SERVICE TAX

Commissioner of CGST & CCE Vs Sai Consulting Engineering Pvt Ltd

ST- The Assessee is engaged in business of providing various types of consultancy services related to the field of civil engineering contracts - The Revenue approached the HC challenging the Tribunal order.

Held - The High Court relied on Raval Trading Company v. Commissioner of Service Tax which covers the issue with respect to penalty in cases of tax not being levied or paid, or short-levied or shortpaid or erroneously refunded, by reason of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement etc. - Proviso to Section 78 is of clarificatory nature and does not create a liability for the first time - Section 76 covered the cases of non-payment of tax - Section 76 covers only the cases of non-payment of service tax which are not related to fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the said Chapter or the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax - Therefore, the imposition of penalty is valid: HC - Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

CENTRAL EXCISE

INSTRUCTION

F No 390/Misc/116/2017-JC

CBIC introduces monetary limits of Rs.2.50 lakhs for filing Revenue appeals before Commissioner(A); applicable to CX & ST legacy cases and those currently pending.  

CASE LAWS

Continental India Ltd Vs ACCE

CX - the assessee company is a leading manufacturer of Tyres and Tyre tubes - It operates two units, one for manufacturing tyres and the other for tubes - The final products are sold in domestic market & exported as well - Besides, the exports were made from one unit only - The assessee filed four rebate claims u/s 11B of the Act - However, they were rejected on grounds that the goods had not been exported from their place of manufacture - It was further held that the assessee had exported goods manufactured by its sister unit - Later, the adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claimed & such orders were upheld by the Commr.(A) - When the assessee appealed to the revisionary authority, it was asked to deposit the requisite fees and submit certain documents, within a fortnight's period - When the assessee complied with such directions, subsequently an order was passed dismissing all the revision applications, on grounds that they were time-barred - Hence the present writ.

Held - In the present case, the revisionary authority dismissed the applications, because the assessee was delayed by one day in filing the requisite documents - There is no pleading or details showing the date of receipt of the notice - Even if the notice is received in a day or two from the date of issuance, then in that event it would still be much before the date on which the fees had been deposited - Hence the orders passed by the revisionary authority are set aside - Also, such orders were passed after a delay of about three-and-a-half years from the date of filing of the appeal - Further, the personal hearing had been held, and so the order dismissing the appeal is invalid, since it was passed after three weeks from date of hearing - Hence the revisionary authority is directed to hear the matter again: HC (Para 3-21,25-29) - Writ petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-1617-CESTAT-MUM

2018-TIOL-1616-CESTAT-CHD

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATION

cnt46_2018

Drawback rules amended to substitute tariff items in Chapter 71

CASE LAW

SN Agrotech Vs CC

2018-TIOL-37-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST

Shree Raipur Cement Plant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

GST - the assessee company is engaged in mining Limestone, further used to manufacture Cement & for which High Speed Diesel (HSD) is used - The assessee is permitted to purchase goods during inter-state trade, at rates specified u/s 8(1) of the CST Act 1956 - Prior to introduction of GST, the Department would issue C-Forms to the assessee for the goods covered u/s 2(d) of the CST Act 1956 - Such C-Form would be used for purposes of Section 8 of the CST Act - The assessee claimed that the after the transition to GST, the C-Form was not being issued - Attempts to obtain C-Form showed an error message on the website stating that the invoice date should be prior to July 1, 2017 - Hence the present writ - The assessee claims that its registration certificate is w.r.t. HSD covered u/s 2 of the CST Act - It also claimed that HSD is exempted from the purview of GST & till now the GST Council made no recommendation to bring HSD under GST - Hence assessee claimed that denial of C-Form was illegal & that the assessee was otherwise entitled to receive the same u/s 8(3)(b) of the CST Act.

Held - In the present case, the assessee's registration certificate under the CST Act continues to be valid for purposes of inter-State sale & purchase of HSD, even after migration to GST - The definition of goods u/s 2(d) of the CST Act had been amended to include HSD, prior to the introduction of GST - Besides, the GST Council made no representation to bring HSD under the ambit of GST - Thus the assessee's registration certificate under the CST Act is still valid for goods mentioned u/s 2(d) of the CST Act, which includes HSD - Hence the assessee is entitled to C-Form for inter-state purchase of HSD against the C-Form - The Department is directed to issue C-Form in this regard & also rectify the error on the website to entertain the assessee's application: HC (Para 2,3,32-35,39) - Writ Petition Allowed: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT