|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-1183-CESTAT-DEL
Rashleela Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The appellant company is engaged in mining, transportation of mined goods from mining sites to other places & also transportation of other goods to various principals - In case of mining services, the appellant acts as a contractor and carries out activities such as overburden removal, mining the ore from the bottom of mine and cutting the rocks by drilling/blasting and raising of ore - The appellant also charges & collects its charges for such services as specified under respective contracts - The appellant charges separate amounts for the services rendered towards transportation of mined material to respective plants, crushers or other designated places and transportation of rejects to dump sites - When 'mining of minerals, oil or gas' was made taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the appellant obtained service tax registration & commenced payment of service tax - During the relevant period, the Department alleged short payment of duty on the transportation activities - Hence duty demand was raised with interest & penalty being imposed u/s 78(1) of the Finance Act 1994 - Hence the present appeal.
Held: The appellant obtained separate registration for mining service as well as GTA service, along with other services - The agreements between the appellant and the principals reveals there to be separate rates for mining and the transportation activity - The appellant also transports mineral mined by other entities - The Apex Court in CCE & ST, Raipur Vs. Singh Transporters held that transportation of Coal from pit-heads to railway sidings within mining areas is appropriately classified under GTA service - Moreover, it is seen that the services have been separately defined in the contract and separate bills have been raised for the mining activity and the transportation activity - The appellant also transported more mineral than had been mined - Thus the the concept of composite service is not applicable - Hence the orders in challenge warrant being quashed: CESTAT (Para 2-8,14,15)
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1182-CESTAT-MAD
Spencers Travel Services Ltd Vs CST
ST - Assessee is a General Sales Agency (GSA) for a number of foreign airlines for passenger and / or cargo - Pursuant to enquiries conducted by department, it appeared that in said services assessee received Overriding Commission (ORC) in Indian currency - Department took the view that these ORC amounts are liable to service tax under category of BAS under section 65 (19) of FA, 1994 - Proceedings were initiated against assessee inter alia proposing demand of service tax with interest thereon as also imposition of penalty - The issue in dispute is fully covered by the ratio of decision of this very Bench in Arafaath Travels Pvt. Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-3659-CESTAT-MAD - Revenue has submitted that the Madras High Court decision in Suprasesh General Insurance Services & Brokers P. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2225-HC-MAD-ST which was relied upon in decision of Arafaath Travels Pvt. Ltd., has been appealed to and admitted by the Apex Court - However, the fact remains that no stay has been granted against the operation of order in Suprasesh General Insurance - This being so, ratio of Arafaath Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Suprasesh General Insurance would be applicable to the present appeal also hence the impugned order to the contrary cannot sustain: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-1186-CESTAT-ALL
CCE & ST Vs Shyam Traders
CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala and Gutkha under brand name 'Shyam Bahar' - They are paying duty under PMPM Rules, 2008 which came into effect from 1st July, 2008 under Section 3A of CEA, 1944 - They filed the declaration on 28th April, 2010 in prescribed form-1 effective from 1st May, 2010 to the effect that they had 45 pouch packing machines, out of which 42 pouch packing machines will be engaged in manufacture and packing of 'Shyam Bahar' Brand Gutkha of M.R.P. Rs.1 - On examination, it was found that on the ground floor, 18 machines and on the first floor 24 machines were found to be engaged in the production of notified goods– Gutkha of MRP Rs.1 - On examination of the three pouch packing machines, lying uninstalled on the ground floor, which were declared as sealed, it was found that the seal of two machines were apparently broken - On a reasonable belief that the seal of the machines were broken without intimating to the Department, to manufacture Gutkha with intention to evade duty, the officers seized the three machines valued - Accordingly, SCN was issued to assessee, requiring to show cause, as to why the three single track pouch packing machines should not be confiscated under Rule 25 (1) of CER, 2002 - At the time of panchnama proceedings on 2nd May, 2010 on being questioned, respondent Shri Awdhesh Agnihorti stated that he does not have any knowledge regarding the seal, found to be broken - It is only at the time of inspection that he also came to know that the seal of the three machines is in broken condition - It is further evident from the panchnama, which was drawn on 2nd May, 2010 that no production was being carried on, on the said three machines - Further, the said three machines are not found in installed stage so as to be ready for production - Neither any raw material was found loaded in Hooper of machine nor any packaging material was loaded, as is evident from panchnama as well as the photographs annexed to panchnama - Accordingly, the order of Commissioner (A) is justified and cannot be faulted with: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION
ctariff19_013 Seeks to further amend notification No. 50/2017- Customs dated 30.06.2017 so as to increase basic customs duty (BCD)on wheat from present 30% to 40%. CASE LAWS
2019-TIOL-1185-CESTAT-MAD
Spic Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
Cus - The delay is only 171 days in filing the appeal - Assessee has put forward sufficient cause for the delay - However, assessee has to be put on terms - The delay shall stand condoned on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- on or before 30.4.2019 - List the case for compliance on 30.4.2019 - Failure to comply with the above direction shall result in dismissal of the COD application along with the appeal without notice: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1184-CESTAT-KOL
SB Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - Revocation of CHA license - Since it affects the livelihood of assessee and its employees, early hearing was allowed - Since the matter has been listed in the miscellaneous matter and not for regular hearing, the matter is adjourned to 29.3.2019: CESTAT
- Application allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
