SERVICE TAX

ST - Assessee is a service provider and has provided Cargo Handling Services to M/s Vedanta Aluminum Limited as a sub-contractor of M/s Delhi Assam Roadlines Corporation Limited (DARCL), who was the main contractor - But assessee did not discharge Service Tax on consideration received by them on the ground that entire value is already included by main contractor, M/s DARCL, for payment of service tax by them - Service rendered is covered by definition of 'Cargo Handling Services' and consequently, liability for payment of Service Tax has arisen on the part of assessee - CBEC circular No. 96/7/2007-ST has made it amply clear that services provided by the subcontractor and used by main service provider is liable for payment of Service Tax in the hands of sub-contractor - The demand for service tax has been upheld by issue of SCN invoking the extended time limit under proviso to Section 73 of FA, 1994 - There is a copy of letter issued by assessee to the Jurisdictional Range Supdt., clearly intimating their bona fide understanding that they did not pay service tax since the main contractor is already paying Service Tax - Further, they have also referred to a clarification issued by DGST in October, 2003, to this effect - Department is not justified in invoking extended time limit to demand service tax from assessee - Moreover, entire details of amount has already been recorded in books of account of assessee and the same has been noticed only during the period of audit by department - Demand of Service Tax restricted to that falling within the normal time limit: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacturing Sponge Iron & Billets and also the Power Plant - They installed an integrated steel plant at Hirma for manufacturing the aforesaid items - Assessee had used H.R.Plates, Sheets, Flats, Angles, M.S.Joist, M.S.Channels, Oxygen Gas, Industrial Gas and Electrodes and claimed the cenvat credit; which was denied by department - By impugned order, same cenvat credit was allowed except welding electrodes - In case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. 2017-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL , it was observed by Tribunal that applying the 'User Test' to the facts in hand hold that the structural items used in fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004 hence will be entitled to Cenvat Credit - By following earlier order, no reason found to interfere with impugned order: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

CX - Main assessee engaged in manufacture of paper carton boxes - Dispute mainly relates to their eligibility of SSI exemption under Notfn 8/2000-CE as amended for years 2001-02 to 2002-03 - Revenue entertained a view that assessee had split up the turnover in name of another unit M/s.The Coastal Paper Packaging which is held to be fictitious unit, in order to have lesser turnover accounted for purpose of availing said SSI exemption - Admittedly no notice was issued making allegation about legal status of M/s. The Coastal Paper Packaging - The lower authorities held the said units as fictitious - Though assessee strongly contested on merit and established the legal status and independence of M/s. The Coastal Paper Packaging, since no notice was issued to them, the whole proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice - Proceedings without notice to one of the parties and holding the adverse view against such party is not sustainable - Accordingly, without going further into the merits of case, proceedings are not sustainable: CESTAT - Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

cus_instruction10_2018

CBEC clarifies on concessional import by EoU & STP

CASE LAW

Cus - Assessee is a Licensed Customs Broker engaged in clearance of export / inputs consignment through Customs - Certain inquiry conducted with reference to imports made by M/s ANM Electronics (Pvt) Ltd. and M/s. Vidhata Overseas, Delhi - Noticing that these appear to be fictitious firms and there were serious violations in these imports, further inquiries were conducted - Role of assessee in these violations were also probed - Since it appeared that assessee did not discharge his obligation under CBLR, 2013 properly, proceedings were initiated against them - Assessee raised preliminary objection regarding validity of proceedings resulting in revocation of license - Inquiry report was submitted much after 5 months of issue of SCN - This fact is not in dispute - Legal sanctity of time limits prescribed in Regulation has been subject matter of decisions of various Courts and also Tribunal in large number of cases - Reference can be made on Innovative Cargo Services 2017-TIOL-1007-HC-DEL-CUS , Overseas Air Cargo Services 2016-TIOL-1531-HC-DEL-CUS , Impexnet Logistic 2016-TIOL-1069-HC-DEL-CUS , HLPL Global Logistics P Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1119-HC-DEL-CUS and Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1111-HC-DEL-CUS - It has been consistently held by Delhi High Court as well as Madras High Court that the time prescribed under Regulation are to be strictly followed - Various violations, which apparently appear to be of serious nature, could not be proceeded with by Revenue for a proper penal consequence because of non-adherence to time schedule fixed by Regulation - Such non-adherence of time schedule results in adverse decisions by Tribunal and High Courts - It is expected that this aspect should be looked into by competent authority for ensuring due compliance so that serious violations of Customs Act/ CBLR by Customs Broker can be dealt with properly and decided on merit - Impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

S K Decorations Vs State of Tamil Nadu