SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1597-CESTAT-MAD
Maa Fruits India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - the Department alleged that the assessee had not paid service tax on freight amount paid to Goods Transport Agency ranging from Rs 751 to Rs 1500/- for transportation of goods - Duty demand was raised with interest & penalties were imposed - The same were upheld by the Commr.(A) -
Held - Considering the assessee's submissions, it appears to have been misguided by incorrect interpretation of the Notification No. 34/2004 -ST, which exempts freight if gross amount of freight is Rs 1500/- or less for full load and Rs 750/- for part load - Besides, the assessee paid service tax where the freight amount exceeded Rs 1500/- Also, details of all the transactions wherein the freight was less than Rs 1500/- were recorded in the books of accounts - Hence assessee cannot be charged with suppression of facts - Hence penalties be set aside, while duty demand is upheld: CESTAT (Para 2,5,6) - Appeal Partly Allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1596-CESTAT-DEL
Turkmenistan Airlines Vs CST
ST - The Assessee operates airlines & provides taxable service under "Transport of Passengers Embarking in India for International Journey by Air Service" - The Department opined that the Asseesee had not included passenger service fee (PSF) and airport taxes in calculating the gross value of the taxable service - Hence, duty demand was raised -
Held - A similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in Turkish Airlines (F. O. No. 51112/2018 dt. 05.03.2018) wherein it was held that passenger service fee & airport tax are not includable in the gross value of services provided by the Assessee - Following the same, the demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2, 3, 4) - Appeal Allowed : DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1599-CESTAT-ALL
Martin Cameron Vs CCE, C & ST
CX - the assessee company manufactured plywood block board, plain particle board & laminated particle board - It was granted area-based exemption under Notfn No 50/2003 - Hence it cleared goods without payment of duty - The assessee later sought to set up another unit in the same plot in the same location, to manufacture Medium Density Fiber Board - After obtaining necessary approvals, the assessee began importing the requisite machinery - It also informed the jurisdictional Excise commissionerate - The new unit commenced production, but had to briefly shut down due to breakdown of machinery - It then resumed production - Upon a visit by DGCEI officers to the new unit, statements of several employees were taken & documents were recovered - SCN was issued proposing to deny area-based exemption to the assessee & also raising duty demand on the new unit - The Revenue alleged that the new unit commenced production only from that date, on which it had resumed operations, and not before such date - The Revenue further claimed that before such date, the new unit lacked the electricity load to carry out production - Subsequently, the adjudicating authority upheld the denial of exemption - However, it was also held that the new unit was extension of the existing unit, and so the existing unit was granted exemption till a particular date for the clearances made by the new unit - Penalties were imposed on two executives of the assessee company -
Held - Considering that there is evidence that the commercial production had begun before the date from which the new unit commenced operations, the assessee is eligible for exemption for the new unit - The assessee also made clearances, which are corroborated by stock found at the premises of the purchaser - The Revenue also found semi-finished MDF boards in the new unit - Also, purchase of raw materials & their transportation to the assessee unit is not disputed - it is seen that the adjudicating authority relied on selective evidence to arrive at such findings: CESTAT (Para 2.1-3.2,24) - Appeals Allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1598-CESTAT-MUM
Saertex India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellants manufacture Stitch Bonded Fabrics of Glass [CSH 7019 9090] from raw material viz. glass rovings [CSH 7019 1200] - during manufacture, end trimmings and cut ends arise as scrap - Revenue contention is that the same is classifiable under CSH 7001 0090 and is chargeable to appropriate CE duty - duty demand issued and confirmed, so appellant is before CESTAT and contends that what is covered under CSH 7001 0090 is Cullet and other waste and scrap of glass and since appellants are not engaged in manufacture of glass, the classification and duty demand is not sustainable.
Held: There is no dispute that the trimmings and end cut is waste and scrap and technical/chemical characteristics of the material content is undisputedly glass, therefore, there is no doubt that the goods in question is waste and scrap of glass and correctly classifiable under CSH 7001 0090 - impugned orders are upheld and appeals are dismissed: CESTAT [para 4, 5] - Appeals dismissed :MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
CIRCULAR
dgft17cir007
Clarification on the term 'Duty' under Sl.No. 3 of Appendix- 3A of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1595-CESTAT-DEL
Trinseo Europe GmbH Vs UoI
Anti-Dumping Duty - The Appellants are producers, exporters, importers & domestic producers of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) - The final finding of DA imposed definitive Anti-Dumping duty on Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) of 1500 series and 1700 series imported from EU, Korea RP or Thailand - The Appellants placed emphasis on concepts of material injury and material retardation being entirely different requiring different scope of investigation and analysis -
Held - Material injury is for existing unit, while retardation is an injury for a possible establishment of a new unit - In the present case, there are two units constituting DI and both are admittedly in a very nascent stage of viable commercial production and stable operation - The economic parameters of nascent DI was examined in correct perspective by the DA - Regarding exclusion of two grades of SBR as the same are not made in India and are specifically for high speed tyres, foreign manufacturers can manufacture SBR series 1500, 1700 interchangeable and, therefore, the DI can also manufacture - Also, SBR grades were characterized by the level of co-polymer and various physical attributes of manufacturing - All the "like articles" are to be treated together for investigation - Regarding excessive confidentiality and denial of principles of natural justice by the DA, the DA followed the established procedure and the provisions contained in AD Rules and Annexure thereto during investigation - On the point of re-quantifying the injury margin and upward revision of anti dumping duty, DA's findings make specific analysis in this regard - Korea exported almost 98% directly and only 2% through 5 different traders - The dumping margin was calculated as per the available data at the stage of disclosure which has been enhanced at the final finding after accounting for average profit of 3 traders - The expenditure on business export services for PUC has been considered as part of usage fee which is included in the total cost of production - Therefore, there is no infirmity in the computation of normal value and dumping margin - The appeals against final findings and customs notification imposing ADD are dismissed: CESTAT (Para 1, 17, 18,19, 24) - Appeal Dismissed : DELHI CESTAT |
by M G Kodandaram 
