SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-403-CESTAT-BANG
Neo Group Services India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The appellants engaged in providing taxable service falling under the category of 'Management or Business Consultancy Service' to their customers located outside India - filed refund claims for various quarters - Subsequently, the original authority rejected the refund claims on limitation - On appeal, the Commissioner(A) remanded the matter back to the original authority without recording a finding on the grounds raised by the appellant.
Held: The appellants are engaged in 'export of service' and they had received the FIRC on different dates - Subsequently, the original authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the Notification and thus, had rejected the refund claims stating that they are barred by limitation - Following the ratio of the Larger Bench, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the file of the original authority, with a direction to consider the time limit for filing the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR - Therefore, all three appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority: CESTAT (Para 6.1)
- Case remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT
2019-TIOL-402-CESTAT-BANG
Popular Motor Corporation Vs CST
ST - The assessee-company is involved in the servicing of Bajaj two wheelers and three wheelers & is registered under category of Authorised Service Station - The assessee claimed that the cost of the vehicle was inclusive of the cost of free service coupon & that the manufacturer debitted the amount of the service coupons to his Profit & Loss Account and pays sales tax/VAT on the sale price and on every purchase of vehicle from the manufacturer, the assessee is bound to carry out free service for which they are paid some amount by the manufacturer - Further, the assessee claimed to have paid tax at the time of sale & further demand for service tax on the same amount would amount to double taxation.
Held: The appellant has paid the service tax along with interest much before the issue of show-cause notice and therefore the case u/s 73(3) read with Explanation 2 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Further, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. held that once the service tax along with interest is paid before the issue of SCN, then the Department need not issue SCN - Similar decision is held in the case of Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd - Hence such order merits being quashed: CESTAT (Para 2,6)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2019-TIOL-401-CESTAT-ALL
Sahaj Cerechem Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The assessee is registered with Central Excise Department and engaged in manufacturing of Ceramic Glazed Frits - The assessee Ist unit was set up sometime in year 1974 - Further for expansion of business and due to paucity of space they acquired another premises situated behind the existing factory in year 2004 and started the same activity in premises which was known as unit-2 - During audit, it was noticed that during period from August 2008 to May 2011 assessee in both of their manufacturing units were using pipeline supplied gas as fuel received from M/s GAIL and full credit of service tax paid as per the bills raised for transportation of such piped fuel gas was taken and utilized by assessee in their unit-1 - On enquiry by Revenue it was known that there was no separate bills for receipt of gas at unit-2 nor did they have details of quantitative consumption of gas in unit-2 - The credit of service tax involved was not also readily available - It appeared to Revenue that assessee was entitled to only the proportionate credit of service tax with reference to quantity of gas consumed in manufacturing at unit-1 - The transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts ordinarily maintained by assessee - There is no element of any suppression or contumacious conduct and/or any falsification of records on the part of assessee - Further this situation is wholly Revenue neutral as the Cenvat Credit is stated to be disallowed to unit-1 for input service was allowable to unit-2 as input service - Both the units are clearing their finished products on payment of excise duty - Thus there is no Revenue loss - The SCN is not maintainable for invoking the extended period of limitation - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-299-HC-AHM-CX
Perfect Boring Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
CX - The bank accounts of the assessee-company were attached during the relevant period, in a bid to recover outstanding taxes - Hence the present writ, highlighting the economic hardship faced due to such attachment of accounts - The assessee claimed to be unable to pay EFF, ESIC & other interest due - It also claimed to have filed application seeking to pay the tax dues in instalments, but the same was undecided - Moreover, it claimed to have received notices from banks that it would be rendered as NPA if it failed to clear its dues.
Held: In light of such contentions, notices be issued to the parties: HC
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
ctariffadd19_007
Seeks to impose definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 'Non-Plasticized Industrial Grade Nitrocellulose Damped in Isopropyl Alcohol having Nitrogen content in the range of 10.7% to 12.2%' originating in or exported from Brazil, Indonesia and Thailand
cnt09_2019
Customs new exchange rates for export & import notified w.e.f Feb 8
CASE LAW
2019-TIOL-404-CESTAT-MAD
International Seaport Dredging Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The assessee imported one unit used work boat "ASL Gallant" with complete spare parts, accessories and consumables from Singapore as a temporary import on re-export basis vide Bill of Entry - Initially, the said Bill of Entry was assessed with BCD of 5% and CVD of 1% as per Notfn 01/2011 and all other applicable duties on the date of import - Assessee challenges the denial of exemption benefit of Notfn 27/2008-Cus. and 01/2011-CE - The facts which are unambiguous are that the Bill of Entry carried the description of goods as a work boat per se from which it is clear that what is imported in first place is the work boat which perhaps came with machinery/equipment like spare parts, accessories and consumables and not vice versa - Therefore, the decisive factor for classification depends on characteristic of the boat and not the items that came along with the boat - The import of work boat which is termed as a tug boat is not disputed and therefore, Chapter 89 which is wide enough, covers ships, boats and also floating structures and without the fear of contradiction it can be safely assumed that the impugned goods are also covered under this Chapter - The grounds of appeal and even the written submissions and arguments advanced during the hearing do not anywhere dispute the said facts - The said facts are pari materia with that of the Order of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-2373-CESTAT-MUM - No reason found to interfere with findings of lower authority on classification and the denial of benefit of Notfn 27/2008 - The benefit available under Section 64 is a statutory one and once the importer satisfies the condition namely, that the vessels have gone back within a period of three months from the date of their importation, then such importer would be eligible for 95% of import duty as drawback - Apparently, there is no finding or discussion in impugned Order - Hence, this is required to be re-adjudicated by Original Authority - This issue is set aside and remanded back to the file of the adjudicating authority: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
