SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1574-CESTAT-DEL
Prasar Bharati Vs CST
ST- The Assessee is a corporation established under the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 providing taxable services falling under the category of "Broadcasting Service", "Advertising Space or Time Service" and Consulting Engineer Service", as defined under the Finance Act, 1994 - During audit it was observed that the Assesee did not pay the Service Tax for the taxable services provided by it - Subsequently, the difference in service tax duty was deposited by the Assessee - Duty demand was raised and the Department was of the view that the entire service tax liability was to be discharged along with interest and penalty .
Held- As the service tax liability was already discharged by the Assessee therefore, whether or not service tax is payable is immaterial - Besides, the Cum-tax benefit has not been extended to the Assessee, to which it is legally entitled to - Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-quantification of the service tax liability payable by the Assessee and penalty was set aside : CESTAT (Para 2,6) - Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1573-CESTAT-DEL
CCE Vs Key Life Science Pvt Ltd
ST- The Assessee is a merchant exporter engaged in export of "Additive LKS 7647" under HSN 3811 3100 - The Assessee had filed refund claim in terms of Notification No. 41/2012-ST claiming refund of service tax paid on the taxable services used for exportation of the goods - The Revenue denied claim for refund on grounds that the requirements laid down in the Notification have not been properly complied with - In the O-I-O, refund claimed was disallowed as it was found that the goods exported were excisable goods, the services were utilized beyond the place of removal i.e. factory gate-The Appellate Commissioner restored refund claimed in favour of the Assessee.
Held - On appeal by the Revenue, it was observed that Notification 41/2012 grants rebate of service tax paid on the taxable services, which are received by an exporter of goods and used for export of the goods - The explanation appended to the said Notification provides that in case of excisable goods, specified services should mean the taxable services, which have been used beyond the place of removal and for the goods, other than the excisable goods, specified services has been defined to mean taxable services used for the export of the goods - In this case, as a merchant exporter, the Assessee purchased goods from domestic sources and exported the entire goods procured by it overseas - Therefore, the benefit of refund claim provided under the Notification should be available to it : CESTAT (Para 2, 6) - Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-940-HC-RAJ-CX
CCE & ST Vs Unicharm India Pvt Ltd
CX - the assessee company imported baby diapers - The same were packed in poly bags and then in corrugated boxes & then cleared on payment of duty - The assessee availed Cenvat credit on duty paid on packing material - Such credit was used to pay duty on final product - The Revenue objected to such credit availment on grounds that the assessee was not engaged in any manufacturing activity - However, on subsequent appeal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
Held - Admittedly, the assessee paid duty on its final product - It is well-settled law that once an assessee clears its final products on payment of duty, it would be entitled to Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs - Such findings of the Tribunal warrant no interference: HC (Para 3,4,5) - Appeal Dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-1575-CESTAT-HYD
CCE & ST Vs Panyam Cements And Mineral Industries Ltd
CX - the assessee company manufactured Cement and cleared the same on payment of duty - During the period of dispute, the assessee paid duty vide cheques, which were initially dishonoured and then subsequently honoured on re-presentation of cheques - Besides, the assessee paid interest on such delayed payment of duty - The Department issued SCN under Rule 8(1) of CER, 2002 raising duty demand on consignment basis - A further SCN proposed recovery of the amount which was debited in Cenvat account during the period of dispute - In response the assessee claimed to have already deposited the duty - Later, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated through the SCN.
Held - The adjudicating authority correctly concluded that the there was no need to raise duty demand which had already been deposited - Hence the O-I-O warrants no interference: CESTAT (Para 3,5) - Appeal Dismissed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2018-TIOL-1572-CESTAT-MAD
Harshit Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - Assesee's are wholesale traders who filed shipping bill dated 26.10.2007 for export of silk carpets for a declared value and claimed duty drawback-Department were of the view that Assessee were exporting very cheap quality 'durry' in the guise of silk carpets to claim ineligible duty drawback- Revenue issued show cause notice and the silk carpets were confiscated under section 113(h)(ii) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and penalty imposed under section 114- Further, Revenue was of the view that Assessee mis -declared the valuation amount.
Held - The Tribunal held that in the show cause notice, the proposal is to show cause as to why the "silk carpets" attempted to be exported should not be confiscated- Thus, the proposal is not to confiscate the 'durries' but 'silk carpets'- This implies that the goods in question can fall within the category of silk carpets- Then Revenue's allegation that goods are liable for confiscation as these are not silk carpets is without factual basis-Further, the Tribunal observed that in the show cause notice there is no proposal for invoking the provisions for redetermination of value or proposing rejection of the value declared by the Assessee- Therefore, the Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice as the alleged mis -declaration is not conclusively established-The O-I-A was set aside: CESTAT ( para 1,5) - Appeal Allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
