|
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2018-TIOL-1246-CESTAT-MAD
Thanjai Study Centre Vs CCE
ST - Assessee is providing coaching and training services to students of Alagappa University, Karaikudi and Periyar University - They collected fees from the students for such coaching - Department views that said services would fall under "Commercial Training Coaching Services" under Section 65 (26) of Chapter V of FA, 1994 - Fees is paid directly to the university by students in form of demand drafts - Identical issue has been agitated before CESTAT in JMC Educational Trust 2011-TIOL-410-CESTAT-MAD - The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in JMC Educational Trust 2010-TIOL-1753-CESTAT-MAD and also of High Court of Kerala in case of Malappuram Distt. Parallel College Association had set aside the demand of service tax holding that training and coaching provided by assessee is an essential part of a course or curriculum of a university - Assessee has been authorized as a Study Centre under a Memorandum of Understanding entered into with Alagappa University on the basis of Distance Education Council (DEC) guidelines issued under the IGNOU Act, 1985 - This being so, assessee would be exempted from service tax levy during period of dispute under Section 65 (27) of the Act even without benefit of Notfn 10/2003-ST: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
CIRCULAR
F.No.275/29/2016-CX.8A
After issuance of SCN, write to noticees about availing window of Settlement for early settlement of disputes - CBIC instructs field CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-1248-CESTAT-CHD
Merino Panel Industries Ltd Vs CCE
CX - the Revenue conducted an audit of the assessee, and then alleged that it cleared excisable goods to both independent buyers and related persons - It further alleged that the price charged from the latter were low in comparison with the prices charged from the latter - Hence the Revenue alleged that the assessee undervalued the goods cleared to related persons - Thereupon, duty demand was raised with interest & penalty being imposed - The assessee claimed that the wrong section was invoked to allege undervaluation - Held - The issue at hand is as to if goods are sold to both independent buyers & related persons, how in such case the assessable value of the goods cleared to related buyers is to be determined - Considered Section 4 of the Act and Rules 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,10A & 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Hence, it is undisputed that there is no specific provisions for valuation of the goods cleared to independent buyers & to related person to determine the assessable value for the goods cleared to the related person - Hence, Rule 11 is applicable herein - Thereby, the value is to be determined as per Rule 11 - Also considered CBEC Circular No.643/34/2002-CX . Dated 01.07.2002 in this regard, which clarifies as to how valuation is to be done in this regard - Also considered relevant findings of the Tribunal in Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore relied on by the Revenue - In this case all goods were sold to related person, who directly sold the goods to independent customers - The assessee therein was not clearing the goods to both independent & related persons - Hence such decision is irrelevant to the present facts - Thereby, the correct valuation is required to be arrived under Rule 11 r/w Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules - The demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,3,12-20) - Appeal Allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1247-CESTAT-DEL
CCE Vs Amrit Varsha Ispat Pvt Ltd
CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of M.S. Ingots - A SCN was issued and impugned order was passed in which the assessee was held to have clandestinely cleared the finished products and income generated from such clandestine clearance was being reflected in their balance-sheet as share trading and commodity trading - Revenue's entire case is based upon investigations conducted by them in respect of entries made in balance-sheet - Said entries reflect income of assessee made through other businesses like share trading, sales commission and commodity trading - It is not disputed on record that income reflected in balance-sheet stands included by assessee for payment of Income Tax - Such Income Tax Returns have also been assessed by Income Tax Department - Central Excise authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in orders passed by Income Tax authorities and to hold that transactions which stand accepted by Income Tax authorities were not genuine transactions - Tribunal in case of R.A. Casting Pvt Ltd 2008-TIOL-2732-CESTAT-DEL has dealt with an identical question and by referring to the Gujarat High Court decision in case of Arabian Express Line Ltd 2003-TIOL-680-HC-AHM-IT , it stands held by Tribunal that law does not entitle the Revenue to disregard all statutory excise records as well as audited financial accounts and records of the assessee-company, which have been duly verified and accepted by competent authorities from time to time not only for Central Excise but also for purposes of Income Tax - Said decision was followed in several cases including in case of Venus Allows Pvt Ltd. 2012-TIOL-2016-CESTAT-DEL as also in case of R.K. Polytubes & Ors. 2014-TIOL-779-CESTAT-DEL and also in M/s Trikoot Iron and Steel casting case 2014-TIOL-2158-CESTAT-DEL - Virtually no evidence is produced by Revenue as regards the clandestine manufacture and clearances of assessees final product - There is no statement of any persons indicating or admitting that income as reflected by assessee in balance sheet stands derived from clandestine activities of manufacturer and clearance of their final products: CESTAT - Revenue's appeal dismissed; DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
cnt33_2018
CBIC notifies new Customs Exchange rates effect from tomorrow
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1245-CESTAT-CHD Thapar Ispat Ltd Vs CCE
Cus - the assessee company imported HMS Scrap & filed Bills of Entry for clearance - It also claimed Custom duty exemption under Notfn. No. 46/93-Cus & well as exemption from additional duty under Notfn. No. 44/93-CE - Later, the Department alleged that while fulfiling export obligation the assessee exported some quantity of MS Angles on which the supporting manufacturers had availed input credit - Hence the Department claimed that the assessee availed double benefit under Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus & also failed to fulfil export obligation - Duty demands were raised with interest & penalty - The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification - However, the Department confirmed the same demands with interest - Confiscation of goods & penalty were dropped - Held - The argument of the assessee that CVD is being demanded after long litigation and hence the expectation of revenue neutrality arises is without force as the CVD on the imported goods is required to be paid before clearance and if not paid before clearance cannot be waived on the ground of revenue neutrality - There is no provision in law for such a waiver - Regarding invocation of extended limitation, the Department has rightly alleged that the assessee had withheld the information about availment of Modvat credit at the time of import of consignments at CFS - Besides, there was failure to comply with the declaration given in terms of Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus - In the instant case, the assessee knowingly opted for a notification to use the HMS under certain end use conditions about which there is no question of ambiguity or having a belief - Hence the decisions cited by the assessee avail it no help - Hence the order passed by the Department is sustained: CESTAT - Appeal Dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
|
|
