|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-245-SC-ST
Birenbhai K Patel Vs Addl.CCE & C
ST - The assessee sought to file appeal against an O-i-O - However, he missed the time limit for doing so - In writ, the High Court held that writ courts have condoned delays which are small and backed by justifiable reason, while also cautioning that approaching writ court should not be treated as parallel remedy - In the present case, the delay exceeded 400 days, the blame for which the asssessee laid upon his counsel - Hence the high court found that such explanation did not pass muster.
Held - There is no reason to entertain the present Special Leave to Petition and so the same merits being dismissed: SC
- Assessee's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2019-TIOL-1909-CESTAT-KOL
MN Dastur And Company Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant had been continuously informing the department about their intention of having centralised billing system and also paid the service tax for the various services rendered by them through their branch offices and site offices - The Department has not disputed the payment of such service tax - The ST-3 returns of the relevant period were filed also which clearly mentioned about the availment of the Cenvat credit by the appellant assessee - In such circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the appellant assessee had any time suppressed the material fact from the department with intention of committing any fraud or suppression of the fact - demand, if at all was required to be raised, it was to be done within normal period - After going through the show cause notice it is evident that the demand is hopelessly time barred and this ground itself the impugned order is not sustainable - As the demand itself is not sustainable, there is no question of payment of interest and imposition of penalty: CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Revenue appeal dismissed/Assessee appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1908-CESTAT-KOL
Nilachal Iron and Power Ltd Vs CCE
ST- Appellant is a manufacturing company having manufacturing facility - Subsequently, the appellant had started rendering services of promoting sale of goods and got itself registered under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) - appellant received commissions from two "agents" during the period 2005-06 and 2006-2007 for rendering the service of mobilization of mutual fund on behalf of the two mutual fund distributors - It is the case of the department that the Commission received from the "distributors" is chargeable to Service Tax under the category "Business Auxiliary Service" - For non-payment of tax, demand notice was issued and confirmed with interest and penalty - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Appellants are rendering their services to the distributors of various mutual fund companies and not directly to the mutual fund companies - There is no provision in the Finance Act, 1994, for double taxation - The scheme of Service Tax Law suggests that it is a single point tax law without being a multiple taxation legislation - In absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary, providing of service being event of levy, self same service provided shall not be doubly taxable - If Service Tax is paid by sub-broker or stock broker in respect of same taxable service provided by the Stock Broker, the stock broker is entitled to the credit of the tax so paid on such service, only if entire chain of identity of sub-broker and stock broker is established and transactions are provided to be one and the same - Therefore, sub-brokers and stock-brokers are agent and principal - Asking the appellants to pay Service Tax shall amount to double taxation since as per the declarations of the mutual fund distributors, the asset management companies have made the payment of commissions to the mutual fund distributors after deduction of Service Tax at source - Revenue has not suffered any loss due to discharge of tax liability by the asset management companies, therefore, there shall be no levy of tax on the present appellants - impugned order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 6 to 9]
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-AHM
Oriental Aromatics Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant manufactures Perfumery compound, classifies the same under CETH 3302 9011 and clears to industrial customers as well as traders by adopting s.4 value - case of department is that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under CETH 3303 0040 and are to be valued in terms of s.4A of the CEA, 1944 - differential duty demand raised and confirmed, hence appeal - Appellant submits that the goods manufactured is a perfumery compound which is used as raw material by various industries such as soap, shampoo, hair oil, agarbatii etc. whereas as per HSN notes, heading 3303 covers perfumery compound dissolved in alcohol and which are designed to give fragrance primarily to the human body and to this effect the department has not produced any evidence - moreover, since the product in question admittedly does not contain alcohol, it does not fall under 3303 but is correctly classifiable under 3302.
Held: Department is not disputing the classification under 3302 in respect of the goods supplied to industrial consumer - part of the supplies though made to traders but the same is not for home consumption but only for the industrial consumers - From the facts it is observed that both the products are same in nature and use, therefore, for a same product two different classifications cannot be adopted - burden to prove the correct classification is on the Revenue - In the present case, there are ample evidences such as nature of product, product does not contain alcohol, product label clearly indicates that it is meant only for industrial use, the package of product is such that the same is not for individual human consumption, therefore, without any contrary evidence, the department failed to challenge the classification of the product supplied by the appellant - product perfumery compound manufactured by the appellant is correctly classifiable under 3302 and not under 3303 as claimed by the Revenue - impugned orders set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4]
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2019-TIOL-1906-CESTAT-ALL
Polyplex Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - CENVAT - Payment under RCM - Debit entries made in Cenvat Credit registers read along with invoices issued by the service provider would satisfy the requirements of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules: CESTAT [para 7.1]
CX - CENVAT - Outward Transportation - credit of service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place: CESTAT [para 8.1, 9]
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS
NOTIFICATION/ CIRCULAR
cuscir18_2019
Partial discharge of bonds executed by nominated agencies/ banks under notification No. 57/2000 Cust
dgft19pn018
Fixation of Standard Input Output Norms for Food Products (Product Code 'E')
Trade Notice 24
Inviting applications for allotment of additional import quota of Pigeon Peas (Cajanus Cajan)/Toor Dal for 2 lakh MT for the fiscal year 2019 - 2020
Trade Notice 23
Additional quota of Toor allowed for import for the fiscal year 2019-20 CASE LAWS
2019-TIOL-1905-CESTAT-AHM Rajkamal Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The assessee-company imported some goods which were seized by the Customs Department - However, the SCN as per Section 110(2) was not issued within the 6 month period - The assessee then received a letter from the jurisdictional Addl. Commr. wherein the period for issuance of SCN under proviso to Section 110(2) of Customs had been extended - The assessee requested a copy of notice seeking extension of time as per Section 110(2) - In reply, the Revenue stated that no notice is required to be issued for this purpose - Hence the present appeal by the assessee.
Held - The issue at hand is whether the Commissioner is required to issue notice to the importer proposing extension of time limit for issuint SCN or whether the same can be extended without issuing any notice to the importer in this regard - The Bombay High Court resolved a similar issue in Principal Commissioner of Customs vs Beauty Gem wherein it was held that time limit cannot be exceeded without recording any findings - Similarly, in Gaunir Impex Pvt. Ltd., the High Court held that even though an SCN for extension of time was issued by it only before 3 days from the expiry of the limitation period, the time extension sought for was turned down - In the present case, no SCN was issued for extension of time limit for issuance of SCN u/s 110 - The only requirement is that the Commr. must record written reasons while extending the time limit for issuing SCN - The Commr. did not properly record any reasons - Hence there is no legal authority with the Revenue to dispense with the issuance of SCN to the assessee - Hence the O-i-O passed without issuing SCN is unsustainable: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
