|
SERVICE TAX
2019-TIOL-2289-CESTAT-DEL
CGST Vs Lattice Interiors
ST - M/s Lattice was registered with Service Tax Department w.e.f. 2/05/2008 for providing commercial or industrial construction service - The Department received intelligence that M/s Lattice was not discharging service tax in full for these activities carried out by them - The demand for service tax through SCN has been raised after procuring the copies of various balance sheets from the Income Tax Department - The adjudicating authority has scrutinized these contracts and has dropped the demand for period prior to 01/07/2012 - He held that the construction activities carried out by M/s Lattice were correctly classifiable under Works Contract Service for the period prior to 01/07/2012 even though the adjudicating authority did not have the benefit of decision of Supreme Court in case of Larsen & Toubro - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - The Apex Court has categorically held that composite contracts which involve supply of goods as well as providing service will be liable for payment of service tax only under category of Works Contract Service - For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service - As such since the classification has been held to be under WCS, no infirmity found in the findings of adjudicating authority to the effect that the demand prior 01/07/2012 is liable to be set aside - After the amendment to the FA, 1994, there is no need for classification of service into various categories - The demand confirmed by adjudicating authority for service provided to Joint Stock Company FEAT is for the period 2012-13 and as such will be liable for payment of service tax - The liability for service tax under WCS in respect of activity carried out to Joint Stock Company is to be re-determined after extending the benefit of abatement under Notfn 24/2012 - When said benefit is extended, the ultimate demand of service will come down from Rs. 3.67 lakh confirmed by adjudicating authority - The original adjudicating authority is directed to verify such payment of service tax claimed by the M/s Lattice: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal rejected : DELHI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-2288-CESTAT-MAD
Mckinsey Global Services India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & CE
ST - This appeal is filed by assessee against impugned order whereby the assessee's refund claim was rejected - Identical issue has been decided by this Bench, in assessee's own case, for a different period and hence, no reason found to take a different view - The impugned order to the extent it is contested is set aside, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT
2019-TIOL-2287-CESTAT-HYD
Sai Teja Constructions Vs CST
ST - The assessee is engaged in construction activity, inter-alia, construction of non-commercial motive buildings and residential buildings for the government and they entered into an agreement with Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited for construction of 992 residential houses - The scope of contract included supply of material and labour for the construction - The Department entertained a view that assessee is liable to pay service tax on Commercial and Residential Construction service which the assessee is not paying - The Apex Court in case of Larsen & Toubro Limited - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST has settled the issue regarding Works Contract which includes supply of material and labour for construction and the same is taxable only from 01.06.2007 - Even various decisions of the Tribunal have consistently held that composite contracts or works contracts even after 01.06.2007 cannot be taxed under "Construction of Complex Services" under section 65 (105)(zzzh) of FA, 1992 - The issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and by following the ratio of said decisions, the impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-1795-HC-RAJ-CX
CCE Vs Mound Trading Company Pvt Ltd
CX - The assessee provided contractual services and job work of manufacturing biscuits and other confectionery items to M/s Parle Products Ltd. - Alleging unauthorized availment of Cenvat credit, SCN was issued to assessee contending that it could not claim the credit since it provided input services to M/s Parle Products Ltd. and that the latter entity alone could claim credit - According to the agreement of parties, assessee manufactured articles which were ultimately cleared by its principal i.e. M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. - There is no dispute that Central Excise levy was borne by Parle and the assessee was merely authorized to manufacture the goods - So far as provisions of Service tax is concerned, this Court notices that there were two components - One, job work itself i.e. manufacture of confectionery and biscuits, which was the provision of service, i.e. the main service to M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and secondly, the transportation services - It is the second component which is in issue - There is nothing either on record or in the SCN or even in O-I-O which suggests that the agreement, which parties entered into whereby service tax was to be borne by assessee and input credit was to be claimed by it, was prohibited in law - Furthermore, it is not revenue's case that M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. availed of such Cenvat credit as a matter of fact - The CESTAT correctly held by following its previous ruling in Lao More Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-1048-CESTAT-AHM that the assessee could not be accused of claiming credit from Cenvat - Similar issues was decided in M.P. Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-158-CESTAT-DEL and M/s. MB Bakers Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2666-CESTAT-DEL - In these decisions, consistently, Cenvat credit was permitted to job workers, like the assessee: HC
- Appeal dismissed : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1794-HC-RAJ-CX
Sisodia Associate Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue is with respect to the invocation of extended period of limitation - The law is well settled that in the absence of any proven or established allegations of existence of active intent to defeat the law or to cheat the revenue, the revenue cannot claim the benefit of an extended period of limitation - In this regard, Court is cognizant of decisions of Supreme Court in Chempher Drugs & Liniments - 2002-TIOL-266-SC-CX , Uniworth Textiles Ltd - 2013-TIOL-13-SC-CUS and Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-235-SC-CX - The mere omission to pay tax and revenue inability to prove of any mental intent to evade taxes per se cannot result an invocation of the extended period of limitation - However, the revenue is entitled to collect service tax dues in accordance with law for the normal period of six months prior to the issuance of SCN: HC
- Appeal partly allowed : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1793-HC-AHM-CX
Mecca Industries Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE
CX - The applicant invited the attention of this Court to an order which was passed by Appellate Tribunal in a miscellaneous application preferred by them, pending the appeal, before the Tribunal - While disposing of said miscellaneous application, the Tribunal allow the application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved and stay the recovery thereof till the disposal of appeal - The court have thought fit to incorporate paragraph 5 of order passed by Tribunal referred to above, keeping in mind that even the Tribunal, at the relevant point of time, was convinced that the goods were exported - The Tribunal being convinced of such fact, ultimately, passed an order for the waiver of the pre-deposit amounts involved - A strong prima facie case has been made out for grant of the interim relief as prayed for in the present civil application - The tax appeal shall be notified for final hearing on 17th September, 2019: HC
- Rule made absolute : GUJARAT HIGH COURT
CUSTOMS
2019-TIOL-1804-HC-MAD-CUS
GE T And D India Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner
Cus - Whether the product imported is "Relay" as claimed by appellant or is an "Automatic Regulating or Controlling Instrument and Apparatus" as alleged by the Department - owing to the aforesaid, the import of the petitioner ran into rough weather resulting in imposition of customs duty, interest and penalty by original authority - second respondent issued a demand notice dated 20.02.2019.
Held: As there is no contest regarding the Circular F.No.1080/2/DLA/Tech/Action Taken/2019/351 dated 18.07.2019 and as the manner in which the Board has read the order of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing Road Agency Private Ltd. has not been put in issue in the present case, the Court refrains itself from expressing any view or opinion about the said circular - it is made clear that this question is left open to be decided in an appropriate case where there is contest about the manner in which the Board has understood the order of the Supreme Court - moreover, counter affidavit has been filed prior to the Board Circular as the same is dated 20.06.2019 and Board Circular is dated 18.07.2019 - it follows as an inevitable sequitur that impugned notice has to be set aside owing to said Circular albeit reserving the rights of the respondents to re-issue the said notice in the same manner or in any other appropriate manner subject to the outcome of the matter which the Division Bench is in seizin vide W.A no. 164 of 2016 - writ petition is disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2019-TIOL-1792-HC-KERALA-CUS
Imelt Extrusions Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The petitioner for the purpose of reducing/waiving the liability of demurrage charges on their part prays for consideration and issuing directions to the respondents to issue what is stated in the writ prayer as "detention certificate" for the period from 12.04.2019 to 12.06.2019 - The petitioner with a view to getting either waiver or reduction in demurrage charges is requesting the respondents to furnish to petitioner a statement in the form of certificate - This certificate certainly is not going to be used against the respondents in view of statement made by the petitioner - The difficulty in which the petitioner is placed is required to be appreciated in the matters of this nature - The shipping agency/the cargo custodian considers the request of petitioner for reduction or waiver of demurrage charges if sufficient proof is given - The petitioner with a view to present the case supported by documents with required presumption in law is requesting for issue of certificate - Though time was granted to file additional counter affidavit, if any, by referring to the circumstances which compelled issuance of certificate referred to above or otherwise under which a certificate is issued, no counter affidavit is filed, but submissions are made - The first respondent could be directed to issue a certificate referring to the dates of detention and the release order made in this behalf on subsequent bills of Entry and issues a certificate to petitioner - The issue of certificate shall not add any liability on respondents or shall not give a cause of action to petitioner to proceed against the respondents - The certificates so given by the first respondent could be used for the limited purpose of claiming waiver or reduction of demurrage charges by the shipping agency/the cargo custodian: HC
- Writ petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1791-HC-MAD-CUS
Shriwin Shipping And Logistics Vs CC
Cus - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2019 wherein the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy - When the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of the Act itself, writ jurisdiction cannot be normally invoked unless the issues like patent lack of jurisdiction, validity of Acts and Rules are involved - The contention of petitioner that the SCN was issued beyond the prescribed limitation and the O-I-O was not passed within the prescribed limitation, is not sufficient at all to invoke writ jurisdiction - Such grounds can always be raised before the appellate forum provided under the Act - Therefore, court is not inclined to entertain the present writ appeal - As far as constitution of Bench of Tribunal is concerned, the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authority for proper constitution of Tribunal in an effective manner at Chennai: HC
- Writ appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
