Rajarathnams Jewels

Mere deposit of diamond with safe vaults acknowledged by Electronic Vault Receipts (EVR) does not constitute a supply of diamonds for the purpose of levy of GST: AAR

Conversion of Electronic Vault Receipts representing the diamonds held in the Vaults to e-Units would constitute a supply of diamonds liable to tax under the Goods and Service Tax Act: AAR

E-Units are securities under the clause (101) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and hence transactions in e-Units would remain out of the scope of levy of tax under Goods and Services Tax Act: AAR

Derivative contracts in e-Units and settlement thereof would be treated as transactions in securities in case it involves only e-Units without any involvement of physical diamonds and thereby would remain out of the scope of levy under GST: AAR

Conversion of e-Units into diamonds would constitute a supply of diamonds liable to tax under the Goods and Services Tax Act: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

Indian Security Guard Services Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act - The assessee had deposited Rs.11,75,872/- before the issuance of SCN - Further, it is admitted fact that the tax short paid is part of admitted tax not deposited as per ST-3 returns, filed by assessee though belatedly - Assessee has taken care to deposit the tax in arrears before passing of adjudication order - The assessee further states that they have deposited the amount of interest payable for late payment of tax - Under these facts and circumstances, there is no matter of contumacious conduct, suppression of facts from revenue or false statement of account, is made out against assessee - In view of declaration made in return filed before issuance of SCN by assessee, there is no suppression of facts or falsification statement of account (s) is made out - Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 77 & 78 of the Act set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

Vision Pro Event Management Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is engaged in rendering "Event Management Service" - During audit, it was noticed that the assessee had rendered service to some SEZ Unit and claimed exemption under Notfn 4/2004-ST and had not discharged service tax on the value of services realized by them - It appeared that the assessee is not eligible to avail the exemption under the said notfn - The intention of notfn as well as Section 26 of SEZ Act, is to exempt the taxes/duties payable on goods and services provided to SEZ unit/developer, the supply of goods and services to SEZ being deemed exports - The assessee provided event management services to SEZ unit - The SEZ unit was a co-sponsor for event which helped advertising of product of SEZ - The event was held outside the SEZ unit - Even if the event is held outside, since the services were for advertisement of product of SEZ, the services provided is to be considered as consumed within SEZ - It also needs to be mentioned that for availing the services, SEZ has to get these services approved by Development Commissioner - The department then cannot contend that these services are not eligible for refund since these are not consumed within SEZ - Denial of benefit is unjustified: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATIONS

cuscir25-2018

Standard operating procedures for discharge of bonds executed by nominated agencies/ banks under Notification no. 57/2000-Customs dated 08.05.2000

dgft18not024

Govt amends FTP - IEC necessary for exports of service only if FTP benefits are claimed

dgft18pn027

Amendment in Para 2.08 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015-2020

Trade Notice 23

FTP amended to issue auto-generated e-IEC; to be sent only on email or by sms

CASE LAWS

Ajay Kumar Gupta Broker Vs CC

Cus - the Department received an intelligence input that huge quantity of pulses & lentils were exported to Nepal - Export of the same is prohibited vide DGFT Notification No.15 (RE–2006)/2004–09 dated 27/06/2006 - Departmental enquiries led them to the assessee who was engaged as a commission agent - His statements led the Department to other suppliers of pulses - It appeared to the Department that the appellant & other suppliers were supporting the supply of pulses to Nepal by way of managing the records of sale - Hence duty demands with penalties were fastened on the appellant & the other suppliers.

Held - It is nowhere on record that either the dal mill owners or brokers or suppliers have indulged in activity amounting to smuggling - None of the persons carried the pulses for the purpose of smuggling in any Customs area or near the border proximity thereof - The pulses were admittedly dispatched to a place in India and the same ultimately reached a place in India - There is no allegation that post delivery of pulses to a dealer located near the Indo-Nepal Border within India, contravened the provisions of the Customs Act - The entire case is based on presumptions and assumptions and is not backed by any corroborative evidence - As suspicions, however strong, cannot supplant valid evidence, the demands are unsustainable: CESTAT (Para 2-8, 12)

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-2444-CESTAT-KOL

Aman Exports Vs CC

Cus - The assessee imported some goods & filed bills of entry - The adjudicating authority enhanced their value based on data sourced from NIDB - Provisional release was allowed of the goods lying in port for want of Customs clearance - Later, the consignment was inspected by the Revenue on the specific information that the imported goods value needs to be further enhanced to the extent of value mentioned in the adjudication order.

Held - Appeal could not be taken up for final hearing unless and until the evidence of the estimated price per piece is submitted to the importer or before the Bench by the Revenue - Bank guarantee be reduced & bond be executed for full value of goods - Then the goods may be released: CESTAT (Para 3,7,8)

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT