2010-TIOL-NEWS-046, Dated: Thursday, February 25, 2010

British Scaffolding International Ltd Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated: January 14, 2010)

Service Tax - Notification 41/2007-ST as amended by 32/2008-ST and 33/2008-ST – refund claim for quarter ending June 2008 filed on 11.09.2008, whether time barred – Matter remanded for examining issue with reference to Board Circular 112/06/2009-ST:MUMBAI CESTAT;

Service Tax – Mining Service – Activities like excavation, extraction, grading, sorting of iron ore from mines is ‘Mining Service' liable for service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 – Full waiver of pre-deposit ordered and stay granted :BANGALORE CESTAT;

Shanti Fortune (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE (ST), Coimbatore (Dated: November 13, 2009)

Service Tax – Goods Transport Agency service – the appellant, who is the recipient of the service, is not liable to pay service tax as the service was provided by the individual truck operators, but not by the Goods Transport Agency :CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-145-HC-P&H-CX.pdf + maruti story.pdf

CCE, Delhi Vs M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd (Dated : January 20, 2010)

Central Excise – Sec 173H, 173L - Cars returned to factory for repairing damages – no further duty payable – tribunal right in remanding the case – No question of Law: The Tribunal has applied its mind and after proper appreciation of facts has held that no duty can be demanded in respect of repaired vehicles that were exported as also internally damaged vehicles that were cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal has also correctly held that it would be unfair if the demand by denial of Rule 173H is not taken concurrently with the refund claim under Rule 173L as in such a situation, duty demand would get fastened on the respondents. The Tribunal has also correctly held that a higher officer can perform the functions of lower authority.:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-320-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s The India Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: December 4, 2009)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in captive mines of the Cement factory - Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the limestone from the mines is supplied to another factory of the same manufacturer - in respect of both the units, the assessee is the same legal person - credit is not admissible only if supplies are made to another factory of different manufacturer :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-319-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: November 13, 2009)

Central Excise - Valuation of pipes cleared for executing turn-key project - value has to be arrived based on the best judgement method under Rule 11 of the valuation rules read with rule 8 on the basis of cost of production :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-318-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tamil Nadu Newsprint And Papers Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: November 11, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods - demand of 10% on the value of the exempted goods is far in excess of the credit of the service taken tax in respect of the exempted goods – matter remanded for evolving a method to calculate the proportionate amount of credit relating to exempted goods – penalty set aside as the application of rule is uncertain :CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2010-TIOL-317-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Visteon Automotive Systems India Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: November 11, 2009)

Customs – Some of the goods imported not reflected in the Bills of Entry filed – the appellant voluntarily intimated the department and paid the duty – penalty under Section 114A is set aside – However, penalty under Section 112(a) imposed – Redemption fine of Rs 3 lakhs imposed is also upheld. :CHENNAI CESTAT;