2018-TIOL-1215-CESTAT-CHD

Everest Brand Solution Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - Assessee is providing advertising agency services to its customers in and outside India - During audit, it was found that assessee had not been paying service tax on total sale amount as shown in their profit and loss statement - Department found that there was no agreement between assessee and recipient of service on record and thus there was no evidence that assessee had been authorized to act as pure agent to make payment on behalf of recipient of its service - Another issue that came up during audit was that during financial year 2009-10, they provided service of Rs.35,31,947/- to their client CHI Limited based in Nigeria and contended that this amount should be excluded from total sale value as they had exported taxable services to a place outside India - The department did not accept the assessee claim of Export of services - On the first issue, adjudicating authority while analysing the Board Circular 341/43/63-TRU has completely misread the said circular - Para 4 of circular clearly lays down that the amount paid by advertising agency for space and time in getting advertisement published and broadcast in print/electronic media will not be included - Madras High Court in case of Adwise Advertising Pvt.Ltd 2003-TIOL-117-HC-MAD-ST had examined the circular in the context of similar issue - Following the judgment and by relying on the CBEC circular dated 31.10.1996, demand on the issue is not sustainable and is therefore set aside.

On the second issue, service recipient M/s.CHI Limited is located in Nigeria and has no establishment/office in India - The services provided by assessee have been used outside India and payment of service has been received in foreign convertible currency - In the circumstances, issue is covered by decison of Tribunal in case of Paul Merchant 2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL - By following said decision, demand on the second issue is not sustainable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1214-CESTAT-DEL

Compucom Software Ltd Vs CST

ST - the assessee-company was providing taxable as well as exempted services & availed Cenvat credit on duty paid on input services - The Revenue alleged under Rule 6 of CCR, the assessee had to maintain separate accounts for taxable & exempt output services, which had not been done - Hence duty demand was raised for 8% of the value of the exempted services under Rule 6(3)(ii) of CCR, 2004 - Penalties were imposed as well - Held - The assessee reversed credit with interest that is attributable to input services used in exempted output services - However the same is to be confirmed by verification of documents - Considering the Tribunal's decision in Aaram Plastic Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Jodhpur and of the Apex Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Nagpur and of the High Court in Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs Union of India, the demand raised is set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,6) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Interest on delayed refund - Issue is no more res integra and is settled by decisions in ITC Ltd. 2004-TIOL-112-SC-CX-LB and Oil India Ltd. 2016-TIOL-3326-CESTAT-KOL wherein it has been consistently held that the assessee is entitled to interest which will commence after the expiry of three months after final disposal of the dispute - In the present case, Tribunal allowed the appeal of assessee vide its Final Order dt. 09/08/2007, whereas the refund was granted finally to assessee on 12/02/2013 - Therefore for the delay in granting the refund, assessee is entitled for interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of the Final Order till the refund was finally granted: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGLADESH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1216-CESTAT-BANG

CCE, C & ST Vs Associate Cement Companies Ltd

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of clinker and cement - During period January 2002 to August 2002, assessee procured certain capital goods for setting up captive power plant I - Dispute is with reference to cenvat credit of components which were procured by assessee for purpose of setting up the captive power plant - Similar components procured by assessee for setting up the power plant during earlier period was disallowed for the reason that the power plant so constructed was sold on 14.01.1999 to M/s. Tata Electric Company - In impugned order, Commissioner appears to proceed with the view that the components for which cenvat credit have been availed during present disputed period are also part of power plant set up in the same premises as what has been released to M/s. Tata Electric Company - The stand of assessee is that the new power plant has been constructed by them and the same has never been sold to M/s. Tata Electric Company but other than a blind assertion, no documentary evidence has been submitted by assessee either during the course of appeal or even before the adjudicating authority - Matter remanded to jurisdictional Commissioner to carry out the verification whether components were used for setting up of a power plant and whether such power plant has been constructed in the premise of assessee: CESTAT - Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariffadd18_021

Seeks to extend levy of anti-dumping duty, imposed on imports of Soda Ash originating in or exported from Russia and Turkey under Notification No. 8/2013-Customs (ADD), dated the 18.04.2013 for further period of one year (i.e. 16.04.2019) or till the conclusion of sunset review investigations initiated by Designated Authority vide initiation notification No.7/4/2018-DGAD dated 16th April, 2018, whichever is earlier

CASE LAW

Joint Plant Committee

CGST - Applicant, a non-profit organisation is engaged exclusively in supplying goods and services that are wholly exempt from tax, and, therefore, not liable to be registered under the GST Act if he is not otherwise liable to pay tax under reverse charge under section 9(3) of the GST Act: AAR [para 9, 12, 13]

CGST - Main source of the Applicant's income is the interest consideration received by way of interest on services like extending deposits, loans or advances - This service, also, is wholly exempt under Serial no. 27 of the Exemption Notifications for Services (Tariff head: 9971): AAR [para 9] - Application disposed: AAR

2018-TIOL-06-AAR-GST + Story

Global Reach Education Services Pvt Ltd

IGST – Applicant promoting courses of foreign universities among prospective students and receiving consideration in the form of Commission, based on performance in recruiting students, in convertible foreign exchange - Applicant, therefore, represents the University in the territory of India and acts as its recruitment agent - Whatever services the applicant provisions are provided only as a representative of the University and not as an independent service provider - Being an intermediary service provider, the place of the Applicant's supply shall be determined under section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act and not under section 13(2) of the IGST Act - The place of supply under the above legal framework is the territory of India - As the condition under section 2(6)(iii) of the IGST Act is not satisfied, the Applicant's service to the foreign universities does not qualify as “ Export of Services”, and is, therefore, taxable under the GST Act: AAR [para 12 to 19] - Application disposed of: AAR

2018-TIOL-707-HC-KAR-VAT

Lease Plan India Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Karnataka