SERVICE TAX

2018-TIOL-2244-CESTAT-ALL

Lml Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST

ST - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of two wheelers and was having Service Tax Registration with Revenue under various categories as they were receiving various services from foreign and were liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis - There was doubt about certain expenses incurred by assessee in respect of services received from foreign countries, which the Revenue viewed as liable to service tax - Accordingly proceedings were initiated against assessee for confirmation of demand along with interest and imposition of penalty - There are many different aspects of expenses involved - In some of the expenses, assessee has taken a categorical stand that the same were for purchase of foreign currency required for the foreign travel of assessee's personnel - The Adjudicating Authority has held that personnel may include the employees of foreign company and hence it may be includable in the value of taxable services falling under category of consulting engineering services - There is no definite finding by Adjudicating Authority as the use of expression 'may' itself shows the doubtful mind of Adjudicating Authority - For confirmation of tax against assessee, Adjudicating Authority was under a legal obligation to come to a firm finding of said expenses having been incurred in respect of foreign company employees - Similarly, in respect of an amount paid to the foreign company for import of parts, Adjudicating Authority has observed that since the assessee was also importing services from said foreign person, the expenses may form part of taxable services received from foreign company and hence may be includable in value of taxable services - Similarly, in respect of other expenses incurred by assessee towards cash paid to acquire certification by foreign Government, assessee have contended that such payment being statutory fee and statutory levy cannot be held to be the amount paid to foreign services provider - Impugned order is a cryptic order without analyzing each and every aspect of duly disputed issues - As such, matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving a detailed finding on the factual as also legal aspects: CESTAT - Revenue's appeal rejected : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2243-CESTAT-BANG

Prashanthi Vs CST

ST - In the present case, the assessee filed rectification application - The assessee filed an appeal which was disposed off in Final Order No.23254/2017 stating that the Proprietor passed away in 2015 and copy of death certificate was enclosed herewith - The SCN was issued to RMS, assessee-company but served to proprietor's-wife - However, in the Final order it is mentioned that the proprietor died during the pendency of the appeal but this is incorrect - The proprietor died much before the issuance of SCN - The Revenue has also filed rectification application.

Held: As per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, on the death of the assessee appeal shall abate unless an application is made for continuation of such proceedings by or against the successor in interest, executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representatives of the assessee - Moreover, the widow of the proprietor is not contesting the appeal on merit but only filed the appeal because the SCN has been served on her demanding the duty against the dead proprietor - The proprietor died before the issuance of SCN - Therefore, the application of the widow is allowed and Revenue's application is dismissed: CESTAT (Para 2, 5, 6) - Revenue's Application Dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT

CUSTOMS