SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-3293-CESTAT-AHM
Raj Enterprises Vs CST
ST - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of electronic connectors and cable harness on job work basis - The Revenue opined that as the entire activity is confined to supply of manpower - The assessee is required to discharge service tax on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency service - Duty demand was raised.
Held: The assessee has carried out the job work of manufacturing on behalf of the principal under job work arrangements - The payment was made on the basis of production and not on the basis of number of employees deputed by the assessee - The employees of the assessee were not deputed to the factory of the principal - Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no supply of manpower - There are numerous decisions of the Tribunal on identical issue - Hence, the order under challenge is set aside : CESTAT (para 1, 2, 3)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHEMEDABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3292-CESTAT-MAD
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The assessee is a PSU engaged in oil and gas exploration - It extracts well fluids from the well head & which is then transported to the production installations where effluent water is separated from well head - The crude oil is then sent to the refinery via a pipeline - Effluent water separated from the condensate is transported to the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) - The Department raised duty demand on the freight paid to transport crude oil & condensate within operational area & on transportation of effluents out of operational area - The Department also alleged short payment of duty on transportation services received for transport of various goods out of operational area - Duty demands were raised with interest & penalties u/s 77 & 78 were imposed.
Held: Tax on freight paid for transportation of crude oil condensate & in respect of outward transportation is not contested - The assessee also claimed to be under bona fide belief that the condensate did not qualify as 'goods' - Considering the small quantum of duty demanded in this regard, the penalty imposed is set aside - Moreover, considering the decisions in the cases of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs CCE and Escorts Ltd. Vs CCE the transportation of effluents cannot be treated as transportation of 'goods' - Hence no duty demand can be raised in this regard: CESTAT (Para 1,5.1-5.5)
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2018-TIOL-3295-CESTAT-ALL
Eon Electric Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Assessee is a manufacturer of electrical products such as wires and cables, and located at in the state of Haridwar - They were availing area based exemption from payment of Excise duty under Notfn 50/2003–CE - The assessee was getting on job work, the drawing of copper wires out of copper rods from M/s Dynasty - For this purpose goods/wire rods, bought by assessee, were supplied directly to M/s Dynasty - The said work was carried out independently by M/s Dynasty, on payment of consideration (job charges) by assessee - It appeared that M/s Dynasty were liable to pay Central Excise duty on the manufacture of Copper Wires, out of Copper Rods, on job work basis and hence by not paying duty have contravened the provisions of Rules 4, 6, 8 & 11 of CER, 2002 - Further, revenue worked out duty payable by M/s Dynasty and also proposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Act - It also appeared that assessee have also rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 inasmuch as they have not given an undertaking to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of M/s Dynasty–job worker - Courts below have rightly held that the assessee, a limited company, have knowingly misled the said M/s Dynasty and have received the job worked goods, although dutiable, without payment of duty - Further, evidently the assessee was aware that the job work is being done by M/s Dynasty, and such goods were dutiable, whereas the assessee indulged in falsification of records in connivance with the said M/s Dynasty which issued challans as if the goods have been job worked at Haridwar - Thus, no impropriety and/or illegality found in the impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3294-CESTAT-AHM
Goran Pharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of medicament - On scrutiny of the ER-1 returns, it is noticed that the assessee has manufactured and cleared the product "Sentim Toothpaste" under Chapter 30 of CETA, 1985 attracting Central Excise duty @8%, 2% of Education cess and 1% of S.H.E cess - The said product Sentim Sensitive Fluoride Toothpaste, according to the department, is classifiable under chapter 33 of CETA, 1985 and the same is not eligible to be classified as medicament under Chapter 30 - The product manufactured by assessee is sold in the name of "Sentim Sensitive Fluoride toothpaste" - The products are manufactured from the ingredients i.e. drug namely Potassium Nitrate B.P., Sodium Fluoride dentrifice base and Sodium Benzoate - The product is not ordinarily sold as tooth paste like colgate, pepsodent but it is sold with a declaration on the product that it is used for treatment of tooth decay and cavity prevention for the sensitive teeth - Therefore, for the product in question, cannot be said that it is an ordinary tooth paste classifiable under chapter 33 - The identical issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of ICPA health product - In respect of product namely Thermoseal and RA Thermoseal, it was held that the said products are classifiable under Heading 3003 - From the said judgement, it is observed that the product is in questions are identical and marketed in the same manner - Therefore, the ratio of said tribunal's order is directly applicable in the facts of the present case - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION/ CIRCULAR
cnt89_2018
Govt hikes tariff value of gold but reduces it for Silver & edible oils
cuscir41-2018
Electronic sealing - Deposit in and removal of goods from Customs bonded Warehouses
CASE LAW
2018-TIOL-3291-CESTAT-MAD
Vikash Trading Company Vs CC
Cus - The assessee imported goods declared as Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Boards & filed bills of entry, classifying them under CTH 68091900 - The assessee claimed benefit under Notfn No 06/2012 - The Department opined that the assessee had misdeclared the goods & sent them for chemical testing - Upon considering the test reports, the Department concluded that the goods were Gypsum Plaster Boards - Hence it confiscated the imported goods & gave option of redemption fine - Duty demand was raised with penalty being imposed u/s 112 - Such levies were upheld by the Commr.(A) - The Department also rejected the assessee's request for re-testing of the goods
Held: It is seen that the laboratory did not test the glass content in the goods - Concurrently, the laboratory confirmed the correctness of the goods as declared by the assessee - Besides, Notfn No 06/2006-CE exempts imported Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Board without any condition - The insistence on IS standards by the Department is not a reuqirement listed in the Notfn - Hence the Commr.(A) incorrectly held that the goods do not conform to the standards of Gypsum Reinforced Gypsum Boards even when the laboratory claims to have tested presence of glass fibre - The Commr.(A) also erred in peremptorily dismissing the assessee's request for re-testing, based on the presumption that it would serve no purpose - Hence the O-i-A confirming such demands & confiscation must be set aside: CESTAT (Para 1,2,5)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
|
