|
SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-2664-CESTAT-ALL
Piem Hotels Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is engaged in 'Hospitality Services' and discharging their Service Tax liability after availing Cenvat credit paid on various services utilized by them in providing of output services - Out of total demand, majority of demand to the extent of Rs.1,01,35,565.00 stand confirmed against assessee on the findings that they have availed Cenvat Credit to the extent of 100% on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. IHCL providing services under category of "Management Consultancy Service" - In case of Piem Hotels Ltd. 2016-TIOL-788-CESTAT-MUM , the service recipient from the same service provider i.e. M/s.IHCL was held entitled to 100% credit of Service Tax by holding that the services provided by M/s.IHCL were nothing but "Management Consultancy Services" - The said Order stand followed by Tribunal in Taj Malabar Hotel 2018-TIOL-1326-CESTAT-BANG and Taj Kerala Hotels & Resorts 2018-TIOL-12-CESTAT-BANG - Inasmuch as the issue stands decided in same assessee's case, by following the same it is held that the assessee is entitled to the full 100% credit of Service Tax paid by M/s IHCL - As regards to demand under category of "Mandap Keeper Services", "Shop and Showcase Rental", "Business Center Income", "Health Club Services" and "Vodafone Tower Rental", inasmuch as the dispute relates to factual position, demand set aside on these counts and matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification of assessee's claim.
Further, demand stands confirmed in respect of 'GTA Services' availed by assessee and the credit wrongly taken in respect of 'GTA Services' - As the demands are on lower side and assessee is also not fully equipped to challenge the same on the basis of records, assessee agrees to pay the same and not to contest them - Said two demands confirmed along with interest as not contested but no justifiable reason found for imposition of penalties on the said ground, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2663-CESTAT-ALL
Rama Paper Mills Ltd Vs CCE
ST - 'Business Auxiliary Service' category was introduced w.e.f. 01/07/2003 - The assessee was rendering services to M/s Alstom Ltd. on remuneration basis - The remuneration was payable only on M/s Alstom Ltd., being declared as successful bidder in tenders - SCN was issued for period July, 2003 to August, 2004, invoking extended period of limitation, stating that during audit of records of assessee, it was noticed that they have received commission/remuneration during period 2003-04 and 2004-05 - As per contract entered into in writing, the assessee have acted as agent to promote their business - Prior to 01/07/2003 this service was not covered under category of Service Tax - W.e.f. 01/07/2003, this service named BAS was incorporated in Service Tax Provisions, as defined under Section 65 (19) of FA, 1994 - The facts were already in knowledge of revenue and the same transaction was attempted to be taxed earlier vide SCN dated 06/05/2005 and the said proceedings were finally dropped - The present SCN was issued, subsequently in January, 2008, it relates for the period prior to date of the earlier SCN - There is no case of any contumacious conduct or suppression of facts made out against the assessee - Accordingly, extended period of limitation is not invocable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHBAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-1759-HC-MUM-CX
AA's Ad Aids Vs CCE
CX - Consequent to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CEX confirming the demand of CE duty and ordering payment of interest, appellant addressing letter to Superintendent and seeking quantification of interest - accordingly, Superintendent of Central Excise communicated that the amount of Rs.16,530/- was payable as interest - appeal by appellant assessee rejected by lower authorities and CESTAT as being not an appealable order/decision - appeal to High Court.
Held: Finding of Tribunal that Letter of Superintendent of Central Excise does not decide any lis for the purpose of holding it to be an appellable order is a possible view on facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be perverse - question proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law - appeal dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 9]
Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2018-TIOL-2666-CESTAT-MAD
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of boilers - They were availing facility of CENVAT Credit on various input services - It was noticed that for the period 10/2007 to10/2009, the assessee had wrongly availed cenvat credit on various input services - The period involved is prior to 1/4/2011 when definition of input services included the words 'activities relating to business' - The definition thus had a wide ambit during the disputed period and the scope of these words in definition was discussed by Bombay High Court in case of Coca Cola India Ltd 2009-TIOL-449-HC-MUM-ST - In Ultratech Cement Ltd 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST , court held that if the cost of any input service forms part of cost of final product, service would be eligible for said input service credit - In Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd . jurisdictional High Court held that gardening services where an employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco-friendly manner is eligible for credit - The issue whether House Keeping Services and gardening services are eligible for credit was considered by jurisdictional High Court in case of Wipro Ltd 2017-TIOL-897-HC-MAD-ST and Sri Rama Vilas Services Ltd. 2017-TIOL-807-HC-MAD-CX - Disallowance of credit is unjustified - The credit in respect of postal services has been disallowed for the reason that the document issued by the postal department does not contain a few details - The department has no dispute with regard to the service tax paid on such document and also with regard to the availment of postal services - The department cannot then deny the credit - The services impugned are eligible for credit: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2665-CESTAT-AHM
Daxal Cosmetics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of cosmetics and toothpastes - Issue relates to availment of CENVAT credit on 'toothbrushes' procured between 13th March 2006 and 28th November 2006 for free supply along with toothpaste and the second issue is in respect to valuation of cosmetics manufactured by them and cleared as free samples and the third to valuation of double pack of toothpaste as sales promotion - The assessee has not been able to bring on record any evidence that these were to be used by anyone other than the final customer - The manner of distribution of these 'free samples' was also to be left to the entities in marketing chain - Consequently, Tribunal is unable to entertain the claim of assessee that these were not intended for sale to the ultimate consumer; these were, therefore, required to comply with printing of 'maximum retail price' and to discharge duty liability under section 4A of CEA, 1944 - It is not in dispute that the clearance of two tubes toothpaste in a single packet is intended to be made available customers in that manner - Undisputedly, assessee discharged duty liability on maximum retail price printed on such sets of toothpaste - The proceedings were initiated against assessee solely on the presumption that the duty liability of Rs. 48,754/- paid by them on such clearances between 5th June 2005 and 2nd February 2006 was restricted to only one of the pair with discharge of duty liability of Rs. 48,754/- on the other yet to fulfilled - It is mere presumption that the maximum retail price should correspondingly be doubled for assessment - There is no evidence on record that duty has been discharged on value less than the retail price declared for the combination - Demand confirmed to the extent of Rs. 32,510/- availed as ineligible credit and recovery of duty of Rs. 88,868/- on cosmetic cleared as free samples is upheld while setting aside the demand of Rs. 48,754/- on clearance of second toothpaste as a set - Penalty under section 11 AC of CEA, 1944 reduced to Rs. 1,21,378/- while setting aside- all other penalties: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS/CIRCULAR/INSTRUCTION
cus_instruction13_2018
CBIC asks field formations to stick to timelines for sharing of information with CEIB
cuscir28-2018
CBIC favours testing of samples by own labs even if they are outside jurisdiction
cscaadri16-2018
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI
dgft18pn032
Regarding intimation to Regional Authorities about Block-wise fulfilment of EO under the EPCG Scheme
dgft18pn031
Regarding shifting of Capital Goods imported under the EPCG Scheme
dgft18not031
Withdrawal of Notification No.15 dated 02.07.2018 regarding amendment in import policy of Peas under Chapter 7 of the ITC (HS) 2017, Schedule -I (Import Policy)
dgft18not032
Govt puts restrictions on import of different types of peas till Sept 30, 2018
ctariff18_058_corrigendum
Corrigendum
dgft_trade_notice_28_2018
New E-Com module for SEIS, ANF 3B to be available from 20.09.2018 for application
Trade Notice 29
DGFT as the Authenticating Officer on behalf of the President of India in all Notifications published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II, Section - 3, Sub-Section (ii)
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-1761-HC-DEL-CUS + Case Story RK Impex Vs UoI
Cus - DRI direction to Union Bank of India to freeze current account of petitioner is without the authority of law - UBI told to ignore the same: HC [para 17]
Cus - High Court had in the case of S.B. International - 2018-TIOL-242-HC-DEL-CUS rejected the contention that such orders for freezing the bank accounts could be issued by the DRI under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - impugned communication of DRI to UBI is in the nature of an ad interim measure; therefore, it is difficult to understand its purpose as, admittedly, no proceedings have been commenced against the petitioner as evident from the SCN issued to the five exporting firms seeking imposition of penalty - Impugned communication set aside and petition allowed: High Court [para 13, 14, 17]
Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-1760-HC-MUM-CUS
Jade Marketing Vs UoI
Cus - Secretary in the Settlement Commission informing the Petitioner that in the absence of paying interest within the 30 days as provided in the order dated 22nd April, 2016 under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), the application for settlement stands rejected - another communication dated 02.11.2016 informed that the application for restoration of application is also rejected - Writ Petition before High Court.
Held: By letter dated 22nd June, 2016, the Superintendent in the office of the Commission called upon the Petitioner to pay the deficit interest and report compliance to Commission - In response, Petitioner paid the interest immediately on 7th July, 2016 and communicated the same to the Commission on 8th July, 2016 - Thus, there was prima facie , a compliance with the directions contained in the communication dated 22nd June, 2016 of the Commission - there is undisputedly a flaw in the decision making process - inasmuch as the Commission is entitled to come to a view that the Petitioner has not complied with the order dated 22nd April, 2016 within the time frame provided therein and there is no justification for extension of time, however, the same can only be so held after considering and taking a view on the Petitioner's submissions/contentions and which can be only after hearing the Petitioner - in the peculiar facts of this case, High Court sets aside the orders/ communications dated 18th October, 2016 and 2nd November, 2016 from the office of the Commission - Commission to hear the applicant in the matter of compliance of its order - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10, 12]
Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-2662-CESTAT-DEL
Prestige Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The assessee is an SEZ unit - It imported some consignments of LED TV Panels for further processing and re-export as per the authorized operation under the LOA granted by the SEZ authorities - The goods reached ICD and were intercepted by DRI, it was found that the ascertained value was higher than the declared value in the Bill of Entry with respect to three containers - The Revenue ordered provisional release on goods applying stringent conditions - Hence, the present appeal.
Held: The conditions for provisional release are modified by reducing the quantum of Bank Guarantee - In addition, the duty demanded on the enhanced value of Rs 82,82,550/- is directed to be paid on provisional basis, subject to final assessment - With respect to execution of bond, the Order-in-Appeal is upheld - Further, the assessee can file the bill of entry and take the provisional release - The assessee alternatively can file shipping bill for re-export of goods on the conditions of provisional release: CESTAT (para 9,10, 11, 12, 13)
- Appeal Dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
| |
