ST- The assessee- Bank is engaged in purchase and sale of foreign currency for the customers as wellas merchant & proprietary trading - The merchant trading, service charges are recovered from the customers on which service tax was paid - The bank earned profit on difference of exchange rate of the purchase and sale of foreign currency & the service tax was deposited on the profit - With regard to proprietary transactions, the Bank entered into interbank activity of sale and purchase of foreign currency for the purpose of trading only, but on the assumption that buying or selling rates of foreign currency may fluctuate - The buyer or seller in such transactions were scheduled bank only - Thus, a service charge at the rate of Rs.100/- per transaction irrespective of purchase transaction or sale transaction was levied - A consolidated invoice for purchase/sale of currency on monthly basis was issued to a particular Bank - The Revenue took a view that service tax was short paid on part of assesseen & Bank discharged Service Tax liability against the value of taxable services received by them - Duty demand was raised - The Commr. (A) deleted the penalty and Banks duly discharged service tax on grounds of consideration shown in the invoice raised to various scheduled Banks in respect of such transactions.

Held - The issue at hand was whether law permits different service tax liability of the banks in case of its transaction with a merchant or with another scheduled bank - The answer to this is in affirmative - The consolidated invoice shows the amount of consideration on which Service Tax has been paid - CBEC in their Circular has given a clarification to accept the consolidated invoice for purposes of levy of Service Tax - Therefore, the assessee falls under the benefit of this circular - Hence, the order challenged is upheld : CESTAT (Para 2, 10, 11, 12, 13) - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI CESTAT

ST - The assessee is providing various services including banking and other financial services - During audit, it was noticed that assessee has rendered non–binding investment advisory service to its holding company i.e. M/s IHM - The department was of the opinion that assessee had rendered services in nature of "Real Estate Advisory Servicers" which were liable to payment of Service Tax under Real Estate Agent Service under Section 65 (88) of FA, 1994 - The assessee also employed expatriates who are experts in area of investment advisory and such expatriates were provided by their principal (IHM) - Department views that assessee has supplied manpower to its principal and said service is liable to Service Tax under Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency Service - Upon perusal of Advisory Service Agreement between the assessee and its holding company, i.e., IHM, it is seen that assessee is required to render investment advisory services in connection with investment opportunities in India - It is clear that such services have been rendered relating to various companies engaged in business of real estate - The scope of agreement does not cover such advisory services in connection with any piece of real estate - Consequently, activities rendered will not be covered within definition of Real Estate Advisory Servicers - The case laws in 2015-TIOL-1718-CESTAT-MUM , 2016-TIOL-40-CESTAT-MUM , 2013-TIOL-2029-CESTAT-MUM and 2015-TIOL-1001-CESTAT-MUM not only support the view canvassed by assessee but also have held that such activities will be in the nature of export despite the fact that the contract companies are in India - Demand of Service-Tax under Real Estate Agent Service is not justified, and hence, is set aside.

As regards to demand of Service-Tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, Tribunal have seen some of the payment letters issued by assessee to the expatriates which make it clear that such expatriates will be employees of assessee during the period of their assignments to assessee - Further, Income-Tax returns filed by expatriates clearly shows the assessee as their employer and Income-Tax has also been paid for amounts received by expatriates in India, under the category of salary - There can be no levy of Service-Tax under category of manpower supply since the expatriates were enjoying the employee-employer relationship with the assessee: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-2201-CESTAT-HYD

CUSTOMS

CIRCULARS

cuscir22-2018

Refund of IGST on export of goods on payment of duty-Clarification in case of SB003 errors and extension of date in SB005 & other cases using officer Interface for rectification of errors

cuscir21-2018

Refund of IGST on export of Goods on payment of duty-Setting up of Help Desks

CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-1390-HC-MUM-CUS + Case Story

Taj Agro Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Import of Yellow Peas - Transitional arrangement which has been clarified by the trade notice does not contravene the substantive provisions of the notification or section 3 of the FTDR Act - There was never any intent, therefore, to allow any quantity to be imported exceeding one lakh metric ton - possibly some vested interests have been able to persuade the Regional Authorities to seek a clarification resulting in issuance of a circular dated 9th May, 2018 - Trade Notice is nothing but a clarification issued during the implementation of the Notification dated 25th April, 2018 - Petitions dismissed: High Court [para 37, 38, 39, 44] - Petitions dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-2197-CESTAT-DEL

Whether proceedings initiated u/s 16(1) of TNGST Act for reopening of completed assessment, is not valid, in case the factum of sales/purchase suppression was not proved by the Department - YES: HC -Revenue's petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

Whether in case of cancellation of the registration, the FAA has powers to direct a dealer to furnish security u/s 28 of the Gujarat VAT Act - NO: HC - Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT