ST - Assessee, an IATA accredited air travel agent is registered with Service Tax Department under category of 'Air Travel Agent' service - They had received income by way of incentive from M/s.Galileo India Pvt. Ltd. for use of 'Computer Reservation System-Galileo Software' in their business for Centralized Reservation Centre system - It appeared to the department that said income is subject to levy of service tax under BAS and SCN was issued proposing to recover the same along with interest and for imposing penalty - The period involved is from 2004-05 to 2007-08 - The SCN is dated 16.9.2008 - The issue whether the assessee is liable to service tax for use of AMADEUS software has been settled by decision of Tribunal in case of D. Pauls Consumer Benefit 2017-TIOL-908-CESTAT-DEL - Following the same, the levy of service tax does not require interference - However, on perusal of records, there is no iota of evidence adduced by department to establish that assessee has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - Assessee has put forward reasonable cause for not discharging the service tax - Therefore, penalty invoking section 80 of FA, 1994 waived - Impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalties without disturbing the demand of service tax or interest thereon: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST- The assessee filed claim for refund - Under Notification No 9/2009-ST an assessee situated in SEZ area is eligible to avail the services provided to them by claiming of exemption or by claiming refund to the Service Tax paid by the service providers in respect of the Authorised operations in the SEZ area - The time limit was 6 months but this notification was superseded with another wherein time for filing the refund claims of the Service Tax paid has been extended to one year - However, the Revenue rejected refund claim on grounds that they were filed beyond the period of limitation as also on the ground that they were not required for authorized operations.

Held - All refund claims were decided after 1.3.2011 & on this date Notification No 17/2011-ST came into existence and superseded notification 9/2009-ST - Thus, the claims are not time-barred & well within time following the decision of APK Identification vs CCE, Noida - Hence, the case is remanded to the Revenue for de novo adjudication: CESTAT (Para 1, ,6, 7, 8, 9) - Appeals dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

ST - Assessee is in the field of advertising business - The assessee had taken service tax registration and had filed ST-3 returns - However, they have not included the value of services provided to three government organisations in their returns nor paid tax on them - It is their case that they did not pay the service tax as they were under impression that service tax was not payable on these services - They also produced the U.O. Note issued by Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to substantiate their view that they were under the general impression that tax was not payable which was credited by issuing the said O.M. - They argued that they have not collected any amount towards service tax and retained with them without paying to the Government - Tribunal is inclined to agree with assessee that there was a general feeling, though erroneously, that no service tax is payable on services rendered to Government department as is evident from U.O. note, a copy of which was also sent to Director General (Directorate of Service Tax), Mumbai and to the Commissioner of Customs & CE, Hyderabad - After this UO note was issued, assessee had no excuse not to add the value of services rendered to Government departments in their returns and pay service tax on the services rendered by them to the Government departments - They cannot plead ignorance after the UO note is issued, considering his original plea or ignorance is only based on what he learnt from the Government of Andhra Pradesh informally - After this date, the assessee should have declared the value of services rendered by them to the Government Department in their ST-3 returns and paid service tax on the same - By not doing so, they have suppressed the value of services rendered by them to the departments - Hence, the extended period of five years is invokable from this date as there was a clear suppression - Penalty under section 78 also gets modified and penalty under section 76 is set aside: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacturer of decorative high pressure laminates and plain particle boards - They availed Cenvat credit on various input services like 'Manpower Supply Service, Legal Service, Professional Service, Transportation Service - Duty demand was raised charging of 5% - 6% of the value of trading sales under Rule 6(3) & for inadmissible credit availed on 'Construction Service' used in the repair and maintenance work in the factory premises - The Commr.(A) rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal.

Held - In the present case, the nature of transaction instead of sale was stock transfer as the imported raw materials received against advance license were transferred to their other units - Therefore, Rule 6(3) is not applicable as it is a trading sale - The CA certificate also confirms the same - With respect to admissibility of credit on 'Construction Services' following the decision in the case of Ion Exchange India Ltd. vs. CCE & ST - The service tax paid on 'Construction Service' used for repair and maintenance work of plant and machinery is admissible to credit even after amendment to the definition of 'input services' - Therefore, the order is set aside: CESTAT (Para 2, 5, 6) - Appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CX - The assessee supplied MS pipes to local Government bodies - The Revenue noticed that assessee cleared electric resistant welded and spirally welded pipes without payment of duty - It cleared the subject goods to various projects of local Government bodies by availing exemption against certificated produced by the buyers from District Collector in terms of Notification No.06/2002-CE as amended vide Notification No.47/2002-CE - Furthermore, the Revenue took a view that work executed by the Delhi Jal Board, pipes were not used for delivery of water for use to water treatment plant, instead those were used to delivery water for the use of Sewage Treatment Plant at other location - Duty demand was raised - The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in the order-in-appeal & imposed penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Hence, the present appeal.

Held - The Tribunal is considering eligibility of the assessee to avail benefit of the notification - The assessee contended that generally local authorities keep the water supply department and drainage department together - However, the lower authorities concluded that the location of reservoir at Narela STP would fall outside the purview of exemption - This conclusion was not supported by the Revenue with cogent reasons - For the eligibility part, applying principles of interpretation settled by various decisions of the Apex Court that if any certificate is required to be issued, as a condition for availing the benefit under said notification and once such certificate is issued by the competent authority, the Revenue cannot go beyond such certificate and deny the benefit of exemption under the notification - Furthermore, eligibility criteria deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition may be given a liberal meaning - It is clear from certificate issued by the competent authority that the pipelines were laid from one storage point to another - Thereby, fulfilling conditions mentioned in Clause -1 of the relevant entry of the Notification - Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of duty: CESTAT (Para 1, 6, 7, 8) - Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2377-CESTAT-ALL

Deepak Bajaj Vs CC