SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-1789-HC-KOL-ST + Case Story
Infinity Bnke Infocity Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - Access to a registered premises and Audit of records - Interim stay granted till November 30, 2018 or until further orders whichever is earlier - Writ petition to be listed for hearing in November 2018: High Court [para 4, 6]
- Interim Stay granted: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-2687-CESTAT-MAD Hameed And Company Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Assessee was issued a SCN for short-payment of service tax under category of Erection, Commission and Installation services - Original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties - Assessee has been able to convince that short-payment of service tax occurred due to financial hardship - They had consistently put forward the plea that there was a strike going on by employees and there was pending payment of wages, salary and other statutory payments - Though notices were issued on client M/s. SISCO Ltd., value of services rendered were not received by them - The payment of service tax was delayed due to financial hardship and later the company was amalgamated with M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. in 2007 - Penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is set aside without disturbing the demand of service tax or the interest thereof: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2686-CESTAT-MAD
Rao And Khan Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST- The assessee filed the present applications for condonation of delay - The reason for delay in filing the appeal was that the assessee did not receive order-in-appeal in time - Only after a letter from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner did they realize that the order of Commr. (A) was not served on them - Thereafter, they requested for a copy of the order and paid the service tax liability along with interest and also 25% penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As the assessee had discharged full duty liability they were under the impression that all proceedings would be deemed to be concluded and there is no ground fit for filing an appeal - However, now the assessee was informed that as per proviso to Section 78, the proceedings could be concluded only in respect of penalty imposed under Section 78 and the penalties imposed under Section 76 & 77 would have to be paid - There was a delay of 195 in filing the appeal due to no knowledge of the facts - Hence, the present COD application by the assesee.
Held: The appeal ought to have been filed within three months from the date of order-in-appeal - Moreover, when computed from the date of despatch and receipt of the order-in-appeal , there is a delay of more than two years in filing the appeal - Therefore, the assessee had knowledge about the order under challenge and yet chose to delay the filing of appeal - Hence, the the applications seeking condonation of delay stand dismissed : CESTAT (Para 2, 5)
- Application Dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-2691-CESTAT-HYD
+ Case Story
The Andhra Sugars Ltd Vs CCT
CX - Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004 - Inputs - Welding Electrodes, steel plates, sheets and angles used exclusively for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery which are used in the manufacturing activity are eligible inputs - definition of inputs in its correct perspective has not been considered by Commissioner(A) - CENVAT credit is admissible - impugned order set aside and Appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
AM Products Vs CCE & ST
CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco - The registration certificate was surrendered w.e.f. 29.05.2015 as per the intimation given to Department - But the assessee obtained fresh registration w.e.f. 01.06.2015 - There has been no change in the name of assessee, or in their constitution - The only apparent reason cited is entering into a new lease agreement with the landlord but the premises where the factory continued operation w.e.f. 01.06.2015 remains the same - It is also not in dispute that between the period 29.05.2015 upto 04.06.2015, all the machines remained sealed within the factory premises - Whether the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid in advance for the month of June, 2015 for the period 1st to 4th June, 2015 when all the machines were sealed - In view of the decision in case of M/s Dhariwal Industries Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1818-CESTAT-AHM , assessee will be entitled to refund for the period 1st to 4th April in view of the fact that the Department had after surrender of registration on 29.05.2015, allowed registration w.e.f. 01.06.2015 without any objection or murmur: CESTAT [para 8, 10, 11]
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2689-CESTAT-MUM
Solar Industries India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - CENVAT - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Appellant is a manufacturer of Explosives and are required to take Insurance Policy for Workers in line with the statutory obligation - Service Tax paid on Insurance Policy obtained under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme is admissible as credit in view of the Tribunal decision in Economic Explosives Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-3668-CESTAT-MUM involving identical facts - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2688-CESTAT-MUM
Surya Engineers Vs CCE
CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacturing of M.S.Pipes which attracts CE duty - appellant is a job worker who receive raw materials free of cost from its principal and at the instance of the principal the appellant transports the goods to the gate of the customer - Issue is whether the appellant is required to include the outward freight from the factory gate to the customer's premises when remitting the amount @8% of the total price of the exempted price minus sales tax etc. under rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004.
Held: An identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Koya& Co. - 2007-TIOL-879-CESTAT-BANG wherein it is held that for calculation of Central Excise duty purposes, the cost of transportation and are not includible and, therefore, there is no logic in saying that for the purpose of rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004, these costs would be included - following the said decision, impugned order set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
cnt76_2018
CBIC amends tariff value of many commodities
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-2685-CESTAT-KOL CC Vs UT Ltd
Cus - The Revenue is in appeal against impugned order for non-imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act on the importer and their CHA, while the importer is in appeal against the Portion of order confirmed against them by imposition of penalty under Section 125 of Customs Act for the confiscated good under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 - The issue is regarding application of restriction imposed by Notfn 64(RE-08)/04/09 on imported consignment of S S Seamless Tube imported by importer - The importer has imported the aforesaid goods from supplier of Japan against the irrevocable letter of credit (LC) - The importer in its grounds of appeal states that, undisputedly the order for import of goods were placed by assessee when there was no policy restriction for import of such goods but before the goods could enter into Indian territorial water the restriction was imposed on such imports - The issue is of import of S S Seamless Tubes during the intervening period when the import restriction was imposed on their import which was subsequently lifted by issue of another Notfn; also the Bills of Entry has been filed in this case for warehousing only Ex-bond Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods were affected only when the restriction imposed was withdrawn by issue of another circular - Therefore, going by the case of Wood Craft Products Ltd 2002-TIOL-278-SC-CX-LB Tribunal is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of Commissioner imposing redemption fine on goods imported by assessee is contrary to provisions of Customs law read with DGFT circular of, and therefore, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2018-TIOL-2684-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs Venkatesh Textiles
Cus - The preliminary issue emerges is regarding the jurisdiction of DRI to issue SCN under Customs Act - By following the ratio laid down by High Court of Delhi in case of BSNL as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Supreme Court decision in case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
|
