| SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-109-CESTAT-DEL
Riddi Siddi Innovations India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST
ST - The assessee is a sub-contractor and is engaged in providing service to the main contractor, namely, M/s Manglam Build Developers Limited, Jaipur and also others by providing service of construction of residential complex - The Revenue opined that the appellant as sub-contractor were liable to pay service tax on the value of services provided to main contractor, including Manglam - The appellant, however, did not charge service tax from the recipient of service which resulted into non-payment of service tax - The appellant also failed to obtained service tax registration and, thus, also did not file periodical ST-3 returns for the relevant period 2011-12 to 2012-13 - Duty demand was raised - Hence the present appeal.
Held - As far as payment of service tax by the sub-contractor is concerned, the same is settled by the Tribunal's case in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Melange Developers Private Limited - Hence service tax is payable on the work undertaken by it as sub-contractor - The assessee claimed that for the relevant period, it is eligible for exemption from payment of service taxas per Notfn No 06/2005 and also for the construction activities undertaken, which is service provided to educational institute and hence exempt from tax - The assessee also provided certain materials while providing service to the service recipient, which merits adjustment in terms of Notfn No 12/2003-ST - As the same was not considered by the Commr.(A), the matter warrants remand after hearing the assessee: CESTAT
- Case remanded : DELHI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-108-CESTAT-AHM
Ketan Construction Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The issue at hand is whether the services rendered by the assessee in respect of collection of toll fee in respect of National Highway Authority of India will attract service tax under the heading of Business Auxiliary Service.
Held - The issue at hand stands settled squarely by the decision in the case of Larson & Toubro Ltd. - Perusal of the contract in Larson & Toubro revealed that the appellant therein was required to maximise collection of toll - The appellant therein was also required to minimize the incidents and duration of any period during which the facility or any part thereof is accessible to use - The appellant therein is also required to maintain the facility against damage or deterioration - The appellant therein were also required to ensure that all services provided under the contract comply with prudent utility practices - Hence the Tribunal in such case found that the appellant therein was engaged in promotion or marketing of service - It was also held therein that the assessee provided services incidental and auxiliary to collection of toll fee - The appellant therein issued bills in the form of toll fee tickets to the users and also collected toll fee on behalf of its client from the users of the toll road and also arranged for security of such amount - The appellant therein also submitted information about different types of vehicles passing through the road and also about exempted vehicles - Hence the appellant therein was held to have provided services incidental and anciliary to its client - As the services provided by the assessee in the present case are similar to those provided by the appellant in Larson & Toubro the assessee's appeal merits being dismissed: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-107-CESTAT-MUM
S G International Vs CCE
CX - The appellants are a Partnership firm and are engaged in export of textile fabrics and have been claiming rebate of CE duty on the said goods purported to have been exported -the department alleged that the goods exported were not the same goods mentioned in the duty paying documents on which rebate for CE duty was claimed - SCN issued - duty confirmed, penalty imposed, therefore, appeal to CESTAT.
Held: During the course of hearing, the appellant has filed documents relating to 53 rebate claims - the appellant claims that he has taken necessary permission for factory stuffing - officers of CE have examined the duty paid nature of goods after verifying the GP-1s and, therefore, rejection at a later date is illegal and void - the claim of the appellant and documents need to be verified in terms of the Public Notice, Board Circular etc. existing during the relevant date - in order to verify the same, it will be in the interest of justice to send the case back to the adjudicating authority - therefore, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to consider the documents now filed and that may be filed by the appellant during course of denovo proceedings : CESTAT [para 5]
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-106-CESTAT-ALL
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant is an export warehouse receiving non-duty paid petroleum products for the purpose of export - Based on ER-1 returns, a notice was issued to the appellant alleging shortages and raising a demand of Rs.1,91,122/- along with penalty - concluding that the loss was due to improper and careless storage and handling by the appellants and no claim of remission of duty had been filed, the demand was confirmed with equal penalty - Commissioner(A) held that since no remission application was filed, the condonation of losses could not be allowed, however, penalty was set aside - appeal before CESTAT.
Held: Demand stands raised only on the basis of losses which are either in the condonable limit or have not been correctly measured - There is no evidence of any removal of the product, therefore, demand of duty against the appellant can't be upheld - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6]
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
CUSTOMS 2020-TIOL-105-CESTAT-HYD
R K Exports Vs CC
Cus - The assessee imported PVC Flex Sheet from China - Department entertained the view that the value declared by importer is less and the same was rejected - Assessments were passed enhancing the value in both the bills of entry - Though assessee paid duty under protest they filed appeal before Commissioner (A) - Since the assessing authority had not given any reasons for rejecting the value declared by assessee, the matter was remanded to adjudicating authority to pass speaking order for enhancing the value - In such reassessment the authority confirmed the enhancement of value - The assessee has much emphasized that imports were made on the basis of contract entered by assessee with the manufacture supplier - A letter dated 31.01.2018 is seen issued by assessee to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs informing that the imports are on the basis of such long term contract - After perusal of impugned order, it is found that the transaction value has been rejected without recording sufficient reasons - Further, on perusal of the discussions and findings of original authority, it is found that the department has made comparison of contemporaneous imports of which description of goods do not match with the goods that are imported by assessee - The brand name of the goods as well as the specification are different - Comparison of the value of such goods which are different from the goods imported by assessee and enhancement thereon is against the provisions of law - The enhancement of value cannot sustain, the impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT | 
