SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1465-CESTAT-DEL
CCE Vs Daly College Business School
ST - Assessee engaged in imparting knowledge and lessons to its students by charging fees, for various courses of management, in collaboration with De Montfort University, Leicester (U.K.) - On successful completion of course, students are awarded with BA (Hons.) degree in Business Studies, which is a three year undergraduate programme in Business Management - On going through description of course material, department interpreted that the services provided by assessee should fall under taxable category of "commercial training and coaching" service, defined under Section 65 (105) (zzc) of FA, 1994 - Issue arising out of dispute is no more res integra in view of decision in case of IILM Undergraduate Business School 2017-TIOL-4535-CESTAT-DEL - While rejecting the appeal filed by Revenue, Tribunal has held that AIU is a statutory authority, competent to recognize any degree awarded by a foreign university and thus, the services provided by assessee therein should be excluded from purview of taxable service of commercial training and coaching service, for the levy of service tax - No merit found in appeals filed by Revenue: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1464-CESTAT-DEL
Mayank Containers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - the assessee company manufactured metal containers, caps & seal of iron - On audit, the Revenue observed that during the relevant period, the assessee generated higher amount of scrap, which was clandestinely cleared from its factory without payment of duty - Duty demand with interest & equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 r/w Section 11AC - Further penalty under Rule 27 was also imposed - Such demands were upheld by the Commr.(A) -
Held - Statements of the assessee firm's director had been recorded, wherein it was stated that raw material procured during the relevant period was sub-standard and was discarded, leading to higher generation of scrap - The Department omitted to consider such statements - It also failed to produce evidence proving that the higher percentage of scrap was removed by the assessee for clandestine removal - Thus the Department did not sufficiently discharge the onus upon it - Hence the demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,6) - Appeals Allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1463-CESTAT-DEL
Zeon Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of MS ingots - Search was conducted at the premises of raw material supplier, namely, M/s AIPL wherein a shortage of sponge iron was detected - On further investigations, raw material sponge iron cleared from AIPL was compared with purchase register of assessee and it was found that there is no such entry as regards the receipt of alleged quantity of sponge iron - Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that assessee surreptitiously procured the aforementioned quantity of sponge iron from AIPL without cover of valid Central Excise invoices and used the same for unaccounted production of ingots and thereafter removed the same clandestinely - Allegations are based on statement of Director of AIPL, statement of transporters - There is no documents recovered from AIPL wherein it is stated that goods were cleared to assessee - In course of inquiry at the end of assessee, no such corroboration of receipt of alleged sponge iron was found - Further, authorised signatory cum Director of assessee have categorically denied having received the sponge iron clandestinely from AIPL - Neither the Director of AIPL nor the transporters were examined in adjudication proceedings - As such, demand is hit by provision of section 9D of the Act - Thus, there is no evidence worthwhile against the assessee except assumption and presumptions by Revenue - Accordingly, SCN is not maintainable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
dgft18pn005
Govt extends date for implementing Track and Trace system for export of drug formulations upto Nov 15, 2018
dgft18pn004 Govt scraps need for pre-shipment inspection certificate when importing metallic waste & scrap from safe countries through six particular ports dgft18pn003
Govt notifies Krishnapatnam port for import of scrap
dgft_trade_notice_05_2018
Govt amends import regulations for Peas
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1462-CESTAT-BANG
Metso Automation India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
Cus - Assessee imported the certain goods for supply of 'smart positioners' to Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd. (MRPL), Mangalore - At the time of import, Customs Authorities enhanced the value and charged customs duty on such enhanced value - Same was paid by assessee and goods were cleared - Subsequently, assessment order was challenged before Commissioner (A) who dismissed the appeal filed before him in limine on the ground that delay of 16 months from date of assessment is beyond his power to condone the delay - Tribunal do not see from the appeal records any form of protest made by assessee against such assessment of Bill of Entry - It is on record that the challenge against such assessment Bill of Entry has been made before Commissioner (A) only after a delay of 16 months from the date of assessment - The grievance regarding non-receipt of any speaking order also does not seem to have been made before him - If assessee was aggrieved by assessment of Bill of Entry, he could have either asked for re-assessment of Bill of Entry or at least challenged the same before First Appellate Authority within the time available to him for such purpose - Appeal has been rightly rejected by Commissioner (A) in view of decision of Apex Court in case of Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT
|
