|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-914-CESTAT-MUM
Abm Knowledge Ltd Vs CC
ST -Issue is whether the appellant is entitled to avail Input credit on the invoices which are issued in the name of the premises other than the registered premises of appellant.
Held: Revenue has failed to point out any provision of the CCR which prescribes that registration of premises is a condition precedent for claiming CENVAT credit and in its absence the claim has to be rejected - There is no such restriction in the CCR and in particular the rule 9 which has been relied upon by Revenue - both the lower authorities have, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim for refund on ground which is not in existence in law - it is a settled legal principle that any beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally - there is also no dispute that there is a lapse on the part of the appellant but it is merely a procedural lapse and for which the substantive benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied to appellant - finding of Commissioner(A) that the appellants were required to register the premises as ‘Input Service Distributor' (ISD), the same is undoubtedly beyond the scope of SCN - impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 8, 9]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-913-CESTAT-MUM
Banyan Tree Finance Pvt Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST
ST - Refund - CENVAT - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - application rejected on the ground that the appellant had failed to debit the CENVAT credit amount before filing refund claim - however, the amount in question was reversed in the CENVAT account subsequently and such available credit was never utilized by appellant - when the credit was not utilized for payment of service tax on output service or for any other purpose, it cannot be said that there is any loss of revenue to the government exchequer - since the department had not specifically objected to the fact of exportation of service by appellant, the condition of debit of the CENVAT amount belatedly, in absence of its utilization, will tantamount to mere procedural lapse, for which the benefit under notification 27/2012-CX(NT) cannot be whittled down - rejection cannot be sustained - insofar as incorrect reflection of amounts in returns, matter remanded for carrying out necessary verification: CESTAT [para 3]
- Appeal disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-912-CESTAT-MUM
Deomogra Ustodani Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Contract entered into by the appellants was for chopping and transportation of sugarcane and not to supply any manpower - classification of such service by Revenue under ‘Manpower recruitment and supply agency service' is not sustainable in view of the law settled by the Tribunal decision in Samarth Sevabhavi Trust vs. CCE, Aurangabad - 2013-TIOL-1129-CESTAT-MUM and which has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court - appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-911-CESTAT-MUM
Gala Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST
CX - CENVAT - Revenue contention is that ‘Bank Slip' cannot be considered as a prescribed document in terms of rule 4A of the STR, 1994 r/w rule 9(1) of CCR, 2004.
Held: Examination of the certificate dated 05.03.2011 issued by State Bank of India reflects therein the amount of service charges along with the service tax - bank statement indicates that the entire amount of taxable services have been debited from the appellant's current account - since substantial requirement regarding receipt of taxable service and payment of service tax amount to the service provider has been complied with, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere technicalities - ‘Bank slip' has to be considered as a proper document for availing CENVAT credit - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-910-CESTAT-MUM
Kumudshree Textile Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Section 3A of the CEA, 1944 - Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 - Annual Production Capacity-Supreme Court in the case of S.P.B.L Ltd. [2002(146)ELT254(SC)] has held that the length of the gallery cannot be included in the Hot Air Stenter while determining the annual capacity of production - that while counting number of chambers in each of the hot-air stenters, the galleries attached to it cannot be deemed to be one chamber of a stenter - impugned order is, therefore, set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-909-CESTAT-MUM
Sahyadri Starch And Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Valuation - Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - Contention of CE authorities is that value of durable containers supplied by customers should also be included in the Assessable value for levy of CE duty - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Rules for valuation are intended to provide the guiderails for determination of value when the transaction value is not acceptable for having deviated from some or all the circumstances that together sanctify such value -in the present dispute, it must be established that the value of clearances effected by the appellant in containers procured by them differs from the value of clearances of goods in containers supplied by their customers - only then can there be any disquiet about the non-inclusion of the value of the durable containers so supplied by the customers - rule 6 of the Valuation Rules implies that the ownership, whether in physical form or monetised form, should vest with the appellant for it to be construed as additional consideration - no such case has been made out in the records - provisions of CE Valuation rules are not to be applied sequentially but as separate with mutually exclusive application - in the absence of any other rule being invoked and owing to the inappropriateness of rule 6, the demand does not sustain - impugned orders set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 7]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2019-TIOL-708-HC-P&H-CUS + Case Story
Ram Niwas Vs State of Punjab
Cus - The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Universal Solutions & is engaged in import & export activities - During the period of dispute, non-bailable warrants were issued by the jurisdictional CJM on an application given by the Customs officials in connection with the seizure of 27 Gold bars at ICP Attari - In one of the consignment of apples imported from Afghanistan, and receivable by a proprietorship firm of the petitioner, a number of Gold bars had been found - Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail, as the petitioner herein was apprehensive of being apprehended.
Held - The evidence worth the arrest of the petitioner and his custodial interrogation has come on record - The petitioner's counsel does not contest the fact that after the seizure of the consignment carrying the Gold bars, the petitioner evaded from appearing before the Customs authorities - It is also not disputed that the petitioner concealed information pertaining to the real person who had sent the consignment from Afghanistan - The FSL report and transcription of mobile conversations involving the petitioner, reveal dealings running into crores of rupees - This raises a serious concern about national security or hawala transactions - Hence no anticipatory bail can be given: HC -Application dismissed
:
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HIGH COURT 2019-TIOL-908-CESTAT-MUM
Gkb Ophthalmics Ltd Vs CC & CE
Cus - Applicant seeks rectification of mistake in the Final order of Tribunal on the ground that the norms of wastage had been revised in their case by the competent authority vide certain communications dated September/November 2008 but the same had not been placed before the Tribunal during the hearing held on 14 September 2017 and at the end of which the final order was dictated in Court - neither was any such plea of being in possession of such communications was made during the hearing.
Held: There is no mistake in the order pronounced by the Tribunal as the same was passed on available record - failure on the part of the applicant to make the Tribunal cognizant of the facts is not a mistake that can be corrected and to do so would tantamount to reviewing its own order - it would be a never-ending process of piecemeal introduction of records that would result in chaos which is not the end of justice - no justification to allow this application(s), hence rejected: CESTAT [para 3, 4, 7]
- Applications rejected: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-907-CESTAT-MAD
Blueleaf Trading Company Vs CC
Cus - COD - The reason stated for delay is that the Director of appellant-company was ill and was suffering from acute IVDP with sciatica right leg - The medical certificate issued by physician is also produced - The delay is of 94 days - Assessee has put forward sufficient cause for condoning the delay - The delay is condoned: CESTAT
- Miscellaneous applications allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
