ST - The assessee is a proprietor concern engaged in activity of transportation of goods by road and he is in business of transporting food grains like rice, wheat and sugar for Food Corporation of India (FCI), Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (KSWC), M/s. Agro Corn Products Ltd., Belgaum - During April 2005, assessee was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as a wholesale transporters for the transportation of food grains and sugar meant for the people in Below Poverty Line category in Public Distribution Scheme of Government of India - The assessee is responsible for collection from the different nominated godowns, transportation and delivery of the said goods to various receiving nominees of the said DC in the entire Karwar district - The transportation charges towards these activities is being paid by said DC as per the agreement entered into with the Deputy Commissioner and assessee - The Department initiated investigation into the activities of assessee and issued a SCN demanding service tax from assessee under GTA - The assessee does not fall in the definition of GTA as defined under provisions of Section 65(105)(zzp) because he is not issuing any consignment receipt - The assessee is not liable to pay service tax in the light of the provisions of Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of STR, 1994 because both the consignor and consignee fall under the category of specified categories and if any tax is to be paid, then the tax is to be paid by DC of Karwar and not the assessee - Therefore on both counts, assessee is not liable to pay service tax and the impugned order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

ST - The assessee was engaged in the activities of making partitions, counters, storages, wood frame work, cladding, skirting, daddoing, gypsum, ceiling, wooden flooring, plastering, painting and fixed furniture - The assessee categorized the services under 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' w.e.f. 1.5.2006 and were also availing exemption under Notfn 1/2006-ST and 12/2003-ST and have been paying service tax as applicable - However, the department contended that they were providing completion and finishing service falling under taxable category of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' and the exemption claimed was not applicable to them - Case of assessee is squarely covered by decision of Supreme Court in case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST in respect of works contract entered into before 1.6.2007, therefore, there is no doubt as to the non-applicability of service tax to the assessee before 1.6.2007 - Coming to the period after 1.6.2007, assessee is within their rights to avail composition scheme or pay service tax as per the exemption contained in Notfns availed by them - Tribunal in case of Bagai constructions has held that assessee is entitled for exemption under Notfn 12/2003-ST for the value of goods sold - It is on record that assessee have been paying sales tax on the value of materials involved in works undertaken by them - Either way, the assessee have appeared to have made a strong case in their favour: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

CUSTOMS

Cus - The DRI detained and examined a consignment imported by an entity - Such contents in the consignment had been declared as mattresses & the bill of entry was filed by the CHA on the importer's behalf - On examination, the DRI found that the consignment contained cigarettes of foreign origin which had been concealed inside the mattresses - The consignment was confiscated & penalties u/s 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act were imposed on the appellants herein for attempting to smuggle foreign made goods - The appellants claimed to have played no role in the import & that they were experiencing weak financial conditions & sought that the quantum of penalty be reduced.

Held: The role of three appellants has been looked into - The first appellant did not have Customs authorization to sign documents or visit Customs house for clearance purposes - However he is the supervisor of the second & third appellants - The third appellant signed no documents & did not interact with the main accused - Besides, his signatures were forged on the Customs clearance papers by the second appellant - Statements of other persons too do not mention the involvement of the third appellant - It is also matter of record that the main person holding CHA license was unaware of such consignments being cleared under the name of the CHA firm & import clearance details were not recorded in statutory records - The first appellant supervised the clearance of the consignments & no import could have been made without his knowledge - Regarding the second appellant, he knew everything about the illicit contents in the consignments - From all statements taken, the element of connivance is missing in all three appellants - Penalty is waived off for the third appellant considering he was not involved in the whole operation - However, the first & second appellants knew all about the nature of the cargo - They failed their duties as CHA since they were unable to prevent abuse of CHA license & to ensure that no misdeclared or contraband goods are imported - Hence the penalty imposed on them is justified - Nonetheless, the quantum of penalties are reduced considering that both persons have limited financial means: CESTAT (Para 1,2,3,6-9,11)

- Assessees' appeals partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT