|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-1092-CESTAT-ALL
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The assessee have centralized Service Tax Registration for providing various services - The department alleged evasion of payment of Service Tax by assessee for rendering the works contract service - It is also alleged that assessee has wrongly classified the remaining service under ECIS and CICS with the sole intention to wrongly avail the benefit of Notfn 1/2006-ST - Resulting a SCN was served upon assessee proposing a demand along with interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty - The SCN as well as the order of Adjudicating Authority has considered the entire activity of assessee arising out of said three contracts as one single activity of work contract and the demand has been proposed and confirmed on the gross-value of total value of three of the contracts - Prior the assessee started Civil Construction, Errection or Installation at the agreed site, the equipments to be erected/installed at that site were agreed to be supplied to the assessee vide a separate agreement - This particular fact makes it abundantly clear that property in goods which were to be erected and installed by assessee had not transferred in his favour at the site of construction and erection - Above all it is admitted and acknowledged fact that execution of three separate agreements was the mandate of the bid of company itself - Value of this contract cannot be treated as the part of the gross-value for entire work done by assessee - Findings of Adjudicating Authority below are therefore, held to be wrong - As regards to the contract of Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services, the goods required for the purpose were supplied to assessee vide a separate agreement - No question for this service to become work contract arises nor for adding the value of three of the contracts as to gross-value liability under works contract service as alleged - It is apparent and admitted fact that the assessee is otherwise discharging liability for three of these contracts separately - Order to this extent is set aside - Though the Commissioner has tried to distinguish the present matter but it is observed that the ground taken about said decision is absolutely wrong - It is mentioned by Commissioner that in the previous case issue of abatement is not involved - The said finding is an error apparent on the face of record - When question arising for adjudication and facts are almost identical to previous case, Revenue cannot be allowed to take different stand: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1091-CESTAT-DEL
Chawanda Associates Vs CCE & ST
ST - The assessee is engaged in providing services to the State Government Department such as Department of Mines & Geology (DMG) and Commercial Tax Department - They were engaged in collecting statutory levy on behalf of the Government - It was held in impugned order that these services were defined as the services under heading of "Business Auxiliary Services" and accordingly, the demands were confirmed - T he similar issue is already decided in case of Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-2608-CESTAT-DEL - All the issues, which are being contested in these appeals have been decided in favour of assessee by this Tribunal - However, in these cases the period involved is also post 1.6.2012 - SCN does not whispers above the category under which the services are to be qualified post 1.6.2012 - On the other hand, these are also statutory duties levied by the Government and accordingly, amended by the notification no.25/2012-ST - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-860-HC-AHM-CX
Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The applicant seeks COD of 29 days caused in filing the captioned tax appeal - Considering the averments made in memorandum of application, the court is of the view that the delay caused in filing the tax appeal has been sufficiently explained: HC
-
Application allowed
: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1090-CESTAT-MUM
Standard Industries Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Duty on captively consumed yarn - Mere mentioning on the classification list as well as on the RT-12 returns that the assessments are provisional does not mean that the assessments are provisional since the provision of rule 9B has to be followed - For provisional assessment, there should be a proper order under rule 9B by the Revenue and endorsement on RT-12 return to the effect that the assessment is provisional would not suffice for making the assessee liable for payment of duty - no SCN was issued by the Revenue in terms of s.11A of the CEA, 1944 to the appellant for recovery of duty and once the SCN was not issued, no demand could have been made from the appellant - having failed to issue SCN, Revenue cannot take the shelter of the Bond executed by the appellant in terms of the order of the Delhi High Court - in view of the settled legal position, demand of duty against the appellants is not sustainable - impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1089-CESTAT-MUM
Vikas S Jagdale Vs CCE
CX - Valuation - Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 - Judicial interpretation of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is that it is applicable only when there is exclusive supply to a ‘related person' and which is not so in the present case - appellant, in addition to clearances effected to M/s Shreem Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., had also been making clearances elsewhere, which fact and its valuation is not being disputed - without going into the issue of whether the finding of being related is contestable and whether demand is barred by limitation, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6,8]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
cnt32_2019
CBIC notifies Customs exchange rates for export & import purposes CASE LAWS
2019-TIOL-1093-CESTAT-MUM
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The issue at hand pertains to the classification and rate of duty applicable on Germinated Oil Palm Seeds, Variety Tenera Hybrids - On assessment, they were classified under CTH 1201 00 10 attracting BCD @ 5% with EC @ 3% & SAD @ 4% - The assessee claimed that the goods were classifiable under CTH 1209 29 90 vide Notfn No 20/2006-Cus - The assessee also claimed benefit under Notfn No 21/2002-Cus - On appeal, the Commr.(A) held that the goods were not classifiable under CTH 1209 since they were not meant for sowing - Hence the present appeal contesting such findings.
Held - It is seen that the exemption claimed by the appellants under Notfn No 21/2002-Cus has been allowed by the lower authorities - The appellants claim that the goods ought to have been classified as per the classification prescribed in the exemption Notfn and not by application of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 12 - It is also claimed that since no rate of duty is mentioned under Column 5 of the Notfn No 21/2002-Cus, the assessee is eligible for full exemption from additional duty - Such submission cannot be sustained, as classification must be done as per the terms of headings and any relative section or chapter notes - The judgment in Government of India Vs Indian Tobacco Association relied on by the assessee does not help the assessee's case since it does not touch upon the issue of classification - It is in fact an authority on liberal interpretation of exemption notifications in accordance with the objective of such notification - Moreover, as laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs Dilip Kumar & Company it is settled law that an exemption notification must be construed strictly & any ambiguity in it must be interpreted in favour of State - Hence the present appeals hold no substance: CESTAT (Para 2,3.1,5.4) - Assessee's appeals dismissed
: MUMBAI CESTAT |
