2018-TIOL-1368-CESTAT-HYD

ST - Whether the assessee had in an agreement with one M/s Sudhakar Plastics Ltd., agreed to be as a consignment agent for goods manufactured by them, evaded service tax on services rendered by assessee or otherwise - By a letter, revenue authorities directed assessee to pay the tax, but assessee did not respond - Tax liability on assessee under C&F agency service is attracted as there is no dispute that assessee had rendered such services to M/s Sudhakar Plastic Ltd. - Reverting to argument as canvassed by assessee that the extended period of limitation is not invoked in SCN, it can be seen from SCN that it does not invoke the proviso Section 73(1) for demand of tax for the extended period, and there is no allegation of suppression of the facts, mis-statement facts - In absence of any allegation of suppression of facts or mis-statement, service tax demand on C&F agency services for the normal period from the date of issuance of SCN i.e. 26.09.2006 is maintainable along with the interest and also the consequent penalty and demand for the period beyond the normal period is set aside as also consequent interest and penalty: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1366-CESTAT-DEL

ST - Assessee engaged in providing various taxable services, mainly in pursuance of contractual arrangements with Indian Railways and Catering Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) - Revenue entertained a view that they are not discharging Service Tax on certain activities undertaken/considerations received - As regards to cleaning services, assessee engaged in cleaning of railway coaches and toilets in said coaches - The coaches are rolling stock of railways - They are for transport mode and cannot fall under the commercial object of industrial building, factory, plant or machinery - The interpretation of original authority is far fetched and not sustainable in view of plain meaning of the statutory definition for tax entry.

Supply of Bed Rolls to Passengers of Railways - In M/s Foodworld Railways and Institutional Caterers 2014-TIOL-2284-CESTAT-DEL and in Shri R.C. Goyal 2017-TIOL-2931-CESTAT-DEL , the Tribunal held that such services cannot be considered as BSS - It is more appropriately classifiable under BAS as it is essentially a customer care service provided on behalf of client - Demand confirmed under BSS for such activity is not sustainable.

Outdoor Catering Service - Assessee contested that bill raised by them to IRCTC is inclusive of VAT - Assessee pleaded that though the bill was raised for gross amount, IRCTC paid amount after deducting said VAT - They paid service tax on the amount so received - In other words, tax is paid on received amount not on billed amount which included element of VAT - The jurisdictional authority can verify the documents to satisfy correctness of quantification of tax liability as claimed by assessee.

Supply of newspaper to passengers in Rajdhani train - Original authority upheld the tax liability on consideration received for supply of newspaper only on the ground that it is part of a composite contract of catering and on board service - The reasoning adopted by original authority to consider the supply of newspaper as part of their catering service is not sustainable.

The demand for extended period also cannot be sustained in respect of cases where service tax liability was affirmed in connection with service to Railways/IRCTC - On the same reasons, penalties imposed on assessee are also set-aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1367-CESTAT-DEL

CX - the assessee company availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service, used for outward transportation of goods - Such availment of credit was denied by the Revenue - Duty demands wereraised for recovery of the same & penalty was also imposed -

Held - While the duty demands stand confirmed considering relevant findings of the Apex Court in CCE & ST vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. - But since earlier decisions favored the assessee, the penalty merits being set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,3) - Appeal Partly Allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1365-CESTAT-DEL

CX - the assessee company is a leading manufacturer of Cement - It availed Cenvat credit of tax paid on security services used at residential colony - Such availment was contested by the Revenue, on grounds that the security of residential colony is only obligatory and no way concerned directly or indirectly with the manufacture of final product - Duty demand was raised for recovery of the same & penalty was imposed under Rule 15(2) r/w Section 11AC -

Held - The findings that the colony is located away from the factory & is not related with manufacture of goods is vague & not based on facts - It is undisputed that the colony is located near the factory to ensure that workers are available round-the-clock to run the factory - It is the onus of the assessee to provide civil & municipal services in such colony - Since assessee requires the colony & availability of workers and that the security services are needed to maintain the residential colony - Hence the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on such security services: CESTAT (Para 2,8) - Appeal Allowed : DELHI CESTAT