SERVICE TAX

Al Rahaba Builders Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Penalty - During relevant time there was a dispute as to whether the activity of Renting of Immovable Property is subjected to levy of service tax and even today the matter has not been finally settled and the same is pending before the Apex Court - It is also a fact that assessee has paid service tax along with interest in spite of the fact that he has not collected the same from his service recipient - Further, there was no suppression of fact on the part of assessee as he has shown the rent in ST-3 returns and he had a bona fide belief that no tax was payable during the relevant period - Decision in case of Sree Kanya Combines is applicable in the present case, in this case the assessee have not filed the returns during the material period and therefore, is liable to pay penalty under Section 77(2) which is a residuary clause and provides that any person who contravened any of the provisions of this Chapter or any Rules made thereunder for which no penalty is separately provided in this chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- - Therefore, assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 77 (2) and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on assessee - As far as penalty under Section 78 is concerned, assessee is not liable to pay penalty under Section 78 and therefore, the penalty under Section 78 is dropped: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

Maa Communications Ltd Vs PR CST

ST - Assessee is not disputing the tax on Renting of Immovable Property but only questioning the amount demanded - Assessee submitted that SCN proposing to demand service tax for the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 is barred by limitation - Issue has been considered by Tribunal in cases of Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd. 2013-TIOL-315-CESTAT-DEL, Sujala Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1295-CESTAT-BANG, National Institute of Bank Management 2013-TIOL-1247-CESTAT-MUM and Trimurti Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-2333-CESTAT-ALL wherein it is held that there was a doubt regarding the levy of tax on Renting of Immovable Property and it was set right by retrospective amendment of Finance Act 2010 neutralizing Delhi High Court judgment in Home Solution Retail India Ltd. and therefore assessee cannot be accused of suppression of material facts and therefore, extended period cannot be invoked - Assessee is liable to pay the rent on immovable property for the normal period along with interest and invoking of extended period is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-1305-CESTAT-MUM + Case Story

Panacea Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Rebate which is sanctioned to appellant cannot be appropriated by the authorities by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of CEA, 1944, more specifically when the dues are due from a totally different entity - lower authorities have misconstrued the provisions of s.11 of the CEA, 1944 as there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had not paid M/s Union Batteries Pvt. Ltd. consideration for the purchase of batteries nor is anything brought on record of any recovery pending from appellant - lower authorities directed to refund the amount in cash to the appellant - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 7 to 9] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

Velankani Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs Bangalore Customs

Cus - Issue relates to appeal rejected for want of jurisdiction without deciding the issue on merit - If Commissioner of Customs (A) was of the view that appeal lies to Commissioner of Central Excise(A) then he should have sent the same to that authority but he did not do so in spite of the request made by assessee - Further, rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise (A) on the ground that there is no provision of resubmission of appeal once the appeal is disposed of by competent authority, this finding is not sustainable because the Commissioner of Customs (A) has not disposed of the appeal on merit; he has rejected the appeal for the reason of wrong jurisdiction - Impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (A) as well as Commissioner of Customs (A) are not sustainable in law - Commissioner of Central Excise (A) is directed to entertain the appeal which is filed in time and to decide the same on merit: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT