SERVICE TAX

2018-TIOL-2079-CESTAT-BANG

Jayanthi Rubbers Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is manufacturer of rubberized coir products and other moulded rubber products - They are also undertaking rubber backing and rubber edging of polypropylene carpets on job work basis for M/s. Kerafibretex as per agreement - As per O-I-O, the activity of production of goods on behalf of client rendered by assessee was held to be a taxable service within the ambit of BAS as defined under Section 65(19) of FA, 1994 - Whether the activity carried out by assessee amounts to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - Assessee is undertaking work of rubber backing and edging and also using the polypropylene sheet supplied by principal-manufacturer which amounts to manufacture of rubber mats - Further, assessee is paying VAT on the product - Further, clarification issued by Government vide letter dated 12.5.2005 clearly shows that service tax is not applicable if activity amounts to manufacture - Demand of service tax is not sustainable in law and therefore same is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2078-CESTAT-AHM

Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - Assessee had provided Repair & Maintenance Service of machineries and while providing the said services, they have also incurred certain expenditure which were reimbursed by service receivers - Considering these reimbursable expenses as part of value of taxable services, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of service tax along with interest and penalty - Issue of includibility of reimbursible expenses in gross taxable value of services provided under Rule 5 (1) of Service Tax Valuation Rules has been considered by Supreme Court recently and held that such expenses reimbursed by service receivers cannot be included in gross taxable value of service provided - In the result, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2077-CESTAT-DEL

Hotel Sonia Pvt Ltd Vs Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

ST - The assessee was providing services viz. Short term accommodation, restaurants service and banquets service - A team of Central Excise officers had visited the premises of assessee and difference was noticed in receipts shown in balance sheet and taxable value shown in ST-3 returns - Demand confirmed alongwith interest and penalty - Assessee is not pressing the issue of imposing of penalty under Section 73(3) of finance Act - So far as cum- tax benefits are concerned, assessee submitted that although they have filed the relevant documents before adjudicating authority but by mistake they mentioned it under the heading "Miscellaneous receipt" and not under that particular head - Since assessee have already deposited the substantial amount towards their service tax liability which has not been disputed by revenue and since now the only issue involved is about the service tax liability qua the Mandap Keeper and swimming pool service therefore, in the interest of justice, matter remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of reworking the demand, after hearing the assessee, confining to the issue of Mandap keeper and swimming pool service, after adjusting the amount already paid by assessee towards service tax, interest and penalty respectively: CESTAT - Matter remanded : DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-2076-CESTAT-DEL

CCE Vs Kailash Printing Press

CX- The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of security printing and customized printing, of articles of paper and paper board, registers, receipt books, pre-printed stationary, bank pass book, book covers, envelops, cards, calendars - The Revenue was of the view that assessee was not paying duty on dutiable goods - Duty demand was raised with penalty - The Commr. (A) deleted the penalty as well as reduced the demand - The assessee approached the Tribunal against the demand as well as challenged the classification - Held - The Tribunal is in concurrence with the view of Revenue that assessee were not paying duty on items such as pre-printed stationary for banks like pass books, withdrawal form, registers, pay slips - These goods stand classified under CTH 48.20 - Therefore, the order-in-appeal is upheld :CESTAT (Para 1, 7) - Appeals Dismissed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2075-CESTAT-DEL

Larsen and Toubro Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee has filed various refund claims for refund of central excise duty claiming that as per Government of India's exemption Notfn 15/2010, they were entitled for duty free clearances of various products like prime movers, instruments, apparatus and appliances, control gear and transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment and components which are required for initial setting up of a solar power generation plant - Same was rejected because of certain short comings found in refund claims filed by them - Commissioner (A) is right in dismissing the appeal of assessee as necessary documents, which have been ordered by Commissioner (A) to be presented before Adjudicating Authority for consideration of refund claims were not submitted by assessee and, therefore, the appeal before this Tribunal appears to be pre-mature and deserve to be rejected with direction that Original Adjudicating Authority will undertake a fresh denovo adjudication after the assessee provides him with documents: CESTAT - Matter remanded : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2074-CESTAT-DEL

Bigesto Technologies Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of CTVs Under a scheme of State Government - ELCOT, an undertaking of Government of Tamil Nadu, was directed to distribute CTVs to general public free of cost and ELCOT invited tenders for procurement of such CTVs and the said tender was granted to a consortium of companies which included the assessee and M/s PG Electroplast Ltd. - The assessee was carrying out valuation of said CTVs under Section 4A of CEA, 1944 - However, according to Revenue, valuation under Section 4A of the Act is not proper and stated that the valuation should have been carried out as per provisions of Section 4 of the Act - Issue is squarely covered by decision in the matter of M/s PG Electroplast Ltd. 2014-TIOL-861-CESTAT-DEL - The said case involved M/s PG Electroplast Ltd., which is one of the partners in the consortium supplying CTVs to ELCOT and therein it was held that ELCOT is not an 'institutional consumer' or 'industrial consumer' in terms of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rule, 1977 whilst being engaged in the activity of distribution of CTVs to general public - It stated that the activity of free distribution of CTVs among poorer section of the population of Tamil Nadu on behalf of the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, cannot be called service industry as it is not a commercial activity thus they are not 'institutional consumers' and hence the valuation of goods was held to be correct under Section 4A of the Act - Impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-90-AAR-GST

JSW Energy Ltd

GST - the appellant company is engaged in the business of power generation - Its related party is Jindal Steel Limited (JSL) which is engaged in manufacturing & supplying steel - The appellant supplies power to M/s JSL - The two entered into an agreement for supply of coal & other inputs to the appellant for generating power - The appellant had approached the ARA seeking to know the application of GST on coal & other inputs supplied on job work basis by M/s JSL to the appellant ; supply of power by the appellant to M/s JSL & on the job work charges payable by M/s JSL - The ARA held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to maufacture & did not fall within the scope of 'treatment or process' as seen in the definition of job work - It ARA further held that sice the appellant and M/s JSL were related parties, any supplies made between them even if without consideration, would attract GST - Hence the present appeal - The appellant further claimed that the question of appliability of GST on coal & other inputs supplied by M/s JSL had not been answered - The appellant further claimed that such question was not answered based on the reasoning that the transaction pertained to GST liability of M/s JSL & not the appellant.

Held - The processing activity undertaken on goods belonging to another registered person qualifies as job work even if it amounts to manufacture, provided all the requirements under the CGST/MGST Act in this behalf are met with - The transaction betweenn the appellant & M/s JSL does not amount to job work u/s 2(68) & Section 143(3) of the two Acts: Appellate AAR - Application Disposed of : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING