|
SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1509-CESTAT-MAD
V Mathialagan Vs CCE
ST - Assessee engaged in providing taxable services like Maintenance and Repair service, Manpower Supply service and Works Contract service to M/s. NLC - The issue for consideration is whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of interest - There is no evidence put forward by department to establish that there was willful suppression of facts on the part of assessee - In case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd 2013-TIOL-631-HC-DEL-CX , High Court held that it was reasonable that limitation applicable to claim of duty should also apply to claim of interest - Following the decision in case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd, it is held that limitation would apply to demand of interest also - The period in this case is prior to 14.5.2015 - Demand of interest in hit by limitation and therefore not sustainable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1508-CESTAT-DEL
CST Vs Holy Family Hospital
ST - The dispute relates to Service Tax liability of assessee under category of 'Business Support Services' - The assessee engaged the services of various doctors as per the agreement/arrangement for medical services in their hospital premises - Entertaining a view that assessee provide infrastructural and administrative support facilities to visiting doctors & consultants, Revenue proceeded to demand and confirm Service Tax liability - S imilar dispute came up before the Tribunal in case of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors. 2018-TIOL-352-CESTAT-DEL - B y following the ratio laid down in said case, no reason found to interfere with impugned order and same is sustained: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1507-CESTAT-DEL
Honda Cars India Ltd Vs CCE
CX - the assessee company is a leading manufacturer of motor vehicles of various models - The assessee would clear cars from two of its units upon payment of duty on transaction value u/s 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Pursuant to the Apex Court in Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. the Department sought certain details pertaining to manufacturing cost of different models of cars & the transaction value based on which duty was paid upon clearance - The Department considered relevant details and issued SCNs raising demands for differential amount of duty, for various time periods, on grounds that transaction value in certain cases was below cost of manufacturing - Penalties were also imposed - The Department also sought to redetermine the value of cars u/s 4(1)(b) r/w Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 - Subsequently, the penalty was dropped as there was no deliberate suppression of facts - Demands raised u/s 11A(4) for extended period were also dropped - Hence the cross appeals by the assessee & the Revenue - Held - The lower authorities assumed that the lower price was fixed for 'penetration of market' - Such assumption is without basis & factually incorrect - There is no evidence of flowback of extra commercial consideration - Hence it cannot be said that transaction value is not based on the principle of price being the sole consideration - Moreover, since the adjudication for both units was done separately, the same resulted in the original authority not having holistic appraisal of facts & figures - Besides, the sales data was referred to very selectively - The original authority also failed to observe the fluctuation in profits & losses arising from fluctuating sales during the relevant years - Moreover, the finding by the lower authority on erosion of capital is apparently not based on Standard accounting & commercial principles - Hence in light of so many inadequacies, the orders in challenge are set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh verification: CESTAT (Para 2,9,13,15-19) - Case remanded : DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1506-CESTAT-BANG
Infosys Ltd Vs CCE
CX - the assessee company is a leading provider of software development services - During the period in dispute, it developed a customized software for a banking company - Once installed for the particular bank, such software cannot be used anywhere else - The Department raised duty demand with interest & imposition of penalties on such software - It reasoned that such software supplied by the assessee was classifiable under 8523 8020 as Information Technology Software & attracting duty since the goods are in the form of packaged or canned software and not customised software - The Department also denied exemption available to assessee under Notfn No 6/2006-CE - Held - Considering the nature of the product and the activity undertaken by the assessee, there is an element of supply of software, which is tailored to meet individual requirements - Since suh software is not meant for each & every customer, the view taken by the adjudicating authority is upheld, that such software is packaged or canned software, which cannot be considered as customized software designed and developed for a specific user - Further, such services are classifiable under ITSS service u/s 65(105) (zzze) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Since this service is taxable w.e.f. May 16, 2008, the duty demands raised in March 2006 are unsustainable - Moreover, since the nature of the product is in the form of packaged software, the assessee will not be eligible for the exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/2006 - Besides, the Notfn. No. 22/2009 dt. 07.07.2009 was issued to exempt Excise duty on the value attributable to the transfer of right to use such software for certain activities such as commercial exploitation including right to represent & sell - In the present case, the software licence only allows the purchaser of the software to use it - Since the transfer of licence is not for the purposes cited in the notification, the assessee will not be eligible its benefits - Hence the matter is remanded for re-quantification of duty accordingly: CESTAT (Para 2,3,8,18-27) - Appeals Partly Allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS
ctariffadd18_026
Seeks to extend the levy of anti-dumping duty, imposed on imports of Peroxosulphates (Persulphate)originating in or exported from China PR under Notification No. 11/2013-Customs (ADD), dated the 16.05.2013 for a further period of one year (i.e. 14.05.2019).
cnt41_2018
CBLR, 2013 replaced with new Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018
dgft18pn009
Amendments in Handbook of Procedures 2015 - 20 and Appendices issued under FTP, 2015 - 20
dgft18pn008
Inclusion of GIA, Israel and GIA, Japan as authorized laboratories for certification / grading of diamonds of 0.25 carat and above 4/2018-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI)
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1505-CESTAT-MAD
Skylark Cargo Services Vs CC
Cus - the first appellant herein is a CHA - Based on some intelligence input, the Customs Department intercepted a consignment of goods, meant for export & declared to be "Leather shoe upper for adults" - On examination, some amount of the goods were found to be of inferior quality while the remaining goods were old & used - Besides the goods were also found to be under-valued - Also, while the destination of the goods was declared to be the UK, the airway bills for the goods were found to have been executed upto Dubai only - Subsequent investigations revealed there to be several fictitious firms involved in such exports, with intent of claiming drawback fraudulently - Thereupon, SCNs were served to several noticees, including the first appellant herein, culminating into raising of duty demands and imposition of penalties - Against the first appellant, it was alleged that it was one of the three CHAs whose services were utilized in filing the shipping bills of the fictitious export firms - Held - The appellants herein claimed to have been taken for a ride by the three persons who floated the fictitious firms & claim ignorance of their actions and resultant consequences - While the CHA's claimed to have not signed the shipping bills, it is seen that they enabled grant of CHA ID cards to persons in the employ of the masterminds - This enabled the filing of shipping bills which facilitated the fraudulent activities - The other appellants herein lent their names for starting fictitious companies, aided in opening bank accounts & gave out signed blank checks - Such activities indicate that they knew what was happening - Hence their protestations cut no ice - Therefore while the appellants cannot escape penalties, the same can be reduced considering that there is no allegation that the appellants personally benefited from the fraudulent transactions: CESTAT (Para 2,11,13) - Appeals Partly Allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT |
|
