2010-TIOL-NEWS-054, Dated: Sunday, March 07, 2010

While confirming the penalty, the adjudicating authority has to go into the merits to establish suppression of the material facts with an intention to evade the payment of service tax:MUMBAI CESTAT;

Service Tax – Penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 are mutually exclusive – penalty under Section 76 set aside and penalty under Section 78 reduced to 25% in terms of Section 73(2) as the assessee has paid the service tax prior to the issue of show cause notice.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-358-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Interscape Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: November 9, 2009)

Central Excise – Interest on refund of pre-deposit – Appellants entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. when there is delay in refund of pre-deposit :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-357-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Smt Parvathy Kailasam Vs CCE, Tirupathi (Dated: September 10, 2009)

Central Excise – Allegation of diversion of imported scrap meant for manufacture of MS ingots – Penalty imposed on appellant i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 210 of CER, 1944 alleging collusion with assessee in issuing end use certificates – Appellant went by statutory records viz., RG23A Part-I maintained by assessee for the purpose of recording receipt of inputs and utilization thereof, for issuing end use certificates – No specific allegation against appellant that she has deliberately issued end use certificate to help the assessees – Only allegation is that certificates were not issued after proper verification of other records – Reliance on statutory records a better proposition than reliance on any other records – Provisions of Section 40(1) & (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 protects the appellant in her capacity as Deputy Commissioner – T ime limit mandated under Section 42 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 152 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 to be adhered to by lower authorities for invoking penal actions against officials who discharge duty under a bonafide belief – Imposition of penalty not sustainable both on merits and on limitation :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-354-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Rahul Springs Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bolpur (Dated: October 16, 2009)

Central Excise - Valuation - Sale through dealer - Sales promotion and advertising expenses - There is no evidence to show that the expenses incurred by the marketing company which are sought to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the manufacturer is in pursuance of contractual obligation and that the sale price by the manufacturer has been depressed. In such as case, sales promotion expenses, advertisement expenses and exgratia service charges incurred by the dealer are not includable in the assessable value of the products sold by the appellant company. (Para 6 & 7):KOLKATA CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2010-TIOL-356-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Vamsee Overseas Marine Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: November 10, 2009)

Customs – confiscation and penalty – tug imported for Sethusamudram Project which did not take off – the appellants have removed the tug from Chennai port to Vizag port for repairs and paid duty as required by the department – no case for confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 111(f) and Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. :CHENNAI CESTAT;