SERVICE TAX SECTION
2018-TIOL-1063-CESTAT-BANG
GR Tech Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST
ST - Assessee is a registered service provider under category of Works Contract Service - They have filed declaration in Form VCES-1 under Section 107(1) of Chapter VI of FA, 2013 - A SCN was served on assessee alleging disqualification envisaged by second proviso to Section 106(1) was attracted and the declaration was liable to be rejected - VCES scheme is part and parcel of FA, 1994 and all the provisions of Finance Act are applicable to the scheme to the extent of specifically excluded - Commissioner (A) has observed that current declaration was in respect of WCS and period in VCES declaration is subsequent to the period covered by SCN which clearly attracts disqualification envisaged by second proviso to Section 106(1) of the Act - The decision relied upon by assessee in case of Frankfin Aviation Services P. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-396-HC-DEL-ST is not directly applicable in facts and circumstances of this case because in present case the assessee attracts disqualification because demand was confirmed against him under the WCS for period 2007-08 which clearly covered under Section 106(2) of FA, 2013 - Further, assessee has also brought certain clarification on record issued by CBEC but according to Tribunal, the case is not covered by clarification issued by CBEC subsequent to the issuance of the scheme - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
CX - Recovery of dues - Appellant is not successor of business of M/s Raj &Yash Alloys nor is the ownership of business been transferred to them -Appellant being auction purchaser had purchased the assets of one M/s Raj &Yash Alloys Pvt Ltd. from M/s EDC Ltd. (Govt. Of Goa Financial Corporation) who had taken over the possession of said assets u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 due to failure to repay loan -Issue iswhether demands confirmed against M/s Raj &Yash Alloys can be recovered from appellant.
Held: No recovery can be ordered from Appellant in terms of law laid down by the judgment of the High Court in Tata Metaliks - 2008-TIOL-140-HC-MUM-CX - Since Bench has held that the dues are not recoverable from Appellant, therefore,it is not inclined to go into the merits of the case - demand against the Appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs: CESTAT [para 6, 7] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-ALL
Krishna Packers Vs CC, CE & ST
CX - Assessee applied for registration on 05/09/2013 and as per the Notfn 35/2001-CE (NT) , the period of 7 days expired on 17/09/2013 - If Authorities has received the application and had not granted the registration by that time, the purpose of visit of the Officers in assessee's factory on 18/09/2013, seems to be a mystery - Instead of granting the registration, Officers chose to visit the factory only to find that assessee had started their manufacturing process - Once the Notification prescribes the period within which the registrations has to be granted, registration would be deemed to have been granted on expiry of period prescribed in the Notification - As such, when Officers visited the factory, after expiry of said period, it has to be held that the registration was deemingly given to assessee, thus, not justifying any confiscations or penalties imposed - Accordingly, impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
cnt30_2018
Non-levy of additional duty of customs to jute importers from Nepal u/s 28 A of Customs Act, 1962
TRADE NOTICE
dgft_trade_notice_01_2018
EODC Monitoring System for Advance/EPCG Authorisations
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1062-CESTAT-BANG
A Abdul Gafoor Vs CC
Cus - Assessees are in appeal against impugned order wherein gold recovered from possession of Shri Abdul Gafoor has been confiscated absolutely and penalty on both the assessees have been imposed by authorities below under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 - During investigation, Shri Abdul Gafoor failed to produce any licit document for procurement of gold from M/s. Keshavlal Khemchand - Although M/s. Keshavlal Khemchand has admitted that they have delivered the gold to Shri Abdul Gafoor for making ornaments but being gold is of foreign origin, it was the duty of Shri Abdul Gafoor before taking delivery of gold to examine proper documentation with regard to said gold, which Abdul Gafoor has failed to do so - In that circumstances, penalty is rightly imposed on Shri Abdul Gafoor - With regard to M/s. Keshavlal Khemchand, they submit that they have procured the gold from dealers in open market but could not identify or could not produce any licit document for procurement of gold from the dealers in open market - As per Section 123 of the Act, the burden is on M/s. Keshavlal Khemchand to show the source of procurement of said gold which they have failed to do so - Thus, penalty on Keshavlal Khemchand is also rightly imposed - With regard to confiscation of gold in question, source of procurement of the gold has not been established, thus, the gold is rightly confiscated - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT - Appeals dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT
|
