SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1969-CESTAT-MAD
Super Quality Services Vs CCE
ST - Assessee engaged in Technical Inspection and Certification Service - Revenue entertained a view that they have not included value of X-ray films and certain charges claiming that these are exempted by virtue of Notfn 12/2003-ST - The lower authorities confirmed that these charges should form part of taxable value - Invoices though show the film as well as certain unit charges, there is no evidence of sale of the films to the client - The claim of assessee that charges for film shown separately should satisfy the condition of Notfn 12/2003 is not tenable - In the absence of any evidence to show that there were sale of goods in provision of service, Notfn 12/2003 cannot be applied - Similarly, claim of reimbursable expenses on travel and stay of staff during the course of rendering service cannot be accepted on the face value as the invoices only show unit charges - There is no evidence on either pre-arrangement or accepted reimbursable expenses with separate documents for such expenditure - As such, no interfere required with the findings of lower authorities.
Regarding limitation, there were two SCNs invoking extended period - Second notice cannot invoke the extended period as the issue of tax liability and valuation should have been examined comprehensively when the matter was investigated by the officers when recording in the first notice - Accordingly, the extended period of limitation involved in the second notice is not sustainable-agreeing with the assessee that the issue of valuation is taken from the documents and invoices maintained by assessee and there is no case for deliberate suppression of material facts, Accordingly, penalty also is not liable to be sustained: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1968-CESTAT-MUM
Satish Kumar and Company Vs CCE
ST - Appellant received rent in respect of specially designed trucks rented to Jaika Automobiles & Finance Pvt. Ltd. - Case of department is that service tax is payable under the category of ‘Supply of Tangible Goods services', demand confirmed, hence appeal to CESTAT.
Held: As per the facts which are not in dispute, appellant have given trucks to the lessees on monthly rental charges - appellant did not provide any facility such as driver, repair and maintenance, fuel etc. - Once the truck is rented out, the entire possession and control is of the lessees and during the renting period, there is no interference by the appellant - since during the lease period, the right of possession of truck and effective control have been transferred to service recipient, therefore, service does not fall under "SOTG" service; demand does not sustain - moreover, SCN main body does not make any allegation that the appellant have suppressed facts or committed fraud etc. for which the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked - demand is time barred - appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 3, 4] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
CIRCULAR
Cir_1066
Non-Initiation/Delay in Recovery Proceedings- Audit Report No.3 of 2017 and Audit Report No.41 of 2016 of C&AG of India (Indirect Taxes - Central Excise and Service Tax) CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-1966-CESTAT-MAD
CCE Vs Aeons Constructions Products Ltd
CX - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order passed by Commissioner (A) who held the classification of impugned goods namely Building Blocks, solid and hollow pavers made of cement/concrete under CTH 68101190 of CETA, 1985 - Department submitted that the authorities below have erred in classifying the building blocks made out of cement under CTH 68101190 - The main purpose of use of these is "pavers" are for sophistication and decoration - Assessee have sought classification of building blocks which are used as pavers to be under 68101190 in order to avail concessional rate of duty under Notfn 10/2003 - He argued that said exemption is limited to hollow cement building block which are used for building and not for sophistication and decoration which common people will not do - Classification of impugned products manufactured by assessee has been held to be under 68101190 against classification alleged by department to be under 68109990 - Impugned order does not call for any interference: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1965-CESTAT-MUM
Bhushan Steel Ltd Vs CCE
CX - CENVAT - contention of Revenue is that CHA service is availed beyond the place of removal i.e. after clearance of the goods from the factory and, therefore, credit is not admissible - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: In case of export of goods, the ownership of the goods remained with the exporter till it is cleared for export from port of export, therefore, in case of export, port of export is the place of removal - CHA service which is used for export of goods is well within the place of removal, hence credit is admissible - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-1964-CESTAT-DEL
Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Dispute relates to inputs such as steel coils procured by assessee and cenvat credit availed thereon under CCR, 2004 - Part of inputs were cleared as such and sometimes after slitting - At the time of such clearance, assessee claims to have reversed the cenvat credit availed on such inputs as required under Rule 3(5) - Revenue has taken the view that activity amounts to trading, which has been specified as exempted service w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - Hence, Revenue has demanded reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(i) and for raising such demand they have included both the value of goods cleared as well as value of exempted services i.e. trading - Assessee has taken out registration as a dealer w.e.f. 14.11.2013 - After such date, procurement of inputs and clearance of same on reversal of cenvat credit is to be considered as an activity of trading and all consequences of specifying trading as an exempted service (w.e.f. 01.04.2011) will follow - Rule 6(3)(i) has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2015 providing for reversal of 7% of value of exempted service - The period involved in present case is from July, 2011 to March, 2016 - Hence, for the period prior to 01.04.2015 there is no requirement under Rule 6(3)(i) for any reversal of credit of input services availed for clearance of input as such - It has been submitted that on the value of inputs cleared as such, the reversal on value of goods as required under 3(5) has already been made - However, this aspect needs to be verified inasmuch as no details have been given on such reversed - In respect of reversal of credit of input services, for the period subsequent to 01.04.2015, it is the submission of assessee that proportionate credit reversal for input services has already been made even though the requirement of exercising an option as required under Rule 6(3A) has not been done by assessee - The failure to exercise option is only a procedural requirement and may be overlooked since proportionate reversal of input services has already been made.
During the period of dispute, second issue is regarding clearance of waste and scrap in form of floor sweeping as well as discarded packing material - Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1646-CESTAT-CHD , wherein it has been held that the scrap of packing material cannot be said to have arisen during course of manufacture of final products - Consequently, mischief of Rule 6(3) will not be attracted and demand for reversal of cenvat credit set aside on this ground - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for purposes of verification and satisfaction of correctness of the amount of reversal carried out on inputs as per Rule 3(5) as well as proportionate reversal of value of input services which is required as observed above, w.e.f. 01.04.2015: CESTAT - Appeals disposed of : DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
ctariffadd18_034
Anti-dumping duty on new/unused Pneumatic Radial tyres imported from PR China - pending outcome of review by designated authority, provisional assessment ordered in respect of imports made by M/s Shandong Haohua Tire Co. Ltd. (Haohua) (Producer) through Guangzhou Exceed Industrial Technology Co. Ltd. (exporter) or H K Trade Wing Trading Ltd (exporter)
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-1967-CESTAT-MUM
CC Vs Mahavir Roads and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against allowing exemption to goods imported by respondent in terms of notification 21/2002-Cus, Sr. no. 230; that Commissioner(A) had wrongly interpreted notification 21/2002-Cus by construing that "Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority" is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government.
Held: Issue has been decided in the case of Shreeji Construction - 2013-TIOL-441-CESTAT-MUM and where it has been held that to equate MMRDA with a road construction corporation would be an insult, both to the common sense and to the said organisation, especially when one considers the vast and the varied nature of the activities undertaken by the said authority; that prior to 2012 the benefit of customs duty exemption on road construction equipment was not available in cases where the contract for such construction was awarded by a Metropolitan Development Authority - following the same, it is apparent that contracts awarded by MMRDA do not qualify for the exemption - Revenue appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
|
