|
SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-28-CESTAT-MUM
Aviat Health Care Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
ST - Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - 'exempted' trading services - Respondent-department can travel only backward from the current assessment to the past period and not like the audit people who usually move forward from the year last audit was closed, up to the current assessment/ financial year - last ST-3 return was filed on 22.04.2009 - Show-cause notice having been issued on 22.04.2014 is, therefore, barred by the period of limitation since issued one day after the stipulated period of 5 years is over which extended period can only be invocable under certain contingency primarily when appellant-assessee intended to evade payment of tax - there was also no intention shown in the documents available on record for the period 2012-13 & 2011-12 since Service Tax liability against appellant was shown as zero in the audit report for that period - show-cause notice issued after expiry of 5 years would be barred by limitation - demand would not survive - appeal allowed by setting aside impugned order: CESTAT [para 5]
ST - 'Trading' is a pure sale which is subjected to the taxable jurisdiction of the provisional Government and no Service Tax liability accrues from pure sale un-associated with any service component: CESTAT [para 6]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-30-CESTAT-MUM
Visaka Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Refund claim, arising as a result of finalization of the provisional assessment, rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of unjust enrichment - appeal to CESTAT.
Held: An identical refund claim arising out of finalization of provisional assessment stands sanctioned to the appellant for the earlier period by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself and which order has been upheld by Tribunal - impugned order is, therefore, set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision: CESTAT [para 2, 3]
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-29-CESTAT-MUM
CCE Vs Vijayshree Alloys Pune Pvt Ltd
CX - Issue is as to whether M/s. Vijayshree Alloys (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. [respondent] had clandestinely manufactured and cleared aluminium ingots out of aluminium scraps received when such scraps was sold on high sea sales basis to one M/s. Vignesh Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore.
Held: Commissioner analyzing the evidence on record has observed that "…………. It is settled law that the serious charge of clandestine removal has to be supported with sufficient evidence. In this case there is no evidence at all of any kind………….To prove such a charge, further evidence in the form of statements or official or private records showing manufacture within the factory, or delivery of aluminium ingots to various parties or confirmation from at least a few such parties of having received aluminium ingots without any documents from M/s. Vijayashree Alloys (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. would be expected. No such evidence is contained in the show cause notice…………" - no contrary evidences have been placed by the Revenue to rebut the findings of the Commissioner - in the circumstances, no reason found to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner - consequently, Revenue's appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed : CESTAT [para 6, 7, 8]
- Appeal of Revenue dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-31-CESTAT-MUM
Ramesh Shah Vs CC
Cus - In a case of alleged wrong declaration of imported goods to avail benefits of notification no.4/2006 dated 1.3.2006, penalty of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the appellant - appellant is before the CESTAT.
Held: Commissioner has given a categorical observation that the appellant has concerned himself in the import of impugned goods by mis-declaring the same as Molybdenum with an intent to wrongly avail the benefit under the said notification and that due to the mis-declaration, goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) & (m) of Customs Act, 1962 - vide statements dated 4.10.2011 and 5.11.2012, the appellant had accepted that exemption from CVD was wrongly claimed on account of their not being aware of the amended notification no. 4/2006-CX of chapter 28 - the appellant was also giving evasive answers such as he was not aware as to how and why the CHA declared the goods to be ore - it is anybody's guess that the CHA will not be benefitted in any manner by this mis-declaration - the appellant cannot extricate himself from the mis-declaration made by the company - the mis-declaration by the company was upheld by this Bench vide final order dated 10.10.2019 - 2019-TIOL-3112-CESTAT-MUM holding that the impugned goods fell under tariff item 2613 of CETE and the benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CX is not admissible - in view of the above, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order - accordingly, the appeal is dismissed : CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
