Gist of case laws

M/s Mercury Laboratories Ltd. Versus CCE Vadodara - (CESTAT, AHMEDABAD)

Demand of duty - Input used in the manufacture of dutiable as also exempted final product - The duty stand confirmed against the
appellant in terms of provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Find that the Commissioner has held that in terms of Section 68(3) of Finance Act, 2010, an amount determined as the proportionate amount of CENVAT Credit to be recoverable from the appellant in respect of demand made under the provisions of Rule 57CC.

The Tribunal, in the case of M/s Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd., has held that where such credit stand reversed by the assessee along with interest in terms of Commissioners order passed in terms of provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 2010, the order demanding duty on the final exempted product in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC is liable to be set aside.

Commissioner of Central Excise. Versus M/s Federal Mogul Coetze (India) Ltd. - (PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT )

Demand of duty - Burden of proof - The goods received back were duty paid goods and also that the conditions laid down in the Trade Notice are fulfilled - The department has not produced any evidence to indicate that the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture - The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the goods were removed after the duty had already been paid - Removal of goods received back from Sales Depot for reconditioning did not require payment of duty again - Due procedure had been followed in the matter - Hence, there was no case for demand of duty.

Shri Vikas Bhushan & others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi - (CESTAT, AHMEDABAD)

Demand - Clandestine removal - personal penalty - Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules - the present case is not the one where the allegation are not clear, the invocation of right provisions of the law in the show cause notice is not specific and findings of the adjudicating authority confirming the liability to penal action under a particular Rule is not to the point - the right from the stage of the show cause notice till the findings in the adjudication order by the original adjudicating authority, it is only the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which has been held invokable - As a result, the same shall not vitiate the imposition of penalty upon the appellants

As regards the quantum of penalties - in a case of duty evasion of Rs. 11 Lakhs, penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Vikas Bhushan and as such, for a duty evasion of Rs. 37 Lakhs, penalty of Rs. 6 Lakhs on Shri Vikas Bhushan is fully justified - All the appeals get disposed off

POLYSPIN EXPORTS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - (MADRAS HIGH COURT )

Import of services - Explanation to Sec. 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with amended Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, coming into effect from 16-6-2005 is ultra vires Sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 - The Bombay High Court after carefully analysing the provisions of the Income Tax and Service tax and after following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 276 = 1999 (112) E.L.T. 356 (S.C.) held that before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was no authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside India - It is admitted that after the introduction of Section 66A the explanation to Section 65(105) was also deleted - Hence, the show cause notice issued, on the basis of explanation Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with amended Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 are not valid in law and liable to be quashed.

ITC LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM - (CESTAT, CHENNAI)

Refund of service tax - The respondents have several units engaged in manufacture of finished goods which are partly exported and partly cleared for home consumption - Paid the service tax on the input services viz., CHA services, GTA services and Banking services - Under Notification No. 41/07-S.T., dated 6-10-07, they have filed the impugned refund claim for the proportionate amount of credit relating to the exported goods from their Mettupalayam unit.

Held that: the impugned input services are specifically listed in the impugned notification entitling the appellants to grant of refund of service tax paid on such input services, they should be given a second chance to substantiate their claim by filing adequate documents with necessary details alongwith a Chartered Accountant’s Certificate, before the original authority - Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision