SERVICE TAX
2018-TIOL-3668-CESTAT-MUM
Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant imported certain services from overseas entities and was liable to pay service tax under 'reverse charge mechanism' as recipient of services - during course of CERA audit, the above discrepany was noticed and the appellant deposited the service tax amount along with interest - SCN issued culminating into adjudication order wherein the service tax demand of Rs.35,54,314/- along with interest was confirmed and the amount deposited was appropriated - penalties also imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of the FA, 1994 - as penalties were upheld, appellant before CESTAT seeking benefit of sub-section (3) of s.73 of the FA, 1994 and waiver of penalties.
Held: Being a service tax registered assessee, the appellant was required to comply with the statutory provisions including payment of service tax within the stipulated time frame - it is not the case that the appellant had for the first time received the taxable services from the overseas entities - since the appellant was regularly receiving the services from overseas entities, it cannot be said that the appellant was ignorant about the statutory provisions for non-payment of tax within the stipulated time - no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the penalty - no justifiable reason to interfere with the same - Appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3667-CESTAT-ALL
National Construction Company Vs CCE & ST
ST - The issue in this appeal is whether service tax has been rightly demanded under the head of 'Commercial & Industrial Construction Service', under the admitted fact that the assessee had constructed New Petrol Bunks for BPCL which includes work like Construction of Building and Civil Structure including roads for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 - The issue is squarely covered by the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in case of M/s Gambhir Construction Company wherein this Tribunal has held in favour of assessee - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3666-CESTAT-MUM
PRS Permacel Pvt Ltd Vs CC
ST - Appellant paid Service Tax under GTA by including the Octroi charges claimed by the service provider M/s J.P.Agencies and took CENVAT credit of the same - Credit denied on the ground that service tax cannot be levied on the statutory Octroi charges - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: It is an admitted fact that the service tax amount paid on Octroi charges was retained by the department and the same has not been refunded to the appellant - therefore, as the appellant had paid the service tax on Octroi charges and availed CENVAT credit of tax paid on transportation service, denial of credit is not proper and justified - following the decision in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-1540-CESTAT-MUM, impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 3, 4]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
NOTIFICATION
exnt18_01
Govt notifies format of General Bond to be executed by EoU/STP for provisional assessment of goods for export etariff18_23
CBIC amends Notification no. 22/2003-CE, 23/2003-CE & 24/2003-CE to omit Addl Duties of Excise & other expressions CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-2538-HC-MAD-CX
CCE & ST Vs Brakes India Ltd
CX - Whether the housekeeping and landscaping services should be included under the term 'input services' as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - The Division Bench took note of decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that Environmental Laws expect the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws, that the concept of corporate social responsibility is also relevant and that when the employer spends money to maintain their factory, to discharge a statutory obligation, in an eco-friendly manner, certainly, the tax paid on such services would form part of the costs of the final products - Therefore, the Tribunal rightly decided the issue in favour of assessee and no grounds found to entertain the appeal: HC
- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2018-TIOL-3670-CESTAT-MUM
Kalyani Maxion Wheels Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit on the Rent-a-cab service during the period 01.04.2013 to 28.02.2014.
Held: There is no dispute that appellant has availed CENVAT credit in respect of Rent-a-cab service which is excluded from the definition of Input Service w.e.f 01.04.2011 as per exclusion clause in the definition of Input service - CENVAT credit is, therefore, inadmissible - similar view taken in case of Vinati Organics - 2017-TIOL-4496-CESTAT-MUM - reliance by the appellant on the decision in Nihilent Technolgies - 2017-TIOL-2696-CESTAT-MUM is not applicable for the reason that the facts, in the present case, regarding the motor vehicle, whether capital goods or otherwise is not on record - Impugned order upheld and appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3669-CESTAT-BANG
Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs CCT
CX - The assessee have filed these appeals against different impugned orders whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of excise duty along with interest and penalty - The Registry of Tribunal raised the objection asking them to pay the mandatory predeposit of 7.5%/10% in terms of Section 35F of CEA, 1944 - The assessee has already paid duty @ 1% on said item which is sufficient to take care of 7.5% of duty to be deposited in terms of Section 35F - Further on identical facts for the earlier period, the Registry has not raised the objection and has considered the payment of duty made @ 1% and did not demand 7.5% under Section 35F - Further, in the assessee's own case, duty was created and the amount paid by assessee was appropriated also and the same was considered by Registry as mandatory predeposit at the time of filing the appeal - The judgments relied upon by Revenue are not directly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because the assessee has paid 1% of the duty which is more than 7.5% of the duty to be deposited in terms of Section 35F - In view of this, the defect raised by Registry is not legally tenable and the assessee is not required to pay again 7.5% of the duty under Section 35F - As far as defect in filing the appeals beyond the stipulated period of 3 months, the orders were communicated to assessee on 14.10.2017 and the appeals were filed on 16.01.2018, which is beyond 90 days - Therefore assessee is directed to file COD applications - In conclusion, defects raised by Registry regarding the mandatory predeposit are vacated: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
cnt96_2018
CBIC notifies exchange rates for export & import purposes
dgft18pn057
DGFT amends Notice No 50/2015-20 notifying procedure for allocating of quota for importing Calcined Pet Coke
CASE LAWS
2018-TIOL-3688-CESTAT-CHD
Mohit Industries Vs CC
Cus - Goods imported were held to be classifiable under TI 7226 1100 and ordered for assessment accordingly - goods were held liable for confiscation but the importer is allowed to redeem the same on payment of fine - importer was held liable for penalty u/s 112 - impugned goods after redemption and payment of duty and fine were ordered to be mutilated so as to render them as scrap so that they cannot be used as such except for melting - appeal to CESTAT against this order of Commissioner(A).
Held: Chartered Engineer who examined the goods is not a metallurgical engineer and the reports were based on visual examination without any market enquiry, therefore, such report is not acceptable for assessment of bills of entry in question - since no samples were drawn for testing despite several requests by appellant, classification arrived at by adjudicating authority is not acceptable and, therefore, classification as declared by appellant is to be accepted - no rules have been framed permitting the mutilation of goods so mutilation cannot be allowed - since the declaration made by appellant is accepted, there is no question of imposing redemption fine and penalty - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with a direction to release the goods immediately: CESTAT [para 19, 21]
-
Appeal allowed
: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2018-TIOL-3671-CESTAT-DEL
Prashun Jain Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is a CHA - During the period of dispute, the Revenue intercepted a consignment imported by an EoU & declared as 'Heald Frame' - The importer had claimed benefit under Notfn No 52/2003-Cus - The appellant had presented the gate pass for the consignment - Examination of the goods revealed there to be Micro-SD cards - The Revenue alleged that the goods had been mis-declared & seized them - The appellant's license was suspended, for alleged contravention of Regulations 13(1), 13(d), 13(k), 13(o) and 20(i)(a), (b) & (c) of CHALR 2004 - Thereafter, duty demand was raised with interest & penalty - The appellant was asked to appear for personal hearing many times, but no order came to be passed by the inquiry officer - Subsequently, the appellant's license was revoked - On appeal, the Tribunal quashed such order - The appellant sought that his license be extended for five years, being the period lost from the date of suspension - Thereafter, the appellant's license was revoked & security amount was forfeited on grounds that the appellant contravened the provisions of Regulation 5(d) and 5(e) of the CBLR 2014 by filing wrong declaration.
Held: The appellent is not required to fulfil the conditions in Regulation 5 of CBLR since it is not a new applicant - This is evidenced by the appellant's request seeking extension of validity of license - Further, Regulations 4,5 & 7 are applicable to applicants who apply for & undertake examination conducted by Directorate General of Inspection of Customs & Central Excise - Besides, Regulation 9 uses the term 'licensee' for existing Customs brokers - Thus the appellant's license merits being restored for 10 years from date of this order: CESTAT (Para 2,10)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
|
