|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-629-CESTAT-KOL
CST Vs Balmer Lawrie And Company Ltd
ST - During disputed period, assessee entered into agreements with various foreign associates - In terms of such agreements, assessee made payments to foreign associates from time to time - The revenue has taken the view that payments have been made to foreign associates for services procured from them and in terms of the reverse charge mechanism, the assessee will be liable for payment of service tax - The SCN has proposed such demand by referring to Taxation of Services Rules, 2006 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules - The Finance Act, 1994 was amended to include the provision of Section 66A specifically providing for such a scenario - The Supreme Court in case of Indian National Shipowners Association has held that the service tax liability on taxable services provided by a person located outside India to a recipient in India would arise only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A ibid - In view of said decision of Supreme Court, no infirmity found in order passed by lower authority in dropping the demand for service tax up to 17.04.2006 - The dispute is limited to service rendered during period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 - Sub-rule 3(i) & 3(ii) does not appear to have any application in relations to services in dispute - But it is required to be examined whether services rendered by foreign associates during period would qualify under sub-rule 3(iii) - It needs to be determined whether assessee is the recipient of such services though there is no dispute that such services have been rendered abroad and the payments for such services have been made by assessee to the foreign service providers - The matter is required to be remitted back to adjudicating authority for redetermination of demand, if any, for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 - No doubt the assessee will be given opportunity to establish their point of view: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT
2019-TIOL-628-CESTAT-ALL
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Cenvat - Cenvatable documents - The Tribunal held that the credit availed on Advice Transfer Debit (ATD) which being issued from their head office was admissible - Thus, such ATD cannot be eligible Cenvatable documents u/r 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Further, the Court also held that such issue was no more res-integra and hence is allowed by the Tribunal - The reference was made upon BSNL vs. Commissioner and BSNL 2014 (34) S.T.R. 378 (Tri.-Chennai) - Thus, the Court set aside the matter and allowed the appeal by giving consequential relief to the appellant: CESTAT ( paras 2, 3 )
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-496-HC-P&H-CX
CCE Vs Steel Strips Ltd
CX - This appeal by the revenue has been filed impugning the action of Tribunal in declining rectification of its own order as the application moved for purpose was beyond the period of six months prescribed - The delay in doing so was 7 days over and above the prescribed period of six months - In the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that it has no power to condone the delay in view of decision rendered by Karnataka High Court - Clearly the Tribunal fell in error by not noticing the decision of Supreme Court recorded in Sunita Devi Singhania 2008-TIOL-235-SC-CUS - Therefore, impugned order is set aside and matter remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh: HC
- Matter remanded : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-631-CESTAT-BANG
Aerosol Filters Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
CX - The assessee who is a SSI Unit engaged in manufacture of pollution control equipment and they have rented out another premises in year 2013 as the existing premises was not sufficient - The said registered premises referred as Unit-2 has been used for the purpose of doing job work exclusively for Unit-1 and they have been following the procedure under Cenvat Credit Rules for movement of goods under job-work as per Notfn 214/86 - The goods processed under job-work in Unit-2 are brought back to Unit-1 and after further process the same are packed and cleared on payment of duty from Unit-1 - The rent paid for Unit-2 was claimed as cenvat credit by Unit-1 and no objection was raised when audit was conducted in year 2014 and when subsequently in 2016 when the audit was conducted, the audit authority raised the objection that cenvat credit cannot be claimed in respect of service tax paid on rent for Unit-2 - Thereafter, assessee paid back the input service credit availed on rent along with interest and penalty but later on realizing that he is entitled to claim cenvat credit on rent paid for Unit-2 which is exclusively doing job-work for Unit-1, they filed the refund claim which was in time but the same was rejected only on the ground that the assessment of audit officer was not challenged - The assessee has paid the service tax, interest and penalty on a bona fide mistake on direction of audit team and therefore he has filed the refund claim within time claiming refund of the cenvat credit of service tax paid on the rent for Unit-2 - Moreover, there is no assessment order passed in the present case - Therefore, the question of challenging the same does not arise - The ratio of decision in case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-978-HC-DEL-CUS , Physical Research Laboratory - 2016-TIOL-3037-CESTAT-MUM and Hero Cycles Ltd . are applicable in present case and by following the ratio of said decisions, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2019-TIOL-630-CESTAT-DEL
Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots and availing the facility of Cenvat Credit - The Department has alleged the consumption of electricity in excess during its manufacture and also alleged the clandestine removal of MS Ingots - Since the drop of demand qua excess electricity consumption has not been objected on part of Department, there is no appeal filed otherwise - And that the same has been dropped while relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of R.A. Casting Pvt. Ltd. - 2008-TIOL-2732-CESTAT-DEL , the order is upheld to said extent - The present case is also the one where the Department has relied upon the 3rd party evidence - The demand is not sustainable on the said basis - The Tribunal in various other appeals arising out of the same search and recoveries of same record from Shri S.K. Pansari of M/s. Monu Steels have already been decided by the Tribunals in favour of assessees - With respect to impugned remaining penalty of Rs.50,000/-, it is observed that assessee is merely a consignment agent that too for providing the raw material to manufacturer - The allegations of any clandestine removal of final products by M/s. Ispat India Ltd. are opined to have no bearing upon assessee unless and until there is a corroborative cogent evidence to support the allegation of providing the raw-material without discharging the liability - Same is missing on the record - Resultantly, the Commissioner (A) has committed an error while relying upon third party evidence to confirm the demand qua serious charge of clandestine removal - The order is hereby set aside - Since the demand has been set aside, the question of imposition of any penalty on any of the Directors of the companies is not at all arises - Hence, the order to that extent also stands set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION/ CIRCULAR
csnt16-2019
Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 amended - Form Courier Shipping Bill-V substituted
csnt15-2019
Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 amended - Forms C, H and HA substituted
cuscir09_2019
CBIC introduces next generation reform 'Turant Customs' for ease of doing business
cnt18_2019
CBIC revises Tariff Value for gold, silver & edible oils
CASE LAW 2019-TIOL-88-SC-CUS
Department Of Customs Vs Sharad Gandhi
Prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, is not barred in regard to antiquities or art treasures - Delhi HC order set aside by Supreme Court in Revenue appeal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2019-TIOL-627-CESTAT-MUM
CC Vs Jewel Art
Cus - Revenue is assailing the respective impugned orders contending that in imposing penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, only the duty involved was taken into account but not the amount of interest liable to be paid on the said duty.
Held: Question of law as to whether component of interest has to be considered while arriving at the quantum of penalty prescribed u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 has already been considered by the Tribunal in Bharti Airtel's case - 2012-TIOL-746-CESTAT-BANG and where it is held that penalty imposed u/s 114A will be equivalent to the duty demanded u/s 28 OR interest demanded u/s 28AA - therefore, no merit in Revenue appeals - same are dismissed: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
- Appeals dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
|
