|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-1186-HC-MUM-ST
CCGST & CE Vs DHL Logistics Pvt Ltd
ST - There is no discussion whatsoever in the Tribunal order about the respective contentions raised by the parties - Tribunal concluded that the order of adjudication is bad without having tested the same on the basis of the submissions of the parties - Since the impugned order of the Tribunal is in breach of principles of natural justice, same is set aside and appeal is restored to the CESTAT for fresh consideration and passing an order in compliance with the principles of natural justice: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Matter remanded: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1623-CESTAT-MAD
Gavin Resources Vs CGST & CE
ST - During the relevant period, SCN was issued to the assessee alleging that its taxable turnover was less than Rs 50 lakhs and so the assessee was liable to pay tax on or before the due date as per Rule 6 of STR 1994 on receipt basis - For another period, it was claimed that the assessee had exceeded the exemption limit of Rs 50 lakhs but had not paid service tax on accrual basis - It was also alleged that even though invoices were issued after the threshhold limit of Rs 50 lakhs had been crossed, the assessee did not pay service tax - Hence the SCN proposed to raise duties with interest & penalties - On adjudication, duty demand was raised with interest & penalties u/s 77 & 78 of the Finance Act - These was sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeals.
Held - The AO apparently worked out the demand after considering the provisions of Rule 6 - Rule 6 of STR prescribes the date for payment of service tax when the aggregate value of taxable services from one or more premises is Rs 50,00,000/- or less in the previous year - Certain class of assessees including partnership firms shall have the option to pay service tax up to a total of Rs 50,00,000/- in the current financial year within the due dates specified thereunder i.e., fifth or sixth day of the month as the case may be - After introduction of Point of Taxation Rules, service tax is payable by the service provider on ‚accrual basis‛ which means the liability to remit service tax is fastened the moment an invoice is raised - However, the adjudicating authority apparently has not given the working as to how the Revenue determined the service tax liability as per Rule 6 - Hence the matter warrants remand for de novo adjudication: CESTAT
- Case remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1622-CESTAT-DEL
CC Vs Shinmaywa Industries India Pvt Ltd
ST - Whether the application for refund filed on 26th-27th July, 2013 by assessee who is registered with Service Tax department under category of BAS for the period April, 2012 to June, 2012, under Rule 5 of CCR r/w Notfn 5/1006-CE NT, has been filed in time - The service rendered by assessee was completed only on 30th June, 2012 - Moreover the amount received by them on 30th April, 2012 was by way of an advance - The said invoice related to period April to June, 2012 - Hence, the relevant date has to be taken only from the date of completion of service not from the date of receipt of payment which is prior to the date of completion of service - As regard the second ground i.e. allowing the refund claim by Commissioner (A), without going to be other aspects, said ground found to be frivolous and against public policy as well as against the provisions of the Act, read with Rules there under - For one refund claim, there cannot be more than one SCN and one adjudication order - It is not permitted to Revenue to reject the refund claim on one ground and when the said ground is held unsustainable, to raise the hue and cry that they are also other grounds on which the refund may be rejected - This ground is also rejected - Accordingly, adjudicating authority is directed to grant the refund within a period of 45 days along with interest as per rules: CESTAT
- Appeal rejected: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-1624-CESTAT-KOL
CCE Vs New Central Jute Mills Company Ltd
CX - Pursuant to CERA Audit Objection, a demand was raised for classification of product manufactured by them i.e. Jute matting - The assessee was availing the benefit of Notfn 29/95-CE at Sl.No.3 of Table as mentioned "Description of Goods", under heading "Floor Coverings of Jute" leviable to Central Excise duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem - The same was objected by Department as per CERA Audit Objection and it was proposed to classify the product manufactured by them under Sl.No.1 of the afore-mentioned Notification under Heading Carpets and other textile floor coverings, knitted, woven, tufted or flocked, whether or not made up (excluding dari sataranji, namdhs, jute carpets and coir carpets), which were chargeable to Central Excise duty @ 30% ad valorem - The decision of Tribunal in case of Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. 2016-TIOL-949-CESTAT-KOL is squarely applicable in the instant case - Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed upholding the O-I-O passed by adjudicating authority: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1621-CESTAT-DEL
Sah Polymers Ltd Vs CE & GST
CX - The assessee have established their factories in State of Rajasthan and were operating under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme - They were eligible for subsidies as per the various schemes applicable to assessees and they were required to deposit VAT/CST/SGST at the applicable rate with the Government and in terms of the scheme notified, will be entitled to disbursement of subsidy by the appropriate authorities - The subsidy concern is sanctioned and disbursed in Form 37B and such challans in the form VAT 37B can be utilised for discharge of the VAT liability of assessee for subsequent periods - The Revenue was of the view that VAT liability discharged by utilising investment subsidy granted in Form 37B cannot be considered as VAT actually paid, for the purpose of Section 4 of CEA, 1944 - The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in case of Shree Cements Ltd. 2018-TIOL-748-CESTAT-DEL - By following the same, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
INSTRUCTION/ NOTIFICATION/ CIRCULAR
cus_instruction02_2019
Submission of fortnightly report of Customs Revenue
dgft19not007
Govt fixes quantiative quota for export of river sand and stone aggregates to Maldives
cuscir15_2019
CBIC asks Customs field offices to first check with well-equipped Revenue Labs before sending samples to outside Labs
CASE LAW 2019-TIOL-1620-CESTAT-DEL
Jameel Ahmed Vs CC
Cus - The issue at hand pertains to import of goods through baggage - Hence such appeal is not maintainable as per proviso (a) to Section 129A(1) of the Act & merits being dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
