|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-927-CESTAT-MUM
Aamby Valley City Developer Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Appellants are not providing any Convention Service as alleged - Appellant had rented rooms and have discharged service tax liability whenever the same was applicable - no separate charges for Convention Center was charged and the use has been allowed on complimentary basis - demand has been computed on notional basis - since use of convention room is a complimentary, no service tax can be charged on the same - Tribunal decisions in Dukes Retreat Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-1624-CESTAT-MUM & Taj View Hotels - 2014-TIOL-1128-CESTAT-DEL relied upon - impugned order set aside and appeals allowed with consequential reliefs: CESTAT [para 4, 5]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-926-CESTAT-MUM
Shreenath Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST -Tax demand upheld against the appellant on the ground that they have not paid service tax on incentives received from M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and pre-delivery inspection (PDI) charges.
Held: + Incentives are in the form of trade discounts to the appellants and hence cannot be termed as any provision of service rendered by appellants to M/s HMIL - Tribunal decision in Ralas Motors - 2016-TIOL-46-CESTAT-DEL followed: CESTAT [para 6]
+ As regards PDI charges, the pre-delivery inspection is conducted by the dealer on his own in respect of vehicles purchased from M/s HMIL while handing over the vehicles to their customers - the appellant has not received any separate amount from the manufacturer/customer for the same and the cost is incurred out of their profit margin earned on trading of vehicles - as the PDI charges is already included in the value of vehicles sold, no service tax is leviable on the same - demand and penalty is unsustainable - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 6]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-925-CESTAT-MUM
ST Electricals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - SCN had been issued to the appellant demanding service tax under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation service' whereas, in remand proceedings, the demands for the period after 01.06.2007 have been confirmed under the category of ‘Works Contract Service' - when no demand was made from the appellant under the category of ‘Works Contract Service' in the SCN, the adjudicating authority could not have confirmed demand under the said category - adjudication order has thus travelled beyond the scope of SCN and, therefore, the order is not sustainable - moreover, since the appellant had surrendered their registration certificate on 15.03.2006, the department was in the knowledge of the fact that the appellant is not paying service tax on its activities - there is also no suppression or malafide intention on the part of the appellant - required documents were also submitted to the department by their communication dated 23.09.2008 and 22.10.2008 but SCN was issued after 28 months of issuance of summons and 48 months after surrender of registration - demand is hit by limitation - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed on merits as well as limitation: CESTAT [para 6 to 8]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-924-CESTAT-AHM
Alkem Laboratories Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue in this case is whether the appellant is eligible to pay duty by utilizing through Cenvat credit on the input procured duty free under Notfn No 43/2002-CE(NT) r/w the Concessional Rate of Duty Rules 2001, on the removal of such inputs.
Held: This Tribunal has already passed an order on this issue, in the case of UOI vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. - This decision has been challenged before the High Court & the Revenue's appeal has been admitted - In this position, any decision taken by the Tribunal would not be proper - Hence the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order: CESTAT
- Case remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2019-TIOL-923-CESTAT-MUM
Brilliant Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant cleared Insulated Wares under the brand name “Milton” on payment of MRP based duty u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944 - manufacturing activity was discontinued in August 2001 - some stock was lifted by their customer but the balance was refused and the same became obsolete - Customer issued NOC to the appellant to dispose of the said obsolete stock for whatever salvage price the appellant could get but with the condition that the Insulated wares should not be sold with the brand name or logo of Milton - accordingly, appellant defaced and removed the brand name and sold them as loose articles in bulk and by paying CE duty by valuing in terms of s.4 of the CEA, 1944 - Differential CE duty demand issued and confirmed on the ground that since the product Insulated ware is covered under SWM Act, 1976, valuation u/s 4A was inescapable - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: In view of the terms of the NOC issued by M/s Milton, the appellant was required to remove all the brand name/logo/marking and packing which could identify the product with M/s Milton - in such case, the appellant was not liable to clear the goods by affixing the MRP as the same were not in packed form and the requirements under the SWM Act, 1976 was not applicable to the appellant - Therefore, appellant had correctly assessed the goods u/s 4 and s.4A would not be applicable - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-922-CESTAT-MUM
Dow Agro Sciences India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
CX -CENVAT - Input Service - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Effluent Treatment in a manufacturing area has to be considered as being in relation to manufacturing activity - Appellant is entitled for availment of credit of the service tax paid on hazardous waste management service in view of the Tribunal decisions in Kanoria Chemicals - 2015–TIOL-1934- CESTAT-AHM and L'Oreal India P Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-39-CESTAT-MUM . - appeal allowed: CESTAT [para5.2, 5.3]
: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2019-TIOL-921-CESTAT-MUM Koradia Exports India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Refund of SAD - Lower authorities rejected the refund claims on the ground that the Balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2008 does not show the refund amount as receivables - From the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant, it is evident that the appellant had the accounting practice of showing the SAD amount in purchase account and afterwards in next year when they received the amount of SAD, the same was credited to ‘Refund received from the government account' - this practice shows that the claim is not hit by unjust enrichment - main requirement is that the importer should not have charged their buyers the SAD amount and which aspect has not been disputed by the appellate authority - further, in the balance sheet for the year 2008-09 the said amount is appearing as ‘Refund received from Government' which is also not disputed - no reason to deny refund of 4% SAD as the conditions stand complied with - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-920-CESTAT-KOL
CC Vs Sadhan Das
Cus - When the matter was listed on 07.01.2019, it was directed by Bench to list the Misc. Application before Single Member Bench on 08.02.2019 - The process of implementation of issue of Final Order dated 02.02.2017 has been initiated and will be completed soon - Accordingly, no further directions are being issued on Misc. Application, the same should be listed on Board on 22.02.2019: CESTAT
- Matter listed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
