - Revenue have not calculated and pointed out the interest payable by appellant - Further, such amount of interest has been immediately deposited upon receipt of SCN before the adjudication order - Penalty under Section 78 is not imposable - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - The only issue is as to whether the matter be remanded back - The request of remand is for purpose of seeking opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses based on whose statement the appellant has been penalized - Section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 talks about the procedure for examination of witnesses to be relied upon - The provision is pari meteria Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Apex Court in a land mark decision in case of J&K Cigarettes Ltd. 2009-TIOL-478-HC-DEL-CX which has been relied upon by High Court of Delhi in case of Basudev Garg 2013-TIOL-464-HC-DEL-CUS - When there is no statement of appellant which may from any stretch of imagination be considered as a confession of appellant, right to cross-examination was a basic right rather originating out of principles of natural justice - There is nothing on record to indicate that any prejudice would be caused to department by providing appellant a right to crossexamination - There is not retraction by any of three witnesses whose cross-examination has been prayed for - Where there appears the violation of right to natural justice, it deems a fit case to be remanded back again to original adjudicating authority with direction that three of witnesses namely Shri Naresh Kumar Jha, Shri Prakash Chand Sharma and Shri Ashok Sharma be once again summoned and an opportunity be afforded to appellant to cross-examine three of said witnesses - Adjudicating authority is required to adjudicate the impugned SCN afresh after duly considering not only the statements but the outcome of cross-examination that shall follow on record - The departmental adjudicating authority is required to conclude the proceedings within a period of 4 months - Appeal stands allowed by way of remand: CESTAT

- Application disposed of: DELHI CESTAT