2010-TIOL-NEWS-071, Dated: Thursday, March 25, 2010

SPA Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Aurangabad (Dated: January 14, 2010)

Appellant undertaking job work of manufacturing alcohol-based perfumes and pharmaceutical products for various input suppliers – activity stands excluded from purview of “Business Auxiliary Service” inasmuch as it amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944 – issue settled by Tribunal in case of Rubicon Formulations 2009-TIOL-1990-CESTAT-MUM – Demand of service tax and penalties are not sustainable – Appeal allowed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

Service Tax – Management Consultancy Service vis-à-vis Manpower Supply Service - Penalty – Deputation of staff comes under ‘manpower supply service' and not under ‘management consultancy service'. The appellants are paying service tax under manpower supply service for the subsequent period after the same has been brought under tax net. Demand on balance amount payable confirmed. However, penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act is waived in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as there was reasonable cause for their failure to take registration and pay the tax amounts in respect of the new levy:CHENNAI CESTAT;

Central Excise – CENVAT - Input Services - Dutiable goods &Traded Items - Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit – The appellants are not eligible for taking credit of service tax paid on input service which is used for traded goods as the same are neither dutiable goods nor in the nature of taxable output service. Appellants directed to pre-deposit 1/3rd of the credit availed:CHENNAI CESTAT;

M/s Syngenta Crop Protection (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai-I (Dated: November 25, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – inputs received by the appellants recorded short by converting into 100% purity based on which payment was made to the supplier – It is only an internal matter between the supplier and the buyer of the goods – though the price has been renegotiated based on purity, the duty paid at the supplier's end has not been varied – no need to vary the credit taken :CHENNAI CESTAT;

Central Excise – Valuation – MRP based assessment – Multi-pack – Once an MRP is scored out and another MRP is printed on the package, the scored out MRP is to be ignored for the purposes of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cuscir10_007.pdf

Recovery of drawback amount on the portion of the FOB value of export not realized by the exporter but compensated by ECGC - reg;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-186-HC-DEL-EXIM.pdf + modgill story.pdf

Modgill Hosiery Exports Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated : September 2, 2009)

EXIM - Forfeiture of earnest money deposits for short/non-utilization of quota allocations of textile exports – Orders passed for proportionate forfeiture of amounts not arbitrary or perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution – Since only exporter is entitled to file appeal under Garment Export Entitlement Policy, forfeiture amounts enhanced on appeal by authorities not sustainable:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-185-HC-AHM-CUS.pdf

CC Vs M/s General Foods Ltd (V & F Unit) (Dated : February 24, 2010)

Customs duty on bulk liquid cargo - CESTAT following its own orders instead of Board Circular 96/2002-Cus to hold that quantity received in the shore tanks should be the basis for assessment and not the ullage quantity - No substantial question of law arises - Revenue appeal summarily dismissed:GUJARAT HIGH COURT;