SERVICE TAX

Raj Furnitures Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is a Decorator and carrying out certain activities on contract basis - Case of Revenue is that, assessee was providing various interior services such as wooden partition, plastering, painting, civil work, joinery items, floor and wall tiling and other similar services in respect of building or civil structure or part thereof - As per Revenue, value of material used by assessee is not separately indicated in various invoices and service tax was charged on invoice value, after availing abatement of 67% to which assessee is not entitled and also not entitled for benefit of Notfn 12/2003-ST - It is not disputed that assessee is executing works of finishing assigned to them along with material - Therefore, in terms of decision of Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST services rendered by assessee merits classification under Works Contract services for prior period or the subsequent period - As the services of Works Contract became taxable with effect from 01.06.2007, therefore, the demands pertaining prior to 01.06.2007 are not sustainable - For the period post 01.06.2007, assessee is entitled for abatement of 67% of value of taxable services and for remaining 33% value of service, assessee is paying service tax - In appeal for period October 2007 to March 2009, the SCNs have been issued to assessee by invoking extended period of limitation - As on same issue, earlier also SCN was issued to assessee for the prior period, in that circumstance, in the light of decision of Apex Court in case of Nizam Sugar Factory 2006-TIOL-56-SC-CX, the SCN is barred by limitation - Therefore, on that ground also the demand is not sustainable against assessee - Accordingly, impugned orders are set-aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1832-CESTAT-AHM

Rajdhani Travels Vs CCE

ST - The assessee is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of 'Tour Operator Service' during the relevant period - The assessee filed refund claims with the Department under the exemption notification 20/2009-ST - The Department sanctioned the refund claim but transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund on grounds of unjust enrichment - The appeals filed before the Commr. (A) were rejected -

Held - The amount of tax paid has been shown as an expenditure in P&L A/c, therefore being cost of the service recovered from the customers - The incidence of duty has been passed on to others - This follows from the decision in the case of M/s United Liner Agencies of India P Ltd. Vs. CST-Mumbai-II, HPCL & UOI Vs. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd wherein the issues and facts are of similar nature - Hence, the order in challenge is upheld: CESTAT (Para 2, 8, 9) - Appeals Dimissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1831-CESTAT-MAD

Repute Express India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGT

ST - Assessee is acting as a co-loader for M/s. Professional Couriers, Chennai - As per the agreement between two parties, M/s. Professional Couriers makes use of services of assessee for delivery of incoming documents received by them in and around Chennai, including movement of documents through vans belonging to assessee - It appeared to department that this activity would be liable to service tax as a "Business Support Service" - Discernably, issue in dispute saw contrasting views taken by CBEC - First by indicating that said activity was excluded from service tax levy by Circular in 1996 but, however, changed the stand vide another Circular issued in 2007 - The period involved in this issue is 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 - Adjudicating authority himself has noted that assessee have not contested levy of service tax and paid; that they paid up the entire demand immediately after issue of SCN and that the dispute was only with regard to interest, hence, found sufficient reason to invoke discretionary powers under section 80 of the Act - Nonetheless, adjudicating authority while refraining from imposition of penalty under section 78 has chosen to impose penalty under section 76- Because that the issue itself was mired in confusion, there is a justifiable reason for waiving penalty under section 76 also - The tax liability not having been paid at the point of time where it should have been, interest liability would kick in as per the provisions of law - There would then be no relief from the interest: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CCE Vs NPS Power Industries

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of Online as well as Offline UPSS - In addition to same, assessee was procuring Online UPSS from M/s RPS Industries, M/s Integrated Power Control & M/s Emerson Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. - The said assessee after procurement of Online UPSS, used to test Online UPSS and supplied the same to the customers to whom batteries were separately supplied and assembled to Online UPSS at the premises of Customers - It appeared to Revenue that Online UPSS so procured by assessee was incomplete or unfinished and said Online UPSS Kits completed only after attachment of battery and assembly lines - Investigation at the end of M/s RPS Industries, M/s Integrated Power Control & M/s Emerson Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd., did not prove that Online UPSS supplied by assessee were incomplete or unfinished - In fact, they were complete & finished goods on which duty was paid - Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to establish that at the end of said manufacturers of Online UPS the assessment was done by resorting to general Rule of interpretation of tariff particularly Rule 2(a) which has provided that the reference to article incomplete or unfinished should be treated as reference to finished and complete article if the article is having essential character of complete or finished article - Since the goods were complete when they were received by assessee, the question of application on Chapter Note-6 of Section XVI does not arise - Goods in question were covered by CBEC Circular - Therefore, the SCN or seizure of 940 numbers of Online UPS not sustainable: CESTAT - Revenue's appeal rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1834-CESTAT-DEL

Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

CX- The assessee is a supplier & manufacturer of auto parts - It availed cenvat credit of tax paid in respect of Industrial Construction and Architect for construction of factory building during the disputed period - The Revenue opined that the services were not eligible for cenvat credit as they fell outside the purview of definition of input under Rule 2 (l) of CCR - SCN was issued by invoking longer period of limitation and upheld on grounds that the details of the credit availed on services was not mentioned in the returns - Further, invoices were not submitted with the returns.

Held - The assessee have duly filed returns declaring the quantum of credit availed by them - The SCN was issued much later and no action was taken by the Revenue for a period of 2-3 years - There has been no action on the part of the assessee to suppress material facts from the Revenue - Therefore, extended period is not invokable - Hence, the order in challenge is set aside : CESTAT (Para 2, 6, 7, 8, 9) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT