|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-893-CESTAT-MUM
Commissioner Of Cgst Vs Axis Bank Ltd
ST - Appellant registered under the category of ‘Banking and Other Financal Services' - CENVAT credit on ‘Event Management Service', ‘Real Estate Agent Service' allowed by Commissioner(A), therefore, Revenue in appeal.
Held: Tribunal, in the case of the very same appellant, had held in its order dated 15.02.2017 - 2017-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-MUM that Event Management Service and Real Estate Agent Service are Input Services covered by the definition of rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and entitled to credit - since matter is squarely covered by the said decision, following the same, no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue - it is also not the case of the Revenue that against the appeal filed by them against the said Tribunal order dated 15.02.2017 any stay has been obtained from the Bombay High Court - Revenue Appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
- Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-892-CESTAT-MUM
Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Refund - CENVAT - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Service fee charged by the appellant to its overseas group entitites for provision of service has no direct nexus with the supply of goods by the overseas group entities to its customers in India - appellant had provided services on principal to principal basis thus cannot be considered as an intermediary - admitted fact that consideration received by appellant for providing services was based upon cost plus markup and is nowhere connected with the main supply of goods i.e main supply may or may not happen and thus cannot be directly co-related with service provided - appellant is not acting as a bridge between the overseas group entities and supplies made to their customers in India and accordingly it cannot be said that the appellant had provided intermediary service and should be governed by rule 9 of the POPS Rules, 2012 - refund cannot be denied: CESTAT [para 6]
ST - Refund - Services such as Sponsorship, tours and travel, event organization, membership subscription etc. were used for business purpose and not for the personal use or for providing welfare measures to the employees, thus, there is nexus between the input services and output service provided - appellant since not in a position to utilize accumulated CENVAT credit, it should be entitled to refund of service tax u/r 5 of CCR, 2004: CESTAT [para 7]
ST - Rule 3 of CCR nowhere specifies that credit should only be available for the services used/utilised in the registered premises alone - since registration of premises is not a pre-requisite condition for claiming such input tax credit, denial of refund benefit on such ground is not legally sustainable: CESTAT [para 7]
- Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-891-CESTAT-MUM
Commissioner Of Cgst Vs Reliance Infocomm Infrastructure Ltd
ST - Respondent assessee was given a written promise before commencement of audit that if any discrepancy in the audit is pointed out and the same is complied with, no further litigation would ensue; that there exists a provision u/s 73(3) of FA, 1994 wherein only applicable service tax and interest can be paid and a letter seeking waiver of penalty/show-cause notice can be given by assessee thus leading to better compliance and less litigation - since the assessee abided by the audit report, all proceedings are required to be concluded - as per s.73(3) issuance of SCN after payment of service tax with interest is not supported by the provisions of the FA, 1994 and Circular 137/167/2006 -CX.IV dated 03.10.2007 - order of Commissioner(A) in setting aside the penalties is not erroneous - Revenue appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 4, 5, 8]
- Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-890-CESTAT-MUM
CCT Vs Chhatrapati Ssk Ltd
CX - During the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, byproduct viz. bagasse, pressmud and compost fertilizer emerges - revenue view was that since the said products are classifiable under CH 2303 2000 and were capable of being bought and sold for a consideration, they are excisable goods but since the tariff rate is Nil, these are exempted goods and hit by provisions of rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - as Commissioner(A) set aside the order of adjudicating authority confirming the demand under rule 6(3) of CCR, revenue is in appeal before CESTAT.
Held: Bagasse, pressmud and compost fertilizer is bound to come into existence during the crushing of sugarcane and is an unavoidable agricultural waste - a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal that rule 6 of CCR, 2004 has no application in the facts of the case - recent decision in Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors. Final order no. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dated 04.08.2017 has allowed the appeal of the assessee - following the same, Revenue appeal is dismissed: CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Appeal dismissed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-889-CESTAT-MUM
High Quality Products Vs CCE
CX - Definiton of ‘imported goods' u/s 2(25) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it amply clear that the goods do not transform from that status till cleared for home consumption - It is not in dispute that the present activity was carried out while the goods were yet categorised as ‘imported' and would not, therefore, fall within the purview of CEA, 1944 -activity of ‘labeling' conducted in a bonded warehouse and directed as a condition for clearance of imported goods for home consumption cannot be held as amounting to manufacture u/s CEA, 1944 since goods are still under Customs control - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
- Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-888-CESTAT-MUM
Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd Vs CCT
CX -Electricity sold by appellant was being generated from bagasse, a waste product of sugar manufacturing - case of department is that in view of Explanation 1 appended to rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004 w.e.f 01.03.2015, appellant is liable to pay 6% duty/amount on the value of such exempted goods sold by it - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Electricity, though not found in tangible form, is classifiable under TI 2716 but it is non-excisable goods and the process of generation of electricity through a manufacturing process is dutiable if it is generated from mineral oils, bitumen substance, mineral waxes etc. and electricity generated from bagasse is not covered under Chapter 27 - Tribunal in the case of Jakarya Sugars Ltd . - 2018-TIOL-1845-CESTAT-MUM has held that electricity generated from bagasse which is a byproduct is neither a dutiable goods nor liable for payment of 6% in terms of apex court decision in DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX , hence duty demand made against such sale of surplus electricity manufactured through waste product is not sustainable in law; that No CENVATable input was used for generation of electricity, therefore, demand u/r 6 of CCR, 2004 does not sustain -impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 6, 7, 8]
- Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-887-CESTAT-MUM
SH Kelkar And Company Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - CENVAT - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Commission agent service - Revenue is in appeal against dropping of demand of CENVAT of Rs.18,58,473/- - as the amount involved in dispute is below the monetary threshold for initiation of appeal proceedings, in view of Board Circular dated 11.07.2018, appeal cannot be sustained: CESTAT [para 3]
CX - CENVAT - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Cleaning Service, Maintenance and repair services and expenditure of works in residence of director - Each of these services, in view of the settled case laws, are in conformity with the definition of input service contained in rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, appeal allowed of assessee: CESTAT [para 3, 4]
- Assessee appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
ctariff19_010
India further reduces import tariff on goods imported from Japan CASE LAWS
2019-TIOL-886-CESTAT-MUM
Max Flex And Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant is engaged in the import and resale of Self Adhesive Vinyl (SAV), PVC Sheets, PVC Flex Film, Mesh Banner, Mesh with liner etc. -Customs authorities viewed that provisional anti-dumping duty is leviable under 79/2010-Cus in respect of Self Adhesive Vinyl imported by appellant which the appellant contested by arguing that Self Adhesive vinyl is different from PVC flex film - final anti-dumping notification 82/2011-Cus clarified in paragraph 3 that nothing contained in the notification shall apply to Self-Adhesive vinyl - no justifiable reason to uphold the findings of the Commissioner(A) with regard to imposition of ADD - impugned order set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
- Appeals allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT |
