N Lakshmanan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Whether if a person, who is not connected with a Company, should not be driven, being a heir of the of the same, unless there is a solid involved in the affairs of the Company leads to quashment of proceeding - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

CST Vs BST Ltd

ST - Show-cause notice dated 13.06.2001 does not remotely indicate any of the circumstances envisaged in section 73 of FA, 1994, under which, time to demand would get extended - There is no allegation with regard to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of fact nor contravention of any provisions or rules to evade payment of service tax - Ingredients of Section 73 of the Act, proviso thereto are conspicuously absent in the show-cause notice - contention that demand notice issued on 13.06.2001 is well within the proviso to Section 73 of the Act cannot be accepted on the facts of the present case - Demand correctly held as time barred - Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the revenue - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [para 9, 11]

- Appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-3377-CESTAT-HYD

ST - The assessee entered into various lease contracts with owners of special purpose vehicles; the said vehicles were used for transportation of ready mix concrete from the plant to the site; assessee paid amounts to the owners of vehicles as per the lease contracts entered with them on the basis of distance travelled in KMs - It is the case of revenue in SCN that such amount paid by assessee would constitute an amount payable for transportation of goods and would be covered under category of GTA services and by applying the reverse charge mechanism, assessee needs to discharge tax liability along with interest and also penalty which was proposed to be imposed by invoking extended period in SCN - Similar issue in respect of the very same assessee is decided by Tribunal in Final Order dated 15.03.2018 - Since identical issue for the very period has been considered by Tribunal and held in favour of assessee herein, respectfully following the said decision, impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-3376-CESTAT-MAD

ST - The common dispute in all these appeals concern taxability on amounts received by assessee towards renting of immovable properties such as commercial complex, shops and lands to various parties - The lower authorities have confirmed the demands of service tax with interest on such amounts under the head Renting of Immovable Property and have also imposed penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 - The ratio laid down by High Court of Delhi in Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. 2011-TIOL-610-HC-DEL-ST-LB has been consistently followed by this Bench in all recent decisions - Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that in a subsequent development, vide their order dated 5.4.2018 in the matter relating to UTV News Ltd. 2018-TIOL-124-SC-ST , the Supreme Court has gone into the question whether levy of service tax under section 65(105)(zzzz) ibid is within the legislative competence of Parliament or otherwise - Discernibly, Supreme Court has found it proper to defer decisions in these matters awaiting the judgment of nine Judge Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority and Others - Viewed in this light, in the interests of justice, all these appeals should be kept in abeyance pending the decision of Supreme Court in all the three cases, since the final outcome therein will have a translational impact and affect the decision in all such matters as covered in these appeals: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: CHENNAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2018-TIOL-3375-CESTAT-MUM

CX - Central Excise duty paid on ‘welding electrodes', which is used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, is available as CENVAT credit - Tribunal decision in appellant's own case cited as 2015-TIOL-164-CESTAT-MUM followed - Appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 2, 3]

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-3374-CESTAT-MUM

CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of various stationery items and claimed benefit of SSI exemption notification 8/2003-CE as available to small-scale units - benefit denied on the ground that such packaging viz. ‘catch cover' carried the identification of the customers with whom they had entered into a contract - exemption made available to SSI units by notification 47/2008-CE by insertion of clause (e) in paragraph 4 denied on the ground that ‘catch cover' is not specifically enumerated in the incorporated provisions - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: There is no definition of ‘printed cartons of paper or paperboard' either in the notification or elsewhere - accordingly, this description should conform to such as is commonly understood and intended in the industry - no reason to distinguish ‘printed cartons of paper or paperboard' from ‘Catch cover' and to deny the eligibility to exemption - impugned orders set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

- Appeals allowed; MUMBAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

cuscir43-2018

Implementation of Paperless Processing under SWIFT-Uploading of Supporting Documents (eSANCHIT) in Exports

CASE LAWS

JS Steel Traders Vs CC

Cus - The assessee company filed two bills of entry for importing Heavy Melting Scrap - The grade of the scrap was declared as ISRI 207 - On examination, the consignment was found to contain CR sheets/Sheet cutting cut to various sizes & weighing 132.895MT and 159.575MT respectively - The consignment was detained and later released provisionally upon payment of duty - The assessee was also required to furnish a bond of value equivalent to the value of the consignment - The assessee was also made liable to pay any differential amount of duty with interest & penalty, if at all such demand would be raised.

Held - Difference of opinion - Member (J) held that the adjudicating authority classified the goods as Cold Rolled Sheets, which needs mandatory compliance with BIS, based on test reports obtained after passing such order - However such tests were conducted without following requisite procedure laid down as per BIS, such as Bend test, Cupping test, Rockwell test & Tensile test - These must be conducted apart from testing chemical composition as per IS-513 of BIS - Since such tests were not conducted, the same is contrary to NISST holding that the goods in question are Heavy Melting Scrap as per ISRI specifications - Hence the mutilation of the goods is not needed - Member (T) held that opinion of the NISST was obtained on the recommendation of a Chartered Engineer - The NISST report does not mention that the material cannot be utilized other than by re-melting - A later clarification stated that the material could not be used as such for any standard manufacturing & fabrication - However, such clarification was overlooked by the lower authorities - Besides, the NISST did not test the goods for carbon content - Moreover, the assessee did not put forth evidence before the Commr.(A) or the Tribunal, showing that the supplier of the goods were certified under FFMCS scheme or that the goods were as per Indian Standard of Certification IS513 - It was also noted that the assessee misled the Tribunal by wrongly stating that the Research and Development in Bicycles and Sewing Machine laboratory is not BIS-approved - Hence the Member (T) directed remand of the matter - Thereafter, the Third Member examined the NISST clarifications which affirm that the goods in question are Melting Scrap - It was also noted that such clarification was mentioned in the findings of the adjudicating authority - Hence the Third Member held that remanding the matter is unwarranted & sustained the findings of the Member (J) - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority with the modifications suggested by Member (J): CESTAT (Para 3,8,9,10,12-15,4)

- Case remanded: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2018-TIOL-3372-CESTAT-ALL

Cus - The assessee company filed shipping bills through its CHA for exporting "OWC (Drilling Chemical Additive)" - On examination, it was found that apart from description, other details like name of manufacturer, batch number were not mentioned on the sacks - The CHA was directed to submit the chemical examination report of these goods - The CHA produced a 'Material Data Safety Sheet' classifying the goods as 'Potassium Chloride' - The export of Potassium Chloride is restricted by the DGFT, in the light of fraudulent attempts to export the same by mis-declaring it - Hence samples were drawn & sent to CRCL - Subsequent to investigation, the Revenue opined that the assessee attempted to export MOP of Fertilizer grade, which is prohibited for export - It was also alleged that the same was purchased at subsidized prices fixed for farmers & had been re-packed as OWC to conceal its true identity - It was also noted that the assessee did not have license to export MOP - Hence the goods were confiscated & penalty was imposed on the assessee - Further, penalty was imposed on the CHA & the forwarding agent - The present appeal is filed by the assessee only.

Held - The reports by the CRCL and M/s Shriram Institute for Industrial Research, New Delhi, specify that the goods have K20 content exceeding 60% - Apart from test reports, the Revenue also conducted investigations to show that the assessee procured the goods in question, which in fact were meant for use by farmers - Further investigations at godowns also revealed that the packing activities were undertaken with mala fide intent of disguising the true nature & identity of the goods - The assessee also has no evidence to show purchase of OWC Drilling Chemical Additive from any seller or manufacturer of the same - All facts cumulatively prove that the goods covered by the shipping bills were MOP - The assessee indulged in such illegal export for its personal gain and at the expense of farmers and the State exchequer - Hence no intervention in the O-i-O is warranted: CESTAT (Para 2-7,9-12)

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT