CESTAT - Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal JUDGEMENTS

AIT-2010-524-CESTAT M/s. Ives Drugs (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore	with effect from 1.3.2001 the exemption benefit, which is available to the Intravenous Fluid for sugar, electrolyte and fluid replenishment, does not extend to the Intravenous Fluid comprises of medicines and drugs like, anti-bacterial, anti-biotic and anti-microbial, having therapeutic properties or functions but is restricted strictly to those meant for the sugar, electrolyte and fluid replenishment only. However, there was no such restriction as far as the period prior to 1.3.2001 and since 4.5.2000 is concerned. The impugned order relating to the period from 1.3.2001, thus call for no interference. They can not, however, be sustained as far as they relate to the period prior from 4.5.2000 to 1.3.2001 and that the notification dated 1.3.2001 has no retrospective effect.
AIT-2010-554-CESTAT M/s. Anshul Steel Scrap Corporation Vs. CCE, Chandigarh	where a person merely arranges modvatable document to the manufacturer without actual delivery of goods, penalty could not be imposed under Rule 209 A.
AIT-2010-580-CESTAT M/s Jetlite (India) Limited Vs. CCE, New Delhi	The activity of the appellant having comprised of mere display of logo of Sahara Corporation on various items as agreed, and the entry relating to mere display of logo resulting in promotion and marketing of the business of the client having been introduced subsequent to the relevant period, it could not be said to have been part of Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period and in any case the activity of Sahara Corporation being in the nature of sale of immovable properties - either developed and/ or constructed or built premises therein did not amount to rendering “services” as such, either taxable or otherwise, to others, within the meaning of the expression used in the category of Business Auxiliary Service under the said Act, the said activity by the appellants does not fall within the category of Business Auxiliary Service under the said Act, and hence there was no liability upon the appellants to pay any service tax for such activity by them during the relevant period under the category of BAS of the said Act.
AIT-2010-583-CESTAT M/s Xerox India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut	the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs.15,25,07,215/- as also Rs.37,24,324/-, alongwith interest payable thereon for the period from April 2001 to March 2006. Besides, penalty of equal amount has also been imposed. - in order to make the modules and parts imported by the appellants to be functional or to put to intended use, it was necessary for the appellants to assemble the said modules and parts alongwith other parts and accessories procured indigenously and such assembling was done with proper alignment and testing by engineers. Very fact that some parts were procured indigenously and they were fitted alongwith the imported modules and parts to make the machine functional, the activity undergone clearly resulted in bringing out a new product amounting to manufacture of a product, new in character and use, and commercially known as such. The activity obviously amounted to manufacturing within the meaning of said Section 2(f) read with Note 6 of Section XVI of the Tariff Act.
AIT-2010-587-CESTAT M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam	The impugned order demands interest on the credit of duty paid on inputs cleared as such. We find that on a conjoint reading of Rule 6 (1) and Rule 14 of CCR, unless it is shown that APL had not used the credit involved and the same had remained an entry in their CENVAT account, the impugned demand of interest is in accordance with law. We remand the dispute relating to the interest for a fresh decision by the Commissioner after verifying the facts. As regards the penalty, we hold that the same is not sustainable in view of the fact that the dispute involves provisions now being interpreted.
AIT-2010-589-CESTAT M/s. Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore	earlier there was a view that services of Erection, Installation and Commissioning would get covered under the category of Consulting Engineer Services but after the said services had been introduced as new services, the Board has clarified that it would not get covered under the Consulting Engineer services prior to that period. This view of the Board would also be applicable in the current case wherein it is undisputed that the services of Commercial Coaching & Training Centre was brought into the Service Tax net only from 01.07.2003.

Page1 Page2