SERVICE TAX

2018-TIOL-2047-CESTAT-MUM

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd Vs CGST

ST - Demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to the respective factory on the ground that the input service i.e. air travel agent service is not admissible as the service related to business activity is excludible from the definition of Input service w.e.f 01.04.2011 - demand confirmed u/r 14 of the CCR, 2004 - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 applies to the person who avails credit wrongly which is recoverable - appellant has not availed credit but have distributed the input service credit to their respective manufacturing units, who in turn, availed the credit - if at all the credit has to be denied, it can be denied at the end of the manufacturing unit which has availed the same - ISD does not fall u/r 14 of CCR as they neither avail CENVAT credit nor utilize the same for payment of any service tax/excise duty - denial of CENVAT credit and recovery thereof by invoking rule 14 of CCR, 2004 against ISD is without authority of law - demand is, therefore, not sustainable - following the ratio of the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-2364-CESTAT-MUM , impugned order set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2047-CESTAT-MUM

Pallavapuram Tambaram Msw Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - Appellant undertook Works Contract of construction of waste processing plant and disposal facility for Pallavapuram, Tambaram Municipalities - Appellant had filed a refund claim on the ground that they are exempt from payment of service tax as per clause 13(b) of Notification 25/2012-ST read with clause 29(h) of the same - refund claim rejected only on the ground that the same is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 11B of the CEA, 1944 - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Issue is no more res integra - in the case of Parijat Construction - 2017-TIOL-2170-HC-MUM-ST , Bombay High Court has held that provision of s.11B of CEA, 1944 would not be applicable as service tax was paid under a mistake of law - following the same, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6, 6.1] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2044-CESTAT-HYD

Value Labs LLP Vs CC, CE & ST

ST - Refund claim of assessee was parly rejected on the ground that some input goods or services cannot be deemed to be used for providing output services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules has a formula for sanction of refund of CENVAT credit when goods or services are exported - In this scheme, proportionate refund on CENVAT credit availed by assessee during particular period on input services or goods is available whether or not these goods and services are related to the exported output goods or services - Rule 5 of CENVAT credit Rules is not an instrument for the purpose - Therefore, matter remanded back to Deputy Commissioner to decide the refund amount applying the formula given in Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules: CESTAT - Matter remanded : HYDERABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-2045-CESTAT-AHM

Alcock Ashdown G Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The assessee at the time of import had paid 4% SAD in terms of Notfn 102/2007-CUS and on sale of the said goods claimed refund of 4% SAD paid - Analyzing the evidences on record, Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (A) rejected their refund claim on the ground that amount claimed as refund had been collected from buyers by passing the burden as is evident from the invoices - No contrary evidences rebutting the finding of Commissioner (A) had been advanced by assessee in the memo of appeal - In the result, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Lyophilization Systems India Pvt Ltd

GST - the applicant is engaged in manufacturing Lyophilizers machines - It is used in the drug & pharmaceutical industry for manufacture of vaccines - Although it is classifiable under Chapter heading 8419, the applicant seeks to know the rate of tax applicable on such machines as on November 15, 2017.

Held - Considering the provisions of Sr. No.320 to Schedule - III of the Notification No. 41/2017 dated November 14, 2017, it is held that the rate of tax leviable on supply of Lyophilizers falling under tariff heading 8419 of the GST tariff would be 9% CGST + 9% SGST: AAR - Appliation Disposed Of: AAR

2018-TIOL-86-AAR-GST

Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Ltd

GST - the applicant company manufactured Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) and Rectified spirits - It sought ruling on the issue as to whether HSN Code 2207 covers both 'denatured Ethyl alcohol and other spirits' (Not fit for human consumption) and also 'Un-denatured alcohol' (Fit for human consumption) - The applicant also sought to know whether Un-denatured ethyl alcohol of any strength of percentage or higher by volume i.e., ENA/RS being sold by it for human consumption to State Distilleries & Manufacturers, in turn who is making liquor for human consumption shall be covered under GST - It also sought to know whether it is within the purview of GST & if so what would be the rate of tax applicable on it - Lastly, the applicant sought to know if Un-denatured alcohol is not under purview of GST, then whether input tax credit was available on the input items used.

Held - the issue of 'Taxation of Rectified Spirit & Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) under GST' is one of the agenda points placed before GST council for deliberation in the 20th meeting of the GST council held on August 05, 2017 - The decision on the 'applicability of GST on ENA' is pending before GST council and even in the 27th GST council meeting held on May 04, 2018 it was decided to defer the agenda point on the 'applicability of GST on ENA' - Since the issue raised by the applicant is pending before GST Council for a decision then Advance Ruling the issues raised cannot be given: AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR

2018-TIOL-85-AAR-GST

Manjira Machine Builders (P) Ltd

GST - The applicant supplied some goods to DRDO labortories, Satish Dhawan Space Centre and the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre - The applicant sought to know whether the concessional tax rate @ 5% as given under Notification No. 47/2017 dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST or also applicable for sales within the state i.e., on SGST & CGST - If so, whether input tax credit could be availed on raw materials used for such supplies made.

Held - The concessional rate of tax @ 5% as given under Notification No.47/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST and concessional rate of tax @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST is applicable for Intrastate supplies as per Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 - Further the concessional rate of tax @ 5% as given under Notification No.47/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST and concessional rate of tax @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST is applicable for Intrastate supplies as per Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017: AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR

2018-TIOL-1229-HC-MAD-VAT

Whether an assessment order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing contravenes the principles of natural justice & must be set aside - YES: HC - Case remanded : MADRAS HIGH COURT