SERVICE TAX

Gland Pharma Ltd Vs CCTbClarifications of certain issues under GST

ST - Issue relates to availment of Cenvat Credit during period 2011-12 to 2013-14 on common inputs and reversal of credit attributable to inputs consumed in exempted goods - SCN was issued on for reversal of Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs used for exempted goods under provisions of Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 - It is on record and undisputed that records of assessee were checked by audit party - It was specifically pointed out by assessee to the lower authorities that the audit of assessee's units, was undertaken regularly and no contravention was noticed, hence different view of second audit party could not claim suppression of facts for invoking extended period for demand - Tribunal find it correct and concur with the proposition - Judgement of High Court of Karnataka in MTR Foods Limited 2011-TIOL-696-HC-KAR-CX has been followed by various decision of Tribunal and the ratio is squarely applicable in the case in hand - Respectfully following the said decision, SCN is wrongly invoking extended period for demand hence, impugned order is set aside on limitation: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1815-CESTAT-BANG

CCE, C & ST Vs Feroke Agencies

ST - Assessee is a clearing and forwarding agent on behalf of K/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. - They were paying service tax on service charges received by them at Rs.5.00 per MT, which includes service tax as per agreement entered with their principal - As it appeared that assessee was not paying service tax on the amount of service charges/commission received from the principals, a SCN was issued to them demanding service tax alleging that reimbursable expenses such as loading, unloading, transportation (freight) and other expenses that are initially incurred by C & F Agent on behalf of principals and subsequently, reimbursed are includable in the gross taxable value - Demand confirmed along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 76 of FA, 1994 - On appeal, Commissioner (A) set aside the order of adjudicating authority - Law on the issue is already settled - In case of M/s. Sangamitra Service Agency 2013-TIOL-606-HC-MAD-ST, the Madras High Court held that if a receipt is for reimbursing the expenditure incurred for the purpose, the mere act of reimbursement, per se, would not justify the contention of the Revenue that the same, having the character of the remuneration or commission, deserves to be included in the sum amount of remuneration/ commission - Issue is also covered by judgment of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST - By following the said judgments, there is no infirmity in order of Commissioner (A) and the same is sustained: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1814-CESTAT-BANG

Regus Centre Services Bangalore Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - The assessee is a service provider discharging service tax liability under the category of Business Support Service - On audit of the records, it was observed that the assessee availed Cenvat credit without receipt of input service documents - Duty demand was raised - The Commr.(A) rejected the same on grounds that appeal was barred by limitation.

Held - The assessee has filed the appeal within time from the date of receipt of order appealed against before the Commr.(A) - Therefore, the appeal is not time barred - Hence, the matter is remanded to be decided on merits keeping in line with the principles of natural justice : CESTAT (Para 2, 5) - Matter Remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

Jagatjit Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is manufacturing malted food preparations namely "Boost" on job work basis for M/s GSK and receive various raw materials like Boost intermediates from GSK - Cost of raw material supplied to assessee by GSK were provisionally assessed and the assessee also paid duty provisionally - Later on, actual value of goods cleared by GSK was ascertained and the said value was adopted by assessee for finalisation of their assessment - In that circumstances, provision of Rule 8 are not applicable for the valuation of goods cleared by GSK for supplying the raw material to assessee - In fact, when the actual sale price is available, in that circumstances, the provisions of Rule 8 are not applicable - Same view was taken by Larger Bench by this Tribunal in case of ITC ltd. 2016-TIOL-453-CESTAT-MAD-LB - As the actual price of raw material supplied to assessee was available - In that circumstances, said price were to be taken as value of raw material not the value in terms of Rule 8 i.e. cost 110% the notional value of the goods, therefore, the assessment was required to be finalised taking the cost of raw material supplied by GSK at actual price arrived for determination of assessable value at the end of assessee for finalisation of provisional assessment - Impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1817-CESTAT-CHD

Sturdy Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and supplying aluminum alloy conductors, aluminum conductor, steel-reinforced conductors, aerial bundled cables, aluminum composite panels, sprinkler and drip irrigation systems and plastic water storage tanks - On audit, it was noted that the assessee sent goods to job worker for processing under job work challan - However, the assessee did not receive job work goods within 180 days of the goods sent to the job worker - Although, the assessee reversed cenvat credit wrongly availed, the Department issued SCN by invoking extended period of limitation for appropriation of the amount already reversed along with penalty.

Held - The assessee has reversed cenvat credit attributable to the inputs sent to the job worker which were not received back after processing beforfe issuance of SCN - Therefore, penalty is deleted as mala fide on the part of the assessee is absent: CESTAT (Para 2, 6) - Appeal Allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

State Of Tamil Nadu Vs Raja Enterprises