Hermes Academy Of Training Ltd Vs CCE

ST - the assessee provides services falling under "Commercial Coaching and Training Services" & pay service tax on the same - The assessee entered into sub-contracts with a foreign entity for training its personnel abroad - This service was further sub-contracted to another firm, due to assessee's lack of enough personnel - The assessee received the consideration and paid a portion of it to its sub-contractor - The sub-contractor paid service tax on the consideration received & the assessee availed Cenvat credit in Cenvat a/c - The assessee then claimed refund of such credit - The Revenue opined that the assessee was ineligible to avail since it was not directly involved in providing the service - The Commr.(A) denied the assessee's claims -

Held - The counsel for the assessee claimed that the services agreed to be provided to foreign personnel, and further handed over as sub-contract for completion, were covered under the definition of Declared Services - Further, the counsel claimed that such service being exported, was not taxable - Thereupon, the assessee claimed to be eligible for refund under Rule 5 of CCR,2004, as long as the same cannot be utilized on account of export of services - However, the assessee claimed to have not raised these issues before the lower authorities - Hence in light of the same, the matter merits fresh adjudication: CESTAT (Para 2-6) - Case Remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-378-CESTAT-DEL

Religare Enterprises Ltd Vs CST

ST - Dispute relates to tax liability of assessee on the consideration paid as reimbursement charges to joint venture partner (AEGON) for providing Bank guarantee for capital protection in terms of J.V. Agreement - The joint- venture agreement originally entered into between AEGON and Ranbaxy provides for capital protection - Assessee later substituted Ranbaxy - The guarantee has to be provided by AEGON, Netherlands - They have provided said capital protection by way of LC of ABN Amro Bank - In terms of same J.V. Agreement, assessee has to reimburse the cost incurred for such LC - Both AEGON and assessee jointly promoted their new business and in pursuance of such intention made the capital protection arrangement and the payments are towards such arrangements - There is no third party involved and there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient, as the activity is for joint benefit of parties in joint-venture - In effect, admittedly, these are part of shared responsibilities - In pursuance of such a joint-venture, no scope of tax liability found in such arrangement: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

 

 

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2018-TIOL-187-HC- MUM-CX + Story

CCE & C Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd

CX - Limitation - Once the suppression was detected, the law envisages prompt measures to recover and Section 11A does not ordinarily and normally permit invocation of the extended period - If the extended period is invoked, the burden is on the Revenue to establish and prove the facts alleged and particularly suppression - Revenue could not bring any materials to allege and prove suppression after January, 2001 - when the fact of the issue came to the notice of the Department in January, 2001, subsequent to that it cannot be said that there was suppression on the part of the appellant - Therefore, the demand for the period February 2001 to June 2004 becomes time-barred - So also proviso to section 11A is not invokable in respect of the demand raised during the period July 2004 to March 2013 - We do not think that the legal position was in any way unclear or ambiguous - Throughout, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been emphasising that the Revenue cannot resort to what it has repeatedly done in matters after matters - It cannot cover up its own fault or error by such erroneous application of law - Once the legal position was clear and throughout, we do not see any justification for the Revenue bringing this appeal - Findings of Tribunal are in no way perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record - filing of such appeals by Revenue and questioning the findings on the issue of limitation does not serve any purpose but wasting the time of a higher judicial forum - this litigation is frivolous and a clear waste of time - we can also safely term the exercise as an abuse of the process of the Court by the Revenue - No abuse can go unpunished and, therefore, while dismissing this appeal, we impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Revenue - Revenue directed to pay the costs to the assessee within four weeks after which the assessee could recover the same by treating the Department to be in default of payment of arrears of land revenue - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 14, 23, 24, 26] - Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

CE & ST Vs Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd

2018-TIOL-393-CESTAT-AHM

UM Cables Ltd VS CCE & ST

CX - Issue relates to eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on sales commission - Considering the number of appeals on the same issue and categorical observation of High Court of Gujarat in Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd.'s case 2014-TIOL-237-HC-AHM-ST that the judgment is binding on all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, it would be inappropriate, to decide the issue following the Division Bench judgment when the matter is on Board of the High Court - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of Tribunal in case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and others following the principle laid down by Larger Bench, disposed of the matters, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the case pending before the higher forum - Following the said judgment, present appeal is also disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of High Court in pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s case filed by the Revenue: CESTAT - Appeal disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-392-CESTAT-AHM

Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of Sugar and Molasses - They procured capital goods and after use of capital goods, certain waste arises and the waste and said scrap was cleared without payment of duty - Therefore, SCN was issued to assessee for payment of duty on waste and scrap of capital goods, in terms of Rule 3 (5A) of CCR, 2004 - As issue has already been settled that without classifying the waste and scrap, duty cannot be demanded from assessee, therefore, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

 

 

 

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATIONS

cnt10_2018

Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Sliver

dgft17not047

Notification of 'Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) of Export Items, 2018' (Schedule 2, Export Policy of ITC (HS), 2018)

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-186-HC- MUM-CUS

Pr.CC Vs L & T Sapura Shipping Pvt Ltd

2018-TIOL-185-HC- MAD-CUS

Lakshmi Dall Mill Vs Assistant.CC 2018-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL

Ujjwal Chattopadhyay Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is proprietor of M/s. Bright Line (C & F) Agency - Proceedings were initiated against M/s. Bright Line and adjudicating authority has not revoked CB license and only forfeited the security deposit with warning that customs broker to be careful in future for compliance of provisions of CBLR, 2013 - Since assessee is proprietor of M/s. Bright Line, against whom adjudicating authority had observed that it had diligently discharged responsibility under CHALR, 2004, penal proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained against assessee, who is proprietor of said firm - Penalty under Section 112 (a) requires sustainable evidence of knowingly abetting a violation of provisions of the Act - No categorical findings to this effect was recorded in impugned order except stating that omission on part of CHA has abetted the offence - No legal merit found in such findings - Further, meeting the Director of importing firm personally is not a requirement either under CHALR, 2004 or under CBLR, 2013 - Imposition of penalty against assessee is not sustainable under law: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-387-CESTAT-ALL

Vinod Sah Vs CC

Cus - A truck loaded with battery scrap travelling from Siwan to Kanpur was detained and subsequently seized on reasonable belief that battery scrap loaded in said truck violated Section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 and Notfn 9/96-CUS issued under Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 - Further, said truck valued at Rs. 6 lakhs was also seized - No evidence found on record to establish that the old battery scrap which was subject matter of proceedings was brought into India from Nepal through either designated routes or undesignated routes - Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish that there was any violation of said Notfn - There is no evidence on record to know through which route the goods were brought for the simple reason that there was no evidence that they were brought from Nepal to India - Therefore, no evidence found to establish that there was violation of Section 7(1)(c) of Customs Act, 1962 - Impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT