2018-TIOL-2128-CESTAT-BANG

Net Pro Active Services Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - Assessee is alleged to have been engaged in business of taxable services falling under category of 'Consulting Engineer' - It was alleged that they have not paid service tax for the year 2000-01 and have short-paid service tax during the period 2001-02 - Whether the assessee being a body corporate is liable to pay duty as Chartered Engineer prior to the period 1.5.2006 - It is very clear from the definition that the assessee is liable to pay service tax as a 'Consulting Engineer' only post 30.4.2006 whereas the demand pertains to the period 2000-01 and 2001-02 - Issue is squarely settled by decision of High Court of Karnataka in case of Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-498-HC-KAR-ST - The assessee is within their rights to raise their issue as held by Supreme Court in case of Ramdev Tobacco Company - Moreover, the question of law being squarely settled by the decision of the Karnataka High Court, remanding back the case to the original adjudicating authority at this juncture would not serve any purpose other than prolonging the litigation on a squarely settled matter - Therefore, appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2127-CESTAT-MAD

Salem Starch and Sago Manufacturers Service Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee is a co-perative society engaged in manufacture of starch and sago - The sale of starch & sago used to take place by tendering - The Department opined that assessee was liable to discharge service tax liability on storage and warehousing services and they fall within the ambit of "auction" - However, the assessee contended that the activity carried out by the assessee cannot be brought within the fold of "Auction of property service" - SCNs were issued demanding service tax and the Commr. (A) upheld the orders of original authorities.

Held: The conclusion drawn by Revenue that the definition of "auction" and "tender" are similar is incorrect - While both sale by tender and sale by auction may have a common intent of selling the goods, the modalities and the processes involved in each are different - An auction is a live process where all prospective bidders are present at the same time and where the system is transparent enough for each bidder to be aware of the bids put forth by others - Whereas, the "tendering process" does not allow all prospective bidders to know of the bids made by others - The auction process will normally get culminated only when there are no more bids made for the goods auctioned - In respect of tenders, there is only one bid that each bidder can make, the tendering process will be completed at the end of the appointed time and date and, only bids received till that cut off point will be considered for evaluation - Relying on ratio laid down by SC in Puxomoma Ramanata Quenin vs. Makan Kalyan Tandel And Ors. and on Gulab Singh vs. Chandrapal Singh and Ors. the order challenged is set aside: CESTAT (Para 1, 5, 6) - Appeal Allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2126-CESTAT-MUM

Vinod Agencies Vs CCE

Cus - Revenue seeks to reject the declared value of "Ghana Sawn Teak" relying on the price published in the Directorate General of Valuation data of "Sawn Wood" and that of Cameroon/Malaysian origin - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Neither description of goods nor the country of origin matches and in these circumstances, rejection of declared price cannot be sustained - moreover, appellant has shown that at the material time, similar goods i.e. teak of Ghana origin, in various forms was being assessed at US $ 201-205/CBM and appellant had filed bill of entry at declared value of US $ 225/CBM - no merits in the impugned order, hence same is set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 4] - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs UoI

GST - The petitioners were arrested for alleged involvement in generating & selling fake tax invoices to various entities without supply of any goods - They allegedly facilitated irregular availment & utilization of input tax credit by such entities - Investigations revealed that five fake companies were being run by a group of persons, including the petitioners herein - Summons were issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 174(2) - It was further revealed that various companies were controlled by them had passed on fake input GST credit to the tune of Rs 27 crores and Rs 12 crores respectively to the recipient entities - Thereafter the Additional Director General had opined that the petitioners committed the offences stipulated u/s 132 sub-section (1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act - Also that the petitioners evaded payment of tax in excess of Rs 500 lakhs & which is an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to five years and with fine u/s 69 of the CGST Act - Hence the petitioners were arrested - The petitioners herein are aggrived by orders passed by the Addl CJM, turning down their application for bail.

Held - It is settled law that grant of bail is a rule & rejection of bail is an exception - From the date of arrest, the investigation has to be concluded within 60 days as per Section 167(2) of the CrPC - The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considerd as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country - Grant of bail is subject to consideration of several factors such as the nature of evidence, severity of the punishment, character of the accused, reasonable apprehension of witness tampering & reasonable apprehension of the State - However, considering the evidence collected so far and also the compounding nature of the offence, the petitioners be released on bail - The same is subject to furnishing of bond of Rs 50,00,000/- each & condition to deposit of Rs 39 crores to the Government Exchequer: HC (Para 1-8,32,33) - Bail application allowed : CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

GST - the petitioner is a dealer in Marble & Granite - It supplied a consignment to another dealer - However, the goods were intercepted & detained - SCN was served u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act which was followed by raising of duty demands with imposition of penalty - The petitioner paid the penalty in the GST portal u/s 49 of the Act - When it sought release of the goods, the Department insisted that the payment ought to have been made in cash or by demand draft - Hence the present writ.

Held - the Department's insistence that the petitioner should pay the amount either in cash or through demand draft is unsustainable - The payment of penalty to the GST portal is eminently sustainable - Hence the Department is directed to release the goods upon receipt of proof of payment: HC (Para 1,2,14) - Writ Petition Allowed : KERALA HIGH COURT