SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-964-HC-AHM-ST CC GST & CX Vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd
ST - the assessee availed Cenvat credit on outward transportation service - Such availment was challenged by the Revenue but later allowed by the Tribunal - The Revenue claimed that while the period of dispute is between Dec 2007 to Mar 2009, the definition of 'input service' was amended from Mar 2008.
Held - The Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ultra Tech Cement Limited held that cenvat credit would be available for transport services upto the place of removal - Hence notice be issued to parties to determine whether Tribunal erroneously permitted credit availment on service of transportation of goods for outward transportation of its final products from the place of removal: HC - Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-963-HC-AHM-ST
Neptune Reality Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner
ST - the assessee company was aggrieved by an O-i-O, raising duty demand & imposing penalty - The assessee bypassed the option of appeal to appellate authority on grounds that the case involved complex accounting entries which the assessee could reconcile - The assessee sought a chance to prove that there was no evasion of duty not delay in depositing the same - While the assessee claimed to be expecting a further hearing, the Department trashed such a claim.
Held - Since the issue involves facts and various entries, the assessee merits one opportunity to present its case - However, the assessee must pre-deposit 7.5% of the duyy demanded - Thus, the order in question is set aside - The matter is remanded to the Commr for fresh consideration: HC - Case remanded: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
CENTRAL EXCISE
CIRCULAR
F.NO.280/05/2018-CX.8A
Suo motu transfer of Authorizations on behalf of Union of India by the Authorized Commissioners
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-1606-CESTAT-MUM
Ewac Alloys Ltd Vs CCE
CX -Appellant purchased inputs for which vendor issued invoice showing appellant as a buyer and CHA as consignee - goods were directly sent to the CHA and subsequently CENVAT credit was availed without receipt of input in the factory - on this ground, credit was denied by lower authorities - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: It is not disputed that the input on which credit was availed have been admittedly exported under bond/LUT - CCR provides CENVAT credit in respect of inputs removed under bond and merely because inputs have not been received in the factory, CENVAT credit cannot be denied - ownership of the inputs remained with the appellant and subsequently they were exported - Time and again it is settled that no duty should be exported in case of export of goods -Credit is admissible - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1605-CESTAT-MAD
Goyal Ispat Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - the assessee filed the present application seeking to rectify an error in a previous order - The assessee claimed that goods cleared by them on job work basis had been undervalued - The assessee claimed to have undervalued the job-worked goods as the actual cost of raw materials received & consumed was not included in the value of goods - Only the cost of raw materials contained in the final products was included in the value excluding burning loss - It also claimed to have not included the cost of transportation of goods.
Held - The Department had been directed to furnish documents & the assessee was directed to file calculation sheet in support of contentions - On subsequent hearing, the Tribunal found that the assessee filed no application informing of non-receipt of documents from the Department despite the Tribunal's directions - On this count, the assessee's contentions of contravention of principles of natural justice are untenable as it had sufficient time to obtain requisite documents - The Tribunal also considered the quantification of duty demand - In this application, the assessee's contentions touch the main issues examined in the appeal - Hence hearing the application would entain re-hearing the appeal - These are not errors apparent on the face of record - A mistake should be patent enough to not require elaborate argument - An application for rectification of mistake cannot be filed with intent to re-hear an appeal: CESTAT (Para 2,5) - Applications dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS
cnt45_2018
CBIC formulates Customs Audit Regulations, 2018
cnt44_2018
Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner notified as Proper Officer u/s 99A (Audit) of Customs Act, 1962
dgft18pn011
Enhancement in rate of rewards for MEIS Sl. no.207, HS Code 07122000
dgft18not008
Amendment in Para 3.08 (b) of Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-2020
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1604-CESTAT-DEL
Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The Assessee is engaged in marketing, research, and development of RISC - based microprocessors and physical IP - The Assessee imported 'server' and certain related items - Department opined that the Assessee mis-declared the value of imported goods w.r.t. import of hardware & annual maintenance charges - Department issued SCN for confiscation under section 111(l) & (m) of the Act- In the O-I-O the Revenue re-determined value of imported goods and raised differential duty demand imposing penalty plus CHA charges- The Assessee has appealed as Commr.(A) has upheld the O-I-O.
Held - On considering the first issue of import of 'server', the Tribunal scrutinized invoices furnished by the Assessee, wherein seven items were mentioned out of which the value of hardware was to be added to the transactions where hardware is pre-loaded with the software - On the second issue of CHA charges, the amounts paid towards the annual maintenance contract for three years, cannot be added to the transaction value of the imported goods as such payment is towards post import service - Matter remanded for re-computation of demand - The Tribunal issued a direction for adding value of software to that of the hardware and charging Customs duty (Para 2, 6, 7,8) - Assesee's Appeal partly Allowed: DELHI CESTAT
|
