SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-3248-CESTAT-ALL
National Institute of Banking Studies and Corporate Management Vs CC, CE & ST
ST - The assessee is a society promoted jointly by four banks so as to provide training to their employees - The assessee also imparts training to employees of other banks in the field of banking so as to help them perform their functions efficiently - The assessee is also registered as a non-profit organization under the Income Tax Act - The Department claimed that the assessee provided services classifiable under Commercial Coaching Or Training - Duty demands were raised with interest & equivalent penalty u/s 78 - Further penalties u/s 76 & 77 of the Finance Act 1994 were imposed - Such levies were upheld by the Commr.(A).
Held: The Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a previous AY dealt with identical issues which it settled against it, to the extent that demands raised under normal limitation were confirmed & remanded the matter for recalculation of duty accordingly - Regarding penalty, it must be noted tha the issue was not free from doubt - Hence no suppression or mis-statement can be alleged - Hence the demands are confirmed while the penalties are set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,2,5,7)
- Appeal partly allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT 2018-TIOL-3245-CESTAT-BANG
Fertilisers And Chemicals Travnacore Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
ST - The assessee provides services categorized under transport of goods by road, mandap keeper & engineering consultancy services & has centralized registration - The Department noted that the assessee collected some amount in relation to project work & that the service rendered by the assessee in this regard was classifiable as 'Commercial training or coaching' - The Department alleged that the assessee suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - Duty demands were raised with equivalent penalty u/s 78.
Held: Permitting students to use factory premises for research work forming part of their academic curriculum will not render the consideration received to be taxable under 'Commercial training or coaching' - The scope of this category is not satisfied in the present case - Further, the assessee is not conducting any training programmes for the students - Hence the demands raised merit being set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,7)
- Assessee's appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3244-CESTAT-DEL
Exl Services Com India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is registered for providing BAS and support services for business - Since, most of the output services were being exported by assessee, they have been availing the refund of the excess input service credit remaining unutilised with them as per the provisions of Rule 5a of CCR, 2004 - During audit, it has been detected by department that the assessee has availed certain input service credits - A SCN came to be issued covering the demand period of 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 - So far as the issue of availment of input service credit of service tax paid on insurance premiums paid by assessee on the group insurance policies taken by them is settled - Following the ratio Tribunal in assessee's own case, the order-in-original is set aside - A demand is hit by period of limitation as the department has always been aware about the practice being followed by assessee and therefore there were no valid reasons for invoking the extended time proviso under Section 73 of FA, 1994 and therefore, demand is also barred by period of limitation: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
Remi Fans Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - In view of decision in case of Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. 2009-TIOL-781-HC-MUM-CX , where one Commissioner holds charge of two Commissionerates and the Commissioner of the two Commissionerates constitutes the Reviewing Committee, then that one Commissioner holding charge of the two Commissionerates would constitute a committee - Thus, question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of Revenue and against the assessee: HC
- Appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-3247-CESTAT-MAD
Madras Cements Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The cement manufactured by assessee is packed and sold to different categories of customers on payment of Duty at different rates as covered under Notfn 4/2007-CE - The disputes are pertaining to the circumstances in which assessee cleared certain cement bags which were already affixed with MRP, for use within their factory - The department was of the view that such cement already affixed with MRP, but not cleared for retail sale but for captive consumption will not be entitled to the benefits of Notfn 4/2007 - The two contending SI.Nos. of the notification are 1A and 1C - SI.No.1A in fact, provides the concessional rates of duty for clearance of cement marked with MRP - SI.No.1C prescribes a higher rate of duty for cement other than retail sales - In the present case, the cement bags marked with MRP have not been sold in retail - The identical issue has been considered by Single Member Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s. Ultra Tech Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-4415-CESTAT-MUM - On the other hand, in the case of M/s. ACC Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-3820-CESTAT-MAD , among many issues considered and decided by the Tribunal; one issue was clearance for self-use of cement - But issue before the Division Bench of Tribunal, was whether for such self-clearance duty was required to be paid at tariff rate or in terms of SI.No.lC of the Notfn which deals with clearance other than retail sale - The Tribunal held that there is no justification to charge tariff rate of duty but the benefit of SI.No.1C may be extended - By following the decision of M/s. ACC , no reason found to interfere with the order passed by lower authority - In the result, the departmental appeal is rejected - Coming to the question, whether duty is to be paid under SI.No.1A or under SI.No.1C of Notfn, in the decision of M/s. ACC , the issue for decision was different - The benefit of SI.No.1A of Notification is required to be extended in terms of decision in M/s. Ultra Tech - In this case, in the case of contending SI.Nos.1A and 1C came up before Single Member and it was decided that the benefit of SI.No.1A is extendable - By following the same, the benefit of SI.No.1A of the Notification will be allowable for cement captively consumed: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeals allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3246-CESTAT-BANG
Gemini Graaphics Pvt Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
CX - The assessee manufactures paper & paper board & availed exemption under Notfn No 06/02 - In this notification, subject to certain conditions, concessional rate @ 7% could be availed - The Department raised duty demand for separate periods, with interest & equivalent penalty - On appeal, the Commr.(A) held that the assessee had not contested the demands raised for one of the periods and had voluntarily paid the same - Hence the appeal was rejected.
Held: The entire demand is barred by limitation as there is no allegation of suppression of facts - The assessee also maintained proper records & filed returns in timely manner showing showing the quantity of paper cleared under concessional rate of duty under Notification No.6/2002-CE - Besides the adjudicating authority too did not record any deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - In absence of the same, the demand raised is barred by limitation & warrants being set aside: CESTAT (Para 2,6.2)
-Assessee's appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATIONS
23/2018-Customs (NT/CAA/DRI)
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI 22/2018-Customs (NT/CAA/DRI)
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI CASE LAWS
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Bhaskar B Shah
Cus - Revenue seeks to withdraw these Motions as well as these appeals filed from the order of Tribunal dated 20th February 2017, as they does not exercise jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962 - Accordingly, these Notices of Motion as well as these Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn: HC
- Appeals dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bhagirath Sahu Vs CC
Cus - The jurisdiction of person issuing the impugned SCN is under challenge - Such SCN has resulted in impugned order - The impugned order is also under challenge on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice - Navneet Kumar, holds that, an officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who is not appointed as the customs officer within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not entitled to exercise jurisdiction under Section 124 of the Act of 1962 - The appeal carried from Navneet Kumar was admitted by the order dated October 4, 2018 - The Appeal Court directed that, no effect to be given to any finding in case of Navneet Kumar that would divest the Directorate Revenue Intelligence Officers of powers to function as a Customs Officer or to investigate cases and issue and adjudicate SCNs for contravention of the relevant law - It is contended on behalf of petitioner, Niranjan Chatterjee & Ors. that, an interim order of stay of the judgment and order does not wipe out the judgment and order under appeal - Since substantial questions of law and fact have been raised, it would be appropriate to admit the writ petition - The writ petition should be heard on affidavits - Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks after the reopening - Reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter: HC
- Writ petition admitted : CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
|
