SERVICE TAX
CIRCULAR
sercir210
CBIC clarifies on applicability of service tax on ambulance service provided to Govt under NHM CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1659-CESTAT-MUM
CCE & C Vs Abhay Cotex Pvt Ltd
ST - VCES, 2013 - Commissioner(A) holding that letter dated 08.02.2013 issued by Range Superintendent is not an enquiry or an investigation for the purpose of section 106(2) of the FA, 2013 and accordingly respondent is eligible for availing the benefit of VCES, 2013 - Revenue in appeal before CESTAT contending that letter cannot be considered a routine one as it was very specific and sought a detained information, therefore, since it was issued by the department much before 1 st March 2013, proviso of section 106(2)(iii) of FA, 2013 is correctly invokable and application filed is liable to be rejected.
Held: Commissioner(A) has dealt with various provisions related to VCES and came to the conclusion that the letter cannot be treated as part of investigation which fall under the exclusion category under VCES - also referred is Board Circular 170/5/2013-ST dated 08.08.2013 and from which reading it is abundantly clarified that if the investigation u/s 14 of CEA, u/s 72 of FA, 1994 and rule 5A of STR, 1994 is conducted only then the case falls under the exclusion category envisaged u/s 106(2)(a)(iii) of the FA, 2013 - In the present case the letter issued by the Range Superintendent seeking information does not fall in any of the provisions of s.14 of the CEA, 1944 etc., therefore, Commissioner(A) has rightly observed that the letter dated 08.02.2013 issued by the R/S cannot be construed as enquiry or investigation which debar the respondent from VCES scheme - no infirmity found in the impugned order, therefore, same is upheld and Revenue's appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 6, 7] - Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1657-CESTAT-CHD
Shree Krishna Paper Mills and India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Assessee filed refund claim of unutilised Cenvat credit lying in their Cenvat account as on closure of their factory and surrendering their registration - Same was sanctioned to assessee on closure of factory, relying the decision of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Limited 2006-TIOL-469-HC-KAR-CX - Dispute arose between the parties on the ground that activity undertaken by assessee does not amount to manufacture, therefore they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit - Consequently, they are not entitled to refund claim - At no stage, it has been questioned to assessee that for denial of Cenvat credit which are not entitled to them - Moreover, Revenue collected the duty from assessee - Although Revenue was of the view that activity undertaken by assessee does not amount to manufacture - At the stage of filing of refund claim, Revenue cannot correct their wrong doings - Therefore, issue of non-entitlement of Cenvat credit cannot be raised at the stage of entertaining refund claim without challenging the availment of Cenvat credit - On merits, assessee is entitled to claim refund which has already been granted to assessee by adjudicating authority.
The adjudicating authority, relying on decision of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Limited has allowed the refund claim to assessee - Said order was challenged by Revenue before Commissioner (A) and wanted to place additional evidence which were never prevented by adjudicating authority to be placed before adjudicating authority - In that circumstance, appeal filed by Revenue before Commissioner (A) was also baseless - Commissioner (A) was not required to consider the appeal filed by Revenue but chose to send the matter back to the adjudicating authority, which is not permissible in law - In that circumstances, impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS
ctariffadd18_031
CBIC to probe extending anti dumping duty on certain jute products imported from Bangladesh & Nepal
ctariffadd18_030
CBIC examines extension of anti-dumping duty on certain Jute products, Hessian fabric & Jute sacking bags imported from Bangladesh & Nepal
No.14/28/2013-DGAD
DGTR orders re-examination of anti-dumping duty on import of castings for wind operated electricity generators
Trade Notice 14
Guidelines for filing/processing of MEIS applications in case of Project Exports
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1658-CESTAT-MUM
Chaitanya Bharathi Educational Society Vs CC
Cus - Notfn. 51/96-Cus - Exemption to goods imported for development and research activity - Appellant claimed benefit of notification and produced essentiality certificate from University of Osmania - later, the said certificate was withdrawn by the University - benefit of notification denied and penalties imposed - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: It stands held by the Tribunal in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Technology (MGIT) - 2005-TIOL-451-CESTAT-BANG that inasmuch as the essentiality certificate stands issued to the college without there being any suppression on the part of the assessee and such University being registered under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the subsequent withdrawal of essentiality certificate would not result in denial of exemption - said decision stands accepted by the department and refund was granted to that appellant - since MGIT is another college of the present appellant society and the issue involved is identical, following the said decision, impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 4, 5] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
