2019-TIOL-1019-CESTAT-MAD

ST - The assessee is engaged in providing Custom House Agent Service and Transport of Goods by Road Service - Pursuant to audit, it was noticed that assessee was booking space for cargo transportations in airlines/ships and paid the charges for the same - As and when the clients bring cargo for dispatch, the assessee collect freight charges for the transportation of goods - The Department took the view that the said services appear to be classifiable under BAS - The decision in the case of M/s. Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-3395-CESTAT-MAD relied upon by assessee is in fact applicable on all fours to the case on hand - No new grounds or reasons found to deviate from the ratio laid down in those decisions viz., that the demand of service tax on freight charges under Business Auxiliary Services is unsustainable - This being so, the demands of tax and penalties on this score cannot sustain - As regards to demand with interest on excess charges, this amount has already been paid up by assessee and is not being contested in appeal - The amount has been paid up along with the interest liability thereof proximate to audit conducted by Department - Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid in respect of this liability is unjustified - As regards to demand on commission received from steamer agents/airlines, it is clear that the amounts pertain to period prior to October 2004 - As the SCN has been issued only on 05.04.2010, this demand cannot be covered even within the extended period of limitation of five years - The demands of tax and penalty in respect of this liability are squarely hit by limitation and hence, the same cannot be sustained: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-1018-CESTAT-DEL

ST - The assessee is engaged in GTA Service and for which they are duly registered with Service Tax Department - As per various agreements entered by assessee with M/s Western Coal Field Ltd., assessee has been provided work contract for transportation of coal from mining area either to washery or to the railway siding by employing tippers and trucks for this purposes - The scope of work included loading of coal from mining area to the washery or to the railway siding, transportation thereof and thereafter unloading of the coal either at washery or at the railway siding - The Department has entertained a view that loading and unloading of the coal for mining area and transport of the same within the mining area is more appropriately classifiable under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" - This issue has already been examined by Supreme Court in their decision in Singh Transporters - 2017-TIOL-249-SC-ST wherein it is held that activity undertaken by assessee of transporting of coal from the pithead of mines to railway siding is more appropriately classifiable under service head of Transport of Goods by road services - No merit found in impugned order, the same is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-1017-CESTAT-BANG

CX - Revenue is in appeal against O-I-O - By the said order, the Commissioner passed in remand proceeding as per Tribunal's Final Order dated 25.07.2008 dropped all the SCNs issued to the assessees - Though the appeal separately discusses each of the item separately, Tribunal only taken discussion in appeal in respect of three items for testing the preposition made by appeal in respect of consideration and non-verification on sample basis - From the examination on sample basis, it is found that Commissioner has aptly considered the items for purpose of holding whether the processes undertaken amount to manufacture as per the test laid down in the order of Supreme Court in case of Craft Interiors - 2006-TIOL-142-SC-CX - However in their appeal, revenue has failed to consider the complete findings recorded by Commissioner in respect of each item - Accordingly, no merits found in the appeals filed by the Revenue: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed : BANGALORE CESTAT

2019-TIOL-1016-CESTAT-MAD

CX - The appellant company manufactures Shampoo, Talcum powder, Ponds Moisturizing Cold Cream and Vaseline Pure Petroleum Jelly - It claimed refund of excess duty paid on account of finalization of provisional assessment - The refund claims were rejected by the Range Officer on grounds that the requisite invoices had not been produced & without which it could not be ascertained as to whether or not the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer - SCNs rejecting the refund claims were sustained upon adjudication - Hence the present appeals.

Held: It is seen that the O-i-O rejected the refund claims on account of failure to prove whether or not the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers - It is also seen that the assessee's counsel is willing to furnish the requisite documents to prove the same - Thus, in the interests of justice, the matter warrants remand to the adjudicating authority for considering such evidence and passing a fresh order: CESTAT (Para 1,2,7.1,8)

- Case remanded : CHENNAI CESTAT