SERVICE TAX

Shree Mangalam Vs CCE

ST - The assessee were engaged in providing taxable services - For the period in dispute, the assessee carried out job work for parent company as well as others - The nature of the job work was cutting of HR/MS Sheets - The assessee paid service tax liability on job work under Business Auxiliary Service services - The Revenue opined that tax was short paid and so duty demand was raised on commission & the amount of job charges received but tax not paid -

Held: As regards job work charges during the disputed period, the tax was paid by the assessee on receipt basis - In addition, commission & trade discount pertains to the activity of selling of the product from other entity and not related to job work - Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Revenue for fresh adjudication - The actual receipt of commission and the service tax payable will need to be verified: CESTAT (Para 4, 8, 9, 10) - Matter Remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1991-CESTAT-DEL

Ruchi Malls Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Assessee is a service provider and is duly registered with Service Tax Department for providing taxable services under category of maintenance or repair service, business support service and renting of immovable property service - During disputed period, assessee constructed the retail Mall at Ahmedabad and availed Cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on various input services used in construction of such Mall - Taking of Cenvat credit was disputed by department on the ground that as per the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, disputed services should not be considered as input service.

Held: Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 is the enabling provision, which entitles a service provider to take Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services for providing output service - Thus a service provider is eligible to take credit of service tax on input services; in terms of Rule 3 of rules - However, in view of embargo created in definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011, Cenvat credit is not permissible on disputed services, from such effective date - The assessee contended that the Cenvat credit was availed prior to 01.04.2011 - Since, assessee has taken the credit prior to 1.4.2011 and the Mall was also completed before 2011, as confirmed by assessee, denial of Cenvat benefit cannot be sustained - Tribunal in case of Navratna S.G. Highway Prop. Pvt. Ltd. 2012-TIOL-1245-CESTAT-AHM has held that the goods and services used for construction of warehouse, which is further used for providing the output service should be available for Cenvat benefit - djudicating authority has held that the Cenvat credit on disputed services has also been taken by assessee after the amendment of definition of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - The assessee that the entire credit was availed prior to such date of amendment - Since, there is dispute about the period of taking Cenvat credit, matter remanded to original authority: CESTAT - Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1990-CESTAT-MUM

Rashmi Marketing Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - Demand was made against appellant pursuant to audit objection and same was paid immediately before issuance of SCN - since non-payment was detected from books of account, there is no element of suppression involved - when penalty has not been imposed on portion of demand on the ground that there is no suppression, in that case, it cannot be said that in respect of another portion, there had been suppression - either suppression can be alleged for the whole period or will not exist altogether - appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs CCG & ST

CX- The assessee is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker - The assessee availed subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme - Under this scheme the assessee got credit of certain subsidy on account of wages and loans subsidy which was credited to their account with Form VAT 37B challan which was used for discharge of sales tax liability - The Revenue opined that the subsidy availed is additional consideration - Duty demand was raised -

Held: The incentive is in the nature of subsidy which have been received from the State Government and therefore such subsidy cannot be considered as an additional consideration - This follows from the decision of assessee's own case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs CCE wherein cenvat credit was allowed relying on the ratio of M/s Shree Cement Ltd. vs. CCE - Therefore, the order-in-original is set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,2, 4, 5) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-80-AAR-GST

Inox India Pvt Ltd

AAR - the applicant company manufactured and supplies 'Cryo container', also known as Liquid Nitrogen Containers - These are used for transportation of liquefied nitrogen & storage of semen used in artificial insemination of animals & other purposes - The applicant seeks to know whether Cryo Container is classifiable under HSN 7613 00 19 covering ‘Aluminum container for compressed or liquefied gas' or under HSN 9617 00 12 which covers ‘Vacuum Flask and other vacuum Vessels, Complete with cases parts thereof other than glass inner'.

Held - the product in question is classifiable under HSN 9617 00 12 covering ‘Vacuum Flask and other vacuum Vessels, Complete with cases parts thereof other than glass inner': AAR - Application Disposed Off: AAR

2018-TIOL-81-AAR-GST

ALKA INDUSTRIES

AAR - the applicant company manufactures CI Casting - For this it purchases pig iron, scrap, molasses, coal, foundry minerals & sand - The cast articles are used in various industries - The applicant also manufactures bracket & clamp of cast iron - These are used for hanging wash basin, commodes and urinals - In view of such usage, the applicant sought to know whether the products are classifiable under Chapter Heading 7325 or 7308 or 7326 of the HSN or any other heading.

Held - The articles (brackets and clamps) manufactured by the applicant fall under Chapter Heading 7325, which covers “Other cast articles of iron or steel”: AAR - Application disposed off: AAR

2018-TIOL-79-AAR-GST

National Diary Development Board

GST - the applicant is a statutory body whose functions include promoting dairy and other agriculture based industries - In this regard, it provides technical, financial & managerial assistance - The applicant is also empowered to transfer the whole or part of its functions to any organization - It is also empowered to take up activities entrusted to it by the Central or State governments wherever its expertise is required - Besides, subject to approval of the Central Govt, the applicant can also participate in any organization, financially, managerially, or in any other manner - Hence the applicant sought to know whether in light of such tripartite agreements, any arrangement between itself and Unions would be considered as supply between ‘related persons' in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 - If yes, it further sought to know if it would be required to determine value of activities undertaken by it, as per Section 15(5) of CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Held - The transactions undertaken by the applicant & Unions in accordance with the agreements made by the applicant with State Governments are not to be considered as supply between ‘related persons' as per Schedule I of CGST Act, 2017 CGST Act r/w Section 15 of CGST Act and corresponding provisions under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: AAR - Application Disposed Off: AAR