1.1 CCE vs. Kochi Refineries Ltd.
2007 (6) STR 38 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case, assessee a manufacturer of Petroleum products paid
foreign exchange to consultant based abroad during the period
1998-99 to 2001-02. The department sought to tax them under
consulting engineer’s services as recipient of service. The
Tribunal held that demand of service tax from recipient of
services in the impugned case is sustainable only after 16-8-2002.
1.2 CCE, Indore. vs. Ankit
Consultancy Ltd. 2007 (6) STR 101 (Tri-Del.)
The Tribunal in this case held as
under;
• Handling dematerialization of
securities under well structured and codified agreement and SEBI
regulations does not amount to customer care/promotion/marketing
of services incidental or auxiliary support services liable to
tax under Business Auxiliary services.
• Preparation of voter list is
part of sovereign activity of state and it is not a business
activity with an eye on profit and therefore not liable to tax
under Business Auxiliary Service.
1.3 Mitsun Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs.
CCE, Bangalore-III 2007 (6) STR 115 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal after relying on
larger bench decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd 2006 (3)
STR 321 held that activities carried out by the appellant such as
procuring orders for their principal and booking orders on payment
of commission is not coming within the ambit of C & F Agents
services.
1.4 Usha Breco Ltd. vs. CCE,
Meerut 2007 (6) STR 117 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case the Tribunal held
that, since the tour is not performed in tourist vehicle, no
demand is sustainable under Tour operator’s category.
1.5 Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. vs.CCE, Belgaum 2007 (6) STR 148 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal in this case held as
under:
• Department cannot invoke
larger period of limitation (five years), in cases where
suppression of facts/mis-statement or fraud etc. was not alleged
in show cause notice.
• Show Cause Notice to be
issued in accordance with the provisions of law prevailing at
the time of issuance. Demand cannot be confirmed in accordance
with deleted provisions.
• Adjudicating authority cannot
confirm demand under a category of service, which was not
alleged in show cause notice.
Also refer to CCEC vs. Vadodara-II vs. Samrth Travels, 2007 (6)
STR 118 (Tri- Ahmd.), wherein the Tribunal allowed the benefit of
Extra Ordinary Tax Payers Friendly scheme as the service tax
liability was discharged before the expiry of extended period
under the said scheme.
2.2 ETC Networks Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-I 2007 (6) STR 54 (Tri-Mum)
The Tribunal in this case held that financial crisis is not a
reasonable cause for failure to pay tax especially when appellant
was aware of its liability to pay tax. However, in view of facts
that tax and interest was paid before issuance of SCN personal
penalty reduced.
Also refer to Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-I
2007 (6) STR 58 (Tri-Mum)
2.3 In RE: Beardsell Ltd. (6) STR 76 (Commr. Appl)
The Commissioner (Appeals) held as under;
• Erection of thermocol on outer surface of pipe line of
plant/machinery for reducing heat generated by
machinery/equipment popularly known as Thermal Insulation is
liable to tax under Erection and Commissioning services and not
under Interior Decorators services.
• The provisions relating to cum-tax value introduced w.e.f.
10-9-2004 is prospective in effect.
• Extended period of limitation is available as the facts
narrated in order relating to other party cannot be used to say
that department had knowledge about impugned activity.
2.4 CCE, Chennai-II vs. Sharda Motors Ind. Ltd. 2007 (6) STR 140
(Tri-Chennai)
In
this case appeal was filed belatedly by 225 days because of
pendency of any similar case before any court. The Tribunal in
this case held that a decision to file appeal against an appellate
Commissioner’s order is to be taken independently by Commissioner
of Service tax and Chief Commissioner has nothing do with this
job. Application for condonation of delay is bereft of sufficient
cause and therefore dismissed.
3.1 CCE, Vadodara –II vs. Interplex (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) STR
53 (Tri-Ahmd)
In the present case, assessee took 100% CENVAT credit on capital
goods in the first year itself instead of 50%. They have reversed
the credit on being pointed out by the department. The Tribunal
observed that no mis-utilization is alleged in this case and
therefore set aside the demand of credit, penalty and interest
after verification on the ground that there was no revenue loss.
3.2 Shree Krishna Steel Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2007
(6) STR 59 (Tri-Mum)
The appellant made pre-deposit of demand in cash. The refund of
the same was granted by the department through credit in CENVAT
Credit account. The Tribunal held that credit of refund of
pre-deposit in CENVAT Credit account is not sufficient and it is
required to be refunded in cash as the ppellant had surrendered
its Central Excise registration and was not working under CENVAT
scheme.
3.3 J. K. Cement Works vs. CCE, Jaipur 2007 (6) STR 60 (Tri-Del)
The Tribunal in this case held as under;
• Duty paid on inputs such as oxygen and acetylene gases used
for cutting the used liners in the raw mill and cement mill and
refurbishing them i.e. for repairs and maintenance of capital
goods is not ligible for CENVAT credit.
• The Larger bench decision has precedent value than Division
bench decision. A Bench larger than Larger Bench can overrule
the decision of the said larger bench.
