|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-942-CESTAT-DEL
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs CST
ST - The assessee is registered with service tax department for providing BAS, advertising space services and renting of immovable property services - The assessee have entered into two agreements dated 24/01/2005 and 24/12/2008 with M/s IGL for supply of CNG which are required as fuel for fleet of assessee‘s buses - The Department working on an intelligence has gathered that M/s IGL were evading central excise duty by way of under valuation of their finished excisable goods namely CNG by selling the CNG to assessee at the discount of Rs. 1.20 per kg. in assessable value - It is very clear that while providing the space and other facilities at various DTC bus depots for setting up of CNG dispensation units to M/s IGL, the assessee have received a discount of Rs. 1.20 per kg. of CNG - As it is an admitted fact that M/s IGL is a business concern engaged in business of purchase and sale of CNG on profit basis - The agreements between the assessee and IGL categorically mentions that discount which is given by M/s IGL to assessee on the sale of CNG to them from the prevailing market prices is primarily in lieu of the space and logistic infrastructure provided by assessee to M/s IGL - The O-I-O is legally correct in holding that providing the space for setting up of dispensation units at DTC Bus depot premises with related infrastructure, on the consideration of discount @ 1.20 per kg. on CNG from the prevailing prices, amount to renting of immovable property for consideration - With regard to invocation of Section 78 of FA, 1994, assessee have entered into an agreement with M/s IGL for providing space and other infrastructural facilities for setting up of CNG dispensation units on a consideration in the form of discount - Since the assessee is working under scheme of self-assessment under the service tax laws it was the duty of assessee to approach the Department and get a clarification whether the type of the agreement which have been entered by them with M/s IGL will amount to provision of service namely renting of immovable property and whether they need to discharge any service tax on the same or not - Since, no pro-active action has been taken by assessee in meeting his statutory liability regarding payment of service tax - Crucial details and information have been suppressed from the Department which have led to the evasion of service tax - The Adjudicating Authority has rightly invoked the provision of Section 78 and 77 of FA, 1994 and, therefore, no interference is required with the findings of O-I-O with regard to imposition of penalty under Section 78 and 77 of Finance Act also: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-941-CESTAT-BANG
ABM Civil Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
ST - Assessee is engaged in providing various service such as Site Formation and Clearance and earth moving and demolition services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Work Contract Services - A SCN was issued demanding Service Tax in respect of taxable services provided by them by invoking extended period of limitation - Interest in terms of Section 75 and penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 were also proposed - In respect of services provided during the period 2007-08 to 2008-09 for construction of Cement Silo to M/s Ambuja Cement Limited, assessee is not disputing levy of Service Tax and have admittedly paid the same - Since the assessee do not contest the said demand at this stage, same is upheld - In respect of services under the category of work contract services provided to M/s P K Thomas (Muscat Towers), Mr G Yohannan (Nandan Square), there is no dispute that the said services were provided during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, i.e. prior to 01.03.2007 - Apex Court has in case of Larsen and Tubro - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST has held that said services became taxable from 1st June 2007 - Following the said decision of Apex Court, demands made for levy of service tax under various taxable categories in respect of the services provided to M/s P K Thomas (Muscat Towers), Mr G Yohannan (Nandan Square), during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07 cannot survive - For the demands upheld the contraventions of provisions of Finance Act, 1994 leading to imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 needs to be upheld - Accordingly, penalties imposed under Section 78 are proportionally modified to that extent - In case of benefit of payment of penalty and the rate of 25% was available to assessee at the time when they had paid the Service Tax along with interest, the same benefit will continue in the present scenario - Penalties under Section 76 & 77 which relates to procedural contravention need to be upheld - For the service tax short paid, demand for interest upheld in respect of Service Tax short-paid and confirmed by this order - For the re-quantification of the demand interest under Section 75 and penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 matter remanded back to adjudicating authority : CESTAT
- Appeal dispsoed of: BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-737-HC-MUM-CX
Pr Commissioner Of CGST & Central Excise Vs Dhl Lemuir Logistics Pvt Ltd
CX - The issue arising in this appeal deal with the entitlement to exemption as well as valuation of taxable service - Thus, the issue which arise in this appeal as is evident from the question as well as the impugned order are in respect of the exemption from Service Tax in view of exemption to Notfn 4 of 2004 and Service Tax dated 31st March, 2004 and valuation of the services for the purpose of Business Auxiliary Services - Both these issues namely valuation of services as well as the exemption from Service Tax i.e. rate of duty would be a subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court in view of Section 83 of FA, 1994 r/w Section 35G(1) and 35L(1)(b) of the Act - Therefore, this appeal in respect of valuation and rate of duty is subject to appeal before the Supreme Court and not this Court: HC
- Appeal disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-940-CESTAT-MAD
Commissioner of GST & CE Vs Unimech Industries
CX - The department is aggrieved by order passed by the Commissioner who dropped part of the demand - Though the revenue has put forward the argument that dropping of said demand is not correct when the activity of doing modifications on products purchased having been admitted by assessee, there is actually no such ground raised in appeal filed before this Tribunal - The ground raised in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner has not given any finding with regard to limitation or with regard to confirmation of interest and demand - In impugned order, the Commissioner has discussed the issue of difference in figures reflected in returns filed by assessee and the financial statement - The demand in respect of Rs.34,94,737/- is made only in respect of such amount reflected in sales invoices wherein the goods have been sold at a higher price by assessee - The Commissioner has said that though the proprietor of assessee has given statement that they are doing some modification on goods, there is nothing to show that a new product emerges from such modification - The goods received and goods sold are one and the same and there is no change in CETH or description of goods - In that case, it is for the department to show as to what are the inputs used for doing such modification and what is the activity actually involved for doing the modifications - The activity cannot be held to be manufacture on a mere presumption that there is an increase in the price value - There is actually nothing brought forth in SCN to show that the activity undertaken by assessee amounts to manufacture - The Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand with respect to Rs.34,94,737/- - The impugned order therefore calls for no interference: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-939-CESTAT-MAD
Velvette International Pharma Products Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The assessee was manufacturer of "NIVARAN 90 Herbal Cough Syrup" - A SCN was issued to them proposing demand of Central Excise duty invoking extending period of limitation on the grounds that declarations filed by assessee over the years from 1990 onwards had misdeclared the method of manufacture of NIVARON 90 as if they were as per Ayurvedic text with intention to evade Central Excise duty and that they had suppressed the actual ingredients used by them in said product with intention to evade Central Excise duty - This appeal has been taken up by Tribunal in compliance with the Order in - 2018-TIOL-1403-HC-MAD-CX - In effect, this Tribunal will also have to consider only limited issue as per the remand order of High Court - Whether the date of inspection by departmental officers at the unit of assessee has any bearing in deciding the period of limitation when issuing SCNs in proceedings initiated against the latter - The period of demand namely 1.5.1991 to 28.2.1994 is well within the extended period of limitation invoked under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A ibid, with respect to the date of SCN, namely, 17.5.1996 - The date of inspection by officers on 11.11.93 will not have any bearing in deciding the period of limitation to issue SCN dt. 17.5.96 - The assessee have also objected to the issue of supplementary SCN which, according to them, has substantially changed the SCN originally issued; hence the date of issue of SCN should be taken as the date of issue of supplementary SCN - Whereas SCN dt. 17.5.96 had only proposed demand of Central Excise duty, the supplementary SCN proposed that on similar grounds contained in the said SCN, "Special Excise Duty of Rs.6,29,868/-" is also liable to be paid for the period 1.5.91 to 28.2.94 again invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A 91 ibid - The Supplementary SCN has not changed the quantum of excise duty, demanded in earlier SCN dt.17.5.96, but has only sought to propose demand another duty of excise, namely, Special Excise Duty which may have been inadvertently omitted to have been included in first SCN - In any case, for the very reason that date of inspection 11.11.93 cannot be taken as the date of department having acquired knowledge of the activities of assessee, the demand proposed in supplementary SCN dt. 25.7.96 is also found to be well within the extended period of limited invoked therein - No reason found to deviate from findings of Tribunal in earlier order dt. 4.5.2010 that the demand is not time-barred and the charge of suppression has been rightly held to have been proved by the authorities below: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
PUBLIC NOTICE
dgft18pn084 Amendments in the Handbook of Procedure consequent to the introduction of a procedure thereby doing away with the physical copy of MEIS/SEIS scrips issued with EDI ports
TRADE NOTICE dgft_trade_notice_02_2019
Imports of Maize (feed grade) under the TRQ Scheme for 2018-19
dgft_trade_notice_03_2019 Discontinuation of issue of physical copy of MEIS/SEIS scrips for EDI ports with effect from 10.4.2019 CASE LAWS 2019-TIOL-733-HC-MAD-CUS
Amrr Maharaja Dhall Mills Vs CC
Cus - The petitioners sought a Mandamus for release of consignments and a further direction to the respondents to issue a 'Detention Certificate' for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges in terms of Regulation 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - The identical issue has been considered in case of M/s. Royal Impex 2019-TIOL-596-HC-MAD-CUS. The said order is applicable to the present case on all fours - The petitioners will remit the entire duty component of consignments imported by them in cases where such duty is leviable along with a bank guarantee for the 10% of invoice value - In cases where the duty impact is neutral, the petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee for the 10% of the invoice value - Upon satisfaction of aforesaid conditions, the consignments shall be released forthwith - The authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings in respect of transactions in question and if done, petitioners shall appear, be heard and file their submissions pursuant to which orders shall be passed by authorities in accordance with law - The petitioners have also prayed for waiver of demurrage charges incurred in respect of detained consignments - In the light of Rule 6(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which provides that Customs Cargo Provider shall not, subject to any other law for the time being in force, charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be, there shall be a waiver of demurrage charges: HC
- Writ Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2019-TIOL-943-CESTAT-CHD
Goodlife Impex Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
Cus - The assessee imported one consignment declaring the goods as Cellcom ATF, Cellcom ASF and Cellcom ATS - The adjudicating authority while assessing the bill of entry, enhanced the value - Considering the fact that in this case, no speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1965 has been passed by adjudicating authority assigning the reason why value of the imported goods in question has been enhanced; therefore, the adjudicating authority is directed to pass a speaking order why the adjudicating authority has enhanced the value after giving the opportunity to being heard to the assessee - The adjudicating authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law - The assessee is also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority within 5 days of receipt of this order for fixing the date of hearing: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHANDIGARH CESTAT |
