SERVICE TAX SECTION
2018-TIOL-1201-CESTAT-MAD
Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
ST - Assessees are aggrieved by penalties imposed under Section 114 (1) and Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 - On information received to the effect that red sander logs, a prohibited item for export had been stuffed inside a container for smuggling, SIIB identified one container and intercepted the same - On investigation, it was found that the declared goods namely 'Cotton Tufted Floor Mat' was substituted with red sander wood - Original authority imposed penalty of Rs. One lakh on M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd., under Section 114 and also confiscated the container under Section 113 and 119 of the Customs Act - A redemption fine of Rs. Two lakhs was imposed in lieu of confiscation - Separate penalties of Rs. One lakh and Rs. Two lakhs was imposed on M/s. Sea Port Lines (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. SEC Services Ltd., who is the CFS Agent - There is no allegation of direct involvement of assessee in the offence, penalty of Rs. Two lakhs imposed is on the higher side - Penalty imposed on M/s. SEC Services Ltd. is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- - M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd. is a shipping liner and they did not have any direct transaction with the exporter - Their immediate client was Ms/. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. and they have produced KYC details of M/s. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Similar is the case with regard to M/s. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. who have submitted the KYC details through their cargo transport service - Department does not have a case that these assessees have any direct transaction with exporter - Penalties imposed on these two assessees set aside - In view of decision in case of IMSA Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. a container is distinct from package - There is an option for release of container after detaining and warehousing the goods - Therefore, the container cannot be subject to confiscation: CESTAT - Appeals partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1200-CESTAT-MAD
Fortune Media Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Assessee is aggrieved by order passed confirming the demand of service tax under "Broadcasting Service" for period April 2003 to 17.4.2006 - It is stated by assessee that in SCN, it was not alleged that they are owners of television channel SS Music - The allegation in SCN was with regard to demand raised under category of "Broadcasting Service" upon amount collected as uplinking charges - Said amount was collected by assessee for services rendered by them with their earth station situated at Bhutan - The service was rendered for the video coverage of lottery draws conducted at the office of Directorate of Lotteries, at Bhutan by uplinking through the satellite - These signals are uplinked in process and shown in channel for benefit of viewers - Adjudicating authority has discussed the issue whether the services provided by assessee is taxable under broadcasting service and it is observed that assessee owns the television channel under the brand name "SS Music" - This is now countered by assessee - It is submitted that they are not owners of the said television channels and an agreement was entered by them with M/s. Coxswain Technologies Ltd. on 8.3.2002 thereby purchasing time slots on television channel for purposes of supplying content to be broadcasted - In terms of agreement, assessee would provide the content which would be broadcasted by M/s. Coxswain Technologies Ltd. on television channels - That assessee was allowed permission to take video coverage of lottery tickets organized by Royal Government of Bhutan - The activity carried out by assessee was confined to this act ofuplinking of signals on the satellite - Taking note of the fact that the impugned order has made an observation that assessee owns the television channel, said fact having been denied by assessee by furnishing documents, it is deemed fit that the matter be remanded to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue, after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the documents furnished along with application: CESTAT - Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1199-CESTAT-BANG
Indian Security Services Vs CCE, C & ST
ST - Assessee had filed a declaration in Form VCES-1 under Section 107 (1) of Chapter VI of FA, 2013, declaring tax dues relating to the security agency services for period from April 2009 to December 2012 - It was noticed by Department that a SCN against the same assessee for the same services for the period from April 2005 to March 2009 was issued on the grounds that second proviso to Section 106(1) of the Act stipulates that where a notice or an order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period - Since the tax dues declared pertains to the service tax liability on security agency services for the subsequent period, the application has been rejected - Application has been rejected by invoking the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106 - Commissioner (A) has also considered the decision in case of Durga Diesel Sales and Services and by following that ratio, he has rejected the application - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is up held: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2018-TIOL-1198-CESTAT-BANG
Abharan Jewellers Vs CCE & ST
CX - The assessee who is jeweller have been getting jewellery made from goldsmiths who worked as job workers for making such jewels which were sold through their showrooms - The items sold by assessee bore various abbreviations which varied from jeweller to jeweller - The connected question is whether such marks are to be considered as "Brand Names/Trade Names", in terms of the Explanation in Notfn 4/2005 - It has come to notice that there are contradictory decisions by different Division Benches of Tribunal dealing with identical facts - In case of Titan Industries 2016-TIOL-1003-CESTAT-MAD relied upon by Revenue, Tribunal has taken a view that the jewels embossed with such marks are branded jewellery and chargeable to Central Excise duty - However, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Anopchand Trilokchand Jewellers P. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-344-CESTAT-DEL has taken the opposite view, holding that these marks are not brand names but are in nature of jewellers mark and hence, no excise duty is chargeable on such jewellery - Since there are contradictory views expressed by two different Division Benches of Tribunal on identical issue, Registry is directed to place the matters before President for setting up a Larger Bench to decide this issue: CESTAT - Case deferred: BANGALORE CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1197-CESTAT-CHD
RK Steels And Metals (India) Vs CCE
CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of brass sheet and circles and the same has been cleared by availing the benefit of Notfn 05/2006-CE at concessional rate of duty for use in utensils and handicrafts - It is alleged that goods were not used as utensils and handicrafts but in fact is brass sieve test equipments and parts thereof which were used in testing of soils and chemicals - The benefit of notification is available if goods sold by them are intended for use in manufacture of handicrafts and utensils - Same is also coming out from invoices issued by assessee and further the buyer has given certificate/undertaking to assessee that the goods shall be used for manufacture of utensils and handicrafts - As said facts are not disputed, the benefit of said notfn cannot be denied to assessee: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1196-CESTAT-DEL
Shashi Kumar Singh Team Leader Sales Caparo Engg India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - M/s Caparo Engineering India Ltd. engaged in manufacture of parts of motor vehicles - The disputes involved the two units of M/s Caparo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. identified as Unit-I and Unit-II - The first dispute is for the period October, 2008 to January, 2009 during which assessee was engaged by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. for manufacture of vehicle components which was part of a project Known as "World Truck Project" - M/s Tata Motors have imported the dies without payment of duty under EPCG license but at the time of transfer of such dies to Unit-II, they have made payment of CVD and Unit-II, in turn, availed Cenvat Credit of such amount paid - Revenue is of the view that the amount which is recovered by M/s Tata Motors has to be paid into Government account under Section 11D and such amount stands demanded from M/s Tata Motors - It is a settled law that receiver of goods is eligible to take credit of duty paid and correctness of the assessment and payability of duty by supplier of goods cannot be opened by Central Excise Authorities at the end of recipient of goods - Similar issue came up before Supreme Court in case of MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008-TIOL-245-SC-CX - By following the said decision, credit cannot be denied to Unit-II in as much as the duty stands paid by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. - There is also no justification for demanding the amount from M/s Tata Motors under Section 11D.
As regards to second dispute which involves transfer of dies from Unit-II to Unit-I on payment of duty, Cenvat Credit availed by Unit-II has been sought to be reversed for the reason that these goods are not form capital goods for Unit-II - Admittedly, these dies have been sent for repairs and are not in the nature of capital goods for Unit-I - But Rule 16 of CER, 2002 provides for return of goods to the factory for repair and remaking - Hence the credit cannot be disallowed only for the reason that the dies are not the capital goods for Unit-I - In any case the credit availed by Unit-II stands reversed when the dies were returned to Unit-II after carrying out repairs by reversal of the Cenvat Credit - Since the credit availed already stood reversed no demand can be raised against the Unit-I for repayment of the credit availed all over again - In this regard Tribunal in case of M/s Amul Auto Components Ltd. 2018-TIOL-72-CESTAT-Del has considered a similar issue - By following the decision of Tribunal, there is no justification for demanding repayment of Cenvat Credit all over again by taking the view that the credit availed was irregular: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
dgft18not003
Import of radiation generating components under various EXIM codes of Chapter 90 of ITC (HS), 2017 will be subject to prior regulatory clearance from AERB
dgft18not002
New EXIM code for Kabuli Chana, Bengal Gram and others are notified for incorporation in ITC(HS), 2017 |
