|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-150-SC-ST
CST Vs Greenwich Meridian Logistics India Pvt Ltd
ST - The appellant handles the logistics of exporters for delivery to the consignee and is registered as ‘multi-modal transport operator' with the Director General of Shipping - During the relevant period, the Revenue sought to raise duty demand on the appellant's activities under Business Auxiliary Service alonng with penalties being imposed u/s 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act 1994 - Later, the Tribunal held that the Finance Act, 1994 does not envisage determination of taxability from accounting entries - Appellant booking cargo space in shipping lines and, thereafter, allotting the space to their customers - With the space purchased being allocable only by the appellant, the shipping line fails in description as client whose services are promoted or marketed - Hence it set aside the demand.
Held - There is inordinate delay of 1180 days in filing the instant appeals - The explanations offered for the same do not satisfy - Hence the Revenue's appeals are dismissed: SC
-
Revenue's appeal dismissed
: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2019-TIOL-1008-CESTAT-MUM
Bhima Ssk Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Appellant had made transport expenses for transportation of levy sugar, press mud and for export of sugar - Department held that the transport services availed by the appellant should be classified as GTA and appellant is required to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Appellant had entrusted the job to the transporters not only for lifting the sugar bags from the factory for transportation but also for loading and unloading the sugar bags with much care and responsibility with temporary possession in their hands - for transporting the goods, the transporters did not issue any consignment notes as provided u/r 4B of STR, 1994 - it is also not the case of Revenue that being the agents of the appellants, such transporters have delivered the goods at the customer's place under the instructions of the appellant - services provided by the transporters to the appellant are appropriately classifiable under 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent service' and not under GTA service, as claimed by Revenue - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 4]
-
Appeal allowed
: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1007-CESTAT-MUM
Il And Fs Financial Service Ltd Vs CGST
ST - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Input service - Period involved is from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009 - Service Tax paid on insurance premium of group mediclaim policies of employees is admissible as CENVAT credit - since 'insurance' has been specifically excluded post-amendment w.e.f 01.04.2011, this itself shows that it was included earlier - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 10, 11]
-
Appeal allowed
: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
CX - Medicines sold to Government authorities by putting a mark on packages viz. "For Govt. Supply only", "Not for Sale" - However, excise duty was paid by appellant on the transaction value with their distributors who supplied the said medicines to hospitals at the rate approved by the Government authorities - Revenue allegation is that even though there was increase in the price of the medicines subsequent to levy of excise duty and also an increase in the rate of duty during the relevant period, the appellant collected duty in excess of that which was paid to Revenue but the excess was not deposited - notice issued u/s 11D of CEA, 1944 and a portion was dropped and rest was confirmed - appeal to CESTAT by assessee.
Held : In the tender, it is mentioned that the appellants are free to appoint distributors for supply of the said medicaments - Issue for consideration is whether the price charged by the appellant to the distributors is to be considered as transaction value or the price at which the goods are sold/supplied to the government authorities - Tribunal has considered more or less similar facts and circumstances in the case of Bright Drugs Industries - 2016-TIOL-2387-CESTAT-DEL and concluded that the appellant was required to discharge the duty liability at the contracted price in respect of the goods supplied to the Government hospitals, either directly or through their purported distributor - Following the same, the price charged by the appellant to their distributor cannot be considered as true transaction within the scope of definition of transaction value - price at which the goods were sold/supplied to the government agencies against the rate contract should be the correct transaction value and the duty is required to be paid on the same: CESTAT [para 15]
CX - Limitation - Appellant, at no point of time, has submitted any documents relating to the role of the distributors, which on investigation, revealed the same is on paper only and there is no real transaction of sale between appellant and the distributors but is only to facilitate the proper and timely supply of medicaments on behalf of appellant - in the statements, the distributors have submitted that the entire transaction is only a mere paper work and there is no transaction of sale between them - invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty is justified: CESTAT [para 16]
CX - Section 11D of the CEA, 1944 - A plain reading of the said section reveals that a person who is liable to pay duty and has collected any excess amount than the amount assessed as duty from the buyer representing as duty of excise, then such excess amount so collected is required to be deposited with the government - no such circumstances are present in the instant case - issue has also been dealt with by Tribunal in the case of Bright Drugs Industries (supra) - following the same, confirmation of the amount u/s 11D of the CEA, 1944 cannot be sustained: CESTAT [para 17 to 19]
CX - Personal penalty imposed on Director u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - no evidence has been brought on record by which his direct involvement could be established - no specific finding has also been recorded by lower authorities in this regard - no justification for imposition of penalty hence same is set aside: CESTAT [para 21]
-
Appeals disposed of
: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1005-CESTAT-MUM
Servo-Med Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Process of sterilization of syringes/needles does not amount to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the CEA, 1944 - Supreme Court decision in appellant's own case - 2015-TIOL-103-SC-CX followed - Appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
-
Appeal allowed
: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
ctariffadd19_018 Seeks to amend notification No. 23/2013-Customs(ADD), dated the 10th October, 2013 to extend the anti-dumping duty on ductile iron pipes originating in, or exported from China PR till 9th May, 2019 CASE LAW
2019-TIOL-1004-CESTAT-MUM
Ansar and Company Vs CC
Cus - Appellants made imports in the year 1993 and at that time there were no provision for payment of interest - importer has become chargeable to duty at the time of importation, therefore, the relevant date should be the date of occurrence of taxable event - it is not the intention of the law to penalize importers where the taxable event has occurred before the new legislation viz. s.28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 came into effect - moreover, appellants were not put to notice on the requirement of paying interest - appellants are, therefore, not required to pay any interest on the duty confirmed - Tribunal decision in Soumag Electronics [ 2018-TIOL-764-CESTAT-MAD ] relied upon: CESTAT [para 5.3]
Cus - Going by the provisions of s.142 of the Customs Act, 1962, Commissioner of Customs is empowered to recover sums due to government by distraining any movable or immovable property belonging to or under the control of the defaulter - Therefore, deducting the amount due from the sums payable to the defaulter or detaining/selling the goods belonging to the defaulter and lying in the custody of customs or detaining the movable or immovable property are within the ambit of powers conferred u/s 142, therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner in freezing the bank accounts of the appellants - however, freezing of accounts for recovery of 'interest' which is not payable, is incorrect - Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the interest - Duty of Rs.1,02,501/- is held payable - interest paid is directed to be refunded with applicable interest within four weeks: CESTAT [para 5.4, 6]
Cus - Contempt - CESTAT had by its order dated 03.11.2017 directed the Chief Commissioner to examine the facts and to issue appropriate guidelines to the field officer so that litigation does not perpetuate but comes to an end - It is reported that department has de-freezed the accounts of the appellants in Central Bank of India and State Bank of India - Much water has flown since then and it is the year 2019 now - contempt proceedings at this stage would not solve any purpose but would further increase the litigation which in no way was the intention of the Bench - Bench is, therefore, not inclined to pursue the contempt proceedings, however, the officers concerned are advised to be judicious in dealing with importers/exporters and ensure that the provisions of law are followed in letter and spirit: CESTAT [para 5.5]
-
Appeal partly allowed
: MUMBAI CESTAT |
