SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1620-CESTAT-DEL
Shiv Kumar Patel Vs CCE & ST
ST - the assessee herein raise several issues, seeking that assessment u/s 72 of the Finance Act 1994 be set aside - They also sought that service tax liability be discharged on receipt basis & not on the basis of income tax returns - They also raised other factual issues, such as calculation of duty demand after considering amount of cancelled cheque & effect of change in tax rate.
Held - Since the appellants do not contest the service tax liability & only seek proper computation of the service tax demand, the matters merit fresh verification by the original authority: CESTAT (Para 1,3) - Case remanded: DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1619-CESTAT-DEL
CC & CE Vs Spectrum Coal And Power Ltd
ST - Penalty had been imposed upon the assessee company - However, the same was set aside by the Commr.(A) by giving benefit u/s 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Held - Admittedly, the assessee paid the duty demanded before issue of SCN - Hence the benefit u/s 80 of the Finance Act 1994 is available to the assessee - Thus, the O-i-A in challenge is sustained: CESTAT (Para 1,4,6) - Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-976-HC-MUM-CX CCE Vs CEAT Ltd
CX - The assessee company is a leading manufacturer of tyres for automobiles - During the relevant AY, it cleared some goods, on which it paid excess duty - When provisional assessment order was framed, the Revenue appealed against it on grounds that the assessee incorrectly claimed deductions on the assessable value - Later the assessee settled the issue in favor of the assessee - The assessee claimed refund of duty paid in excess, which was sanctioned & paid to the assessee - The Revenue issued SCN proposing recovery of the interest granted u/s 11A(1) with interest u/s 11AB, on grounds that the refund amount should have been deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund & that the assessee failed to prove that it had not - However, the adjudicating authority scrapped such notice - Later, the Tribunal upheld such order on grounds that the SCN was vague and bad in law.
Held - It is settled position in law that entitlement to refund & finalization of provisonal assessment under Rule 9B of the CER, 1944 is independent from the provisions of refund u/d 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Besides, only the procedure established u/s 11B(2) of the Act, is applicable to refund arising from finalization of the provisional assessment u/r 9B of the CER - Thereby, the procedure for unjust enrichment of finalization of provisional assessment is applicable to the provisional assessment made after 1999 & not before such date - The proviso to Rule 9B did not have retrospective effect - Since the period of dispute is 1998-99 & assessment was finalized in 2001, the principle of unjust enrichment is inapplicable - Hence the Tribunal order is upheld: HC (Para 2-7,16) - Appeal Dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2018-TIOL-1622-CESTAT-MUM Tien Yuan India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX -CENVAT Credit -Drums/barrels procured by appellant were sent to supplier of Input viz. ‘Menthe Oil' for packing of the same and delivery to the appellant whereupon the same are emptied and re-used for further transportation - entire logistics was carried out under the cover of documents purporting to despatch of goods to the premises of the job worker - Credit denied on the ground that the drums/barrels are packing material as packing material referred to in CCR, 2004 are those intended for packing of final product and in the present case these were used by an entity other than the assessee - on the ground of alleged misuse of documentation extended period of limitation was invoked - appeals to CESTAT.
Held: CCR, 2004 makes it abundantly clear that inputs used in any activity pertaining to manufacturing process would be entitled to CENVAT credit and likewise the definition of ‘capital goods' is of sufficiently wide coverage to include storage tanks - There is no dispute that the drums/barrels procured by the appellant are mobile storage tanks for transporting raw materials from the supplier to the appellant - While this may not conform to the definition of ‘inputs', it is undeniable that the same are therefore to be treated as ‘capital goods' - moreover, admittedly these drums/barrels were utilized repeatedly till they were scrapped and cleared as waste and which further reinforces the categorization as ‘capital goods' - denial of credit is, therefore, not sustainable - Appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1621-CESTAT-ALL
CCE & ST Vs UNN Sugar Complex
CX- Assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar- The transaction in question was sale of rights and privilege of export of 'sugar quota' by the Assessee on receipt of consideration-Revenue was of the view that the transaction amounts to sale of goods-It was for the Tribunal to decide if the transaction is supply of goods or services.
Held- Considering Supreme Court's decisions in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation which has been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in Yasha Overseas and others - It was held that the definition of ‘goods' in Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is inclusive in nature- It includes all materials, articles commodities and all other kinds of movable property, but does not include newspapers, actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities-Licenses have a value of its own and is by itself a property and is freely bought and sold in the market, hence it is goods- Therefore, applying the ratio of Vikas Sales Corporation held that the transaction of sale of rights and privilege of export of sugar quota by the Assessee on receipt of consideration is sale of goods and no service is involved- Hence assessee is liable to pay excise duty: CESTAT (para 1,3,5) - Appeal Dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS ctariffadd18_029
Anti-dumping duty imposed on ‘Saturated Fatty Alcohols' imported from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand
ctariffadd18_028
Anti-dumping duty on on'Ammonium Nitrate' - Notification 44/2017-Cus(ADD) amended to substitute name of exporter at sr. no.1 as 'Euro Chem Trading GMBH Through Rawfert Offshore Sal, Lebanon' |
