SERVICE TAX

2018-TIOL-1487-CESTAT-DEL

CST Vs Perfect Realtions Ltd

ST - Assessee engaged in arranging press conferences, press release and interviews for its commercial clients - Department views that service provided by assessee was liable to payment of Service Tax during dispute period - The stand of Revenue is that such activities will fall under category of "Event Management Services" w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and further under BAS w.e.f. 01.07.2003 - There is no dispute that the activities of assessee are squarely covered within the definition of "Public Relation Services", which was made taxable w.e.f. 01.05.2006 - The stand of assessee is that a particular service which has been newly introduced cannot be made taxable prior to the date of its introduction - In case of M/s Indian National Ship Owners'Association 2009-TIOL-150-HC-MUM-ST - Said decision has also been upheld by Supreme Court in 2011-TIOL-05-SC-ST - Commissioner (A), in impugned order, has also examined the facts and clearly recorded that activity of assessee does not fall within categories of Event Management Service as well as Business Auxiliary Service - No reason found to interfere with the same: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1486-CESTAT-DEL

Vaishno Associates Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee engaged in providing Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service - The disputed period is 2008-09 to 2009-10 and impugned order confirmed demand of Service Tax along with payment of interest and penalties under various Sections of FA, 1994 - Appeal filed against said order claiming that activity of assessee will be entitled to classification under Works Contract Service and further that they will be entitled to abatement benefit under Notfn 01/2006 ST - The activity carried out by assessee is in nature of Erection, Commissioning or Installation and for disputed period i.e. 2008-09 to 2009-10, activity will also be covered under category of Works Contract Service (WCS) which was introduced in statute w.e.f. 01/06/2007 - Under WCS, benefit of payment of Service Tax under Composition Scheme was notified vide Notfn 32/2007 ST - The notfn provides that service provider is required to opt for payment of Service Tax under Composition Rules prior to payment of Service Tax in respect of WCS - Assessee has opted for such Composition Scheme after they started making payment of Service Tax under Works Contract Scheme - For sole reason for failure to file intimation prior to payment of Service Tax under WCS, Adjudicating Authority has denied the benefit of Composition Scheme - There is no justification for denying benefit of payment of Service Tax under Works Contract Composition Scheme - Impugned order cannot be sustained - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue de novo after extending benefit of Works Contract Composition Scheme and requantify Service Tax payable thereon - He will decide the issue of penalties also accordingly: CESTAT -Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-1489-CESTAT-ALL

Raghuveer Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of M.S. Angles and M.S. Flats and their raw material is M.S. Ingot and Billet & Cutting - Upon search/inspection, a panchnama was drawn and as stated therein various records of assessee were resumed - Further physical stock verification was done and it is stated in panchnama that the same was done with assistance of Manager Mr. D.K. Mishra and some employees/workers - On reasonable belief that excess found excisable goods were procured without payment of duty and finished goods were procured with intent to clear without payment of duty, raw materials and finished goods were confiscated - Further, giving option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine, further penalty under Rule 25 was imposed on assessee's company for Rs 5 lakhs and further penalty of Rs.2 lakhs was imposed on the Director- Shri R.K. Dixit - On appeal, Commissioner (A) was pleased to uphold the order of confiscation - However, he reduced the amount of redemption fine and penalty - As regards to Shri R.K. Dixit, he observed that he is old person of about 68 years of age, rarely visits the factory and there is absolutely no complicity on his part - In fact the whole exercise of physical weigment was orchestrated by officers - There is no definite role on his part to make him liable for invocation of panel provision under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 - Manner of stocktaking is defective on the date of inspection - It cannot even be called a good eye estimation - Further, stocktaking being part of panchnama cannot be relied upon in view of the apparent defect in panchnama for violation of provisions of criminal procedure code, as made applicable to provisions of Central Excise Act, as regards search and seizure - Under principles of accounting the manner of stocktaking done is wrong and defective - Inspite of records of inputs received and clearance of finished goods vide invoices, same were ignored and not taken into account for no reason - There is no specific instance found inspite of all the exercise, of clandestine removal or attempted clandestine removal on the part of assessee - Impugned orders set aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1488-CESTAT-DEL

Ad Auto Parts Industries Vs CCE & ST

CX - ROM - In the title, presence of Counsel is shown as none though in para 3 it is mentioned that Shri Aalok Arora, Ld. Counsel for appellant had appeared - So, the word "none" is replaced by "Shri Aalok Arora" - In para 2, name of appellant company is printed as M/s K.D. Auto parts while it is M/s A.D, Auto parts - So the word "K" is substituted by word "A" - Except said typographical error, no change in the Tribunal's order: CESTAT - ROM allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATION

dgft_trade_notice_06_2018

Laying down of modalities for import of Pigeon Peas (Cajanus cajan)/Toor Dal, Moong /Urad dal for the fiscal year 2018 - 2019

dgft18pn007

Amendments in Appendix 3B of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20

CASE LAW

2018-TIOL-1485-CESTAT-MAD

Rathi Impex Vs CC

Cus - the assessee filed bills of entry for clearing baby corn, sweet kernel corn & lychee in syrup - The Department enhanced the value declared by the assessee - On appeal, the Commr.(A) upheld such enhancement on grounds that the assessee assessee had accepted the same by paying the enhanced value & so could not contest it through appeal -

Held - The assessee claimed that they had to accept the enhanced value under pressing circumstances - Since the goods were perishable in nature & the period of dispute happened to be a festive season, the assessee was pressed to secure release of the goods to avoid further financial loss - Hence in light of such circumstances, the matter be remanded to the Commr.(A) for fresh verification: CESTAT (Para 1,5) - Case remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT