SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1671-CESTAT-DEL
Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd Vs CST
ST - the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in procurement & transportation of food grains to its storage centres located throughout Chhattisgarh - For such purpose, it engaged various trucks and entered into agreements with truck owners - The Department raised duty demand on reverse charge basis.
Held - The bill raised contains details of all consignments as per Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules 1994 - Hence the assessee is liable to pay tax under GTA service - Further, the crucial aspect is whether the assessee engaged lorries to transport their own goods being both consignor & consignee - There is no evidence of issue of consignment note as the transport was done on a continuing basis under agreement with various transporters - Such bills cannot be equated with consignment notes - Further multiple trips cannot be covered by a single consignment note - Considering the overall nature of the agreement & the nature of the documents submitted by the assessee the activities in question cannot be taxed under GTA service on reverse charge basis, since the consignment note is missing: CESTAT (Para 1,6,7) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT 2018-TIOL-1670-CESTAT-DEL
Carrier Point Infosystems Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The issue arises for consideration is; whether the concessional rate of tuition fee collected from certain category of candidates should be considered for inclusion in gross value for payment of Service Tax under Section 67 of FA, 1994 r/w Rule 3 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Assessee engaged in imparting commercial coaching to students of engineering and medial entrance examinations such as, IIT-JEE, AIEEE and AIPMT - For providing such service, assessee got itself registered with Service Tax Department under taxable category of "commercial training and coaching" service - Assessee offers various concessions to meritorious students depending upon their past academic performance and also to students belonging to different economic status - Based on pre-declared publicity material, desirous students approach the assessee and take admission for coaching provided by assessee - Assessee publishes the names and photographs of those meritorious students, who achieve merits in various entrance examinations - Since on the basis of better performance in entrance examination, the successful candidates’ names and photos were published in the advertisement, it cannot be said that by providing the concession in fee structure, assessee creates its brand name or goodwill in market - Further, as per pre-declared publicity material, available discount/rebate is always known to students in advance, before taking admission in coaching courses provided by assessee - Furthermore, offering of discount/rebate by coaching institutes is an accepted trade practice - Thus, the tuition fees actually charged by assessee after providing eligible discount/rebate, will only be considered as gross value for payment of service tax: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1669-CESTAT-BANG
Tiger Service Bureau Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee's ROA applications allowed - Matter listed for final disposal: CESTAT - Matter Listed: BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1674-CESTAT-BANG
Indira Rubber And Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
CX - The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of 'Hard Rubber Battery Containers' - It availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 - Simultaneously, the assessee had also claimed depreciation on gross block value inclusive of excise duty - The Department opined that availing simultaneous benefit of both cenvat credit as well as depreciation under the IT Act was with intent to avail ineligible credit and evade payment of duty - Duty demand was raised & upheld by the Commr.(A).
Held - Initially the assessee wrongly availed cenvat credit as well as depreciation under the IT Act - Later, a revised income tax return was filed rectifying the defect - By filing revised income tax return, the mistake of simultaneous avaiiment of cenvat credit of duty paid on capital goods as well as the depreciation on the value of goods including the element of Central Excise duty has been rectified - Thus the assessee is eligible for cenvat credit: CESTAT (1, 3, 5) - Appeal Allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1673-CESTAT-CHD
Godwari Spherocast Ltd Vs CCE
CX - the assessee company surrendered its income before the Income tax department, pursuant to survey conducted u/s 133A - The assessee explained the same as being a measure to buy peace and the income which was due to higher GP rate claimed in their books of accounts - The Excise department surmised that the amount surrendered by the assessee were profits earned from clandestine clearance of goods - Duty demands were raised with interest & penalties.
Held - The Excise department could not produce evidence proving that the assessee cleared goods without payment of duty - Duty demands cannot be raised based on assumptions & presumptions and without corroborative evidence - Further, in the case of Arisudana Industries Limited vs.CCE, Ludhiana the Tribunal held that duty demand could not be raised on income surrendered to the Income tax authorities - Hence the duty demands are set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,4,5) - Appeal Allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1672-CESTAT-CHD
Usha International Ltd Vs CCE
CX- The Assessee purchased engine/pump/base frames from the various suppliers - It conducted inspection & testing of parts for proper alignments of pump set on engines, pump and base frames - It then packed all three items in a master carton with logo, model number and name of their company - The items are then dispatched to the depots for sale - The Revenue opined that the process of alignment, testing & inspection is not manufacture - Duty demand was raised u/r 15(1) of CCR, 2004 alleging suppression of material facts.
Held - Difference of opinion - Member (J) observed that the activity of inspection and testing undertaken by the assessee is a manufacturing process as engine, pump and base frames are not sold as such by the assessee - Therefore, a new product came into existence after inspection and alignment - Further, Note 6 to Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act clarifies that activity undertaken to make un-finished or incomplete article to be marketable amounts to manufacture - Therefore, the assessee is not liable to reverse CENVAT credit - Member (T) interprets Note 6 to Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act in a way that the article which is incomplete or unfinished should have the essential character of the complete or finished article - While incomplete pumps may be having essential character, engine and frame are components of P.D.pumps & do not have essential character of P.D. Pumps - Further, the manufacture of P.D. Pumps does not take place in the factory where inspection is only done selectively, but at the location, where pumps, engines and frames are assembled and converted into a complete or finished pump - Therefore, no treatment, labour and manipulation resulting in transformation of inputs takes place in the premises of the assessee - Hence Member (T) upheld the order passed by the Authorities holding that cenvat credit was wrongly availed by the assessee - Such difference of opinion to be resolved by third member : CESTAT (Para 2, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) - Appeal Dismissed: CHNADIGARH CESTAT
CUSTOMS
CIRCULAR
cuscir13-2018
Revised instruction for stuffing and sealing of reefer containers
NOTIFICATION
cnt47_2018
Tariff Values of All Edible oils increased whereas those of Gold and Silver see a dip
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-1668-CESTAT-MUM
Avery Dennison Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Refund - PVC flex film declared as Self Adhesive PVC film - appellant, on the insistence of proper officer of customs, paid Anti-dumping duty under protest - later, Ministry of Finance clarified that the said notification 79/2010-Cus does not cover the item under import - refund filed rejected on the ground that the assessment itself had not been challenged before the appellate authority - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: In view of Delhi High Court decision in Aman Medical Products Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-566-HC-DEL-CUS holding that non-filing of appeal against assessed bill of entry does not bar assessee from claiming excess duty paid, as refund, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
|
