SERVICE TAX
ST - Appellant has been appointed food grains Transport contractor from one place to another - appellant is engaged in transportation of food grains under the PDS (Public Distribution Scheme) and same are transported on direction of District Supply office and are under his control - there is no consignor and consignee in such case - during the transportation, appellant does not acquire any lien on the goods which is implicit in the issue of a consignment note - document issued by the District Supply officer conveying the goods transported cannot be construed as a consignment note to render the appellant to be a GTA - demand is not sustainable - Tribunal order in Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera 2016-TIOL-2566-CESTAT-MUM impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
ST - The assessee is an air travel agent & provides services of air travel ticket booking - For such operations, the assessee used centralized "Computer Reservation Systems" - On audit, it was noticed that apart from their regular business the assessee earned income by way of 'incentive' from another entity for use of CRS-Amadeus software in their business - They did not discharge service tax on the said incentive received by them - Duty demand was raised and later confirmed by Commr.(A).
Held - The answer to whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax on the incentives received for using Computer Reservation System is in affirmative, following the ratio laid down in D. Pauls Consumer Benefit Ltd. Vs. CCE - The assessee were under bona fide belief that the incentive received for using the CRS software does not attract service tax - Hence, the penalties imposed are deleted while the duty demand & interest are upheld: CESTAT (Para 2, ,8, 9, 10) - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
ST - Assessee is registered under category of Transport of Goods by Road and various other services - They were not discharging service tax under category of 'Renting of Immovable Property Services' - Demand confirmed along with interest and penalty under section 78 was also imposed - An option to pay reduced penalty of 25% was also given - Assessee is not contesting the demand of service tax or the interest thereon - The issue whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax under category of renting of immovable property on the tank storage agreement was an interpretational issue - Assessee was under bonafide belief that such storage charges would not amount to renting of immovable property services - Imposition of penalty is unwarranted - Further, it is seen that assessee had discharged substantial part of service tax much prior to the issuance of SCN - In these circumstances, penalty is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1305-HC-MAD-CX + Case Story
Swathy Industry Vs CCE
CX - Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion - appeal against O-in-O dated 27.02.2009 was dismissed at all levels and so also were the review and curative petitions by the Supreme Court on 18.02.2016 and 12.01.2017 respectively - Petitioner has not made out any case for exercise of discretion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in their favour to maintain such a belated challenge to the Order-in-Original - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 12, 13] - Petition dismissed
: MADRAS HIGH COURT
CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of PP bags and it has been alleged that they have not paid central excise duty on additional consideration of sales tax collected from the buyers and retained by them to the extent of sales tax liability, actually not paid to the State Exchequer and thereby appeared to have short paid central excise duty by contravening the provision of Section 4 of CEA, 1944 - Identical issue has come up before Tribunal in case of M/s Shree Cement Limited 2018–TIOL–48–CESTAT–DEL wherein it was held that there is no justification for inclusion in assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans - Following the said order, impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT
CX - CENVAT - Goods cleared to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under exemption - applicability of rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - Revenue in appeal.
Held : By no stretch can supply to SEZ be deemed to be exempted - Notification 50/2008-CE(NT) dated 31.12.2008 incorporating supplies to developers of Special Economic Zone in rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004 is retrospective - no cause for reversal of credit/payment under rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004 - Revenue appeal lacks merit, hence dismissed: CESTAT [para 5 to 8] - Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods - On the basis of investigation, SCNs were issued alleging that without receipt of input steel materials, credit had been erroneously availed by assessee, hence the same was proposed to be recovered with interest and penalty from assessee company; and personal penalty on other noticees - It is the claim of assessee that finished goods viz., Filters and Heat Exchangers are subjected to strict control of technical test being supplied to public sector undertakings, therefore, allegation of non-receipt of input materials in their factory is unfounded and the conclusion arrival by lower authorities mainly on the basis of statements of transporters who were not subjected to cross examination is unsustainable - It is their contention that there was violation of principles of natural justice in view of the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd 2015-TIOL-121-SC-CX - Statements which are challenged by assessee required to be subjected to cross examination in view of principles laid down in aforesaid case - Also, the SCN being issued by DGCEI, who has no jurisdiction to issue the notice during relevant period as held in Mangli Impex Ltd' s case and the said issue being contested by assessee, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, as has been directed in similar cases - Impugned order set aside: CESTAT - Matter remanded : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
CUS- The assessee company is an STPI unit under 100% EOU scheme, engaged in operating private bonded warehouses - It was observed by the Revenue that assessee transferred the goods imported or procured duty-free without complying with the conditions under Notification No. 15/2003-Cus and CE Notification No.22/2003 - Duty demand was raised for recovery of duty and interest - However, when pointed out the assessee paid duty, the Commr.(Cus) did not confiscate the goods - Hence, the present appeal by Revenue.
Held - As a show-cause notice proposing confiscation is absent, the recovery of duty in itself is contentious - Therefore penalty imposed & confiscation of goods are unsustainable: CESTAT (Para 1,5) - Revenue's appeal dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT
|
