| SERVICE TAX 2020-TIOL-474-HC-DEL-ST
Satish Kumar Jain Vs UoI ST/CX - Issue is whether the proposed confiscation is covered by the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
Held: Prima facie, it appears to the Bench that the legacy scheme should be broad enough to cover not only the aspect of demand of duty, but also to cover cases where goods are liable to be released upon payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, otherwise, the Scheme may itself provide only partial relief to the parties and also leave disputes unsettled thereby defeating the very object of the Scheme - Respondents directed to examine the aforesaid aspect and place their response within four weeks - Matter listed on 10.09.2020: High Court [para 5, 7]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-376-CESTAT-MAD
Zippy Associates Vs CCE & ST ST - The assessee is a non-exclusive distributor, engaged in promoting the DTH services of M/s Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd, for which they received recharge voucher cards from the principles as a discounted price and thereafter, sold the same at MRP - Such activity was held to be taxable as BAS - SCNs were issued, proposing to raise duty demand, along with applicable interest and penalties - On adjudication, the demands were confirmed - On appeal, the O-i-O was sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.
Held: The issue at hand stands settled in light of the judgments in the cases in Kumar's Electronics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai and Goyal Automobiles v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh-II - It was held in both judgments that no service tax can be levied on recharge and top up coupons - The Revenue was unable to distinguish these or put forth any contrary decisions - In light of the same, the duty demand is not sustainable: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-377-CESTAT-KOL
Gillanders Arbuthnot And Company Ltd Vs CCGST & CE CX - CENVAT - Credit on GTA services - Issue involved is clearly an interpretational one and the Board Circular 1065/4/2018 dated 8 June 2018 also acknowledges the same - The period involved in the present proceeding is also prior to the contrary interpretation rendered in Ultratech case - 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX denying such credit - It also cannot be said that the department was not aware of the factum of the Appellant taking Cenvat credit of service tax on outward transportation of finished goods to buyer's premises having served a Notice dated 25 June 2008 for the prior period - Consequently, invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty u/s 11AC is set aside - The demand on this aspect has to be confined to the normal period of limitation alone: CESTAT [para 6]
CX - CENVAT - Sample monthly calculation sheets and tax payment challans clearly refute the findings in the 'OIA' as regards lack of any evidence as to payment of service tax on GTA services - Besides, such finding in the 'OIA' also turns the entire edifice of the Notice upside down as payment of service tax in respect of the services on which credit stood availed was not at all the subject matter of any dispute: CESTAT [para 7]
CX - CENVAT - Insofar as the denial of credit on invoices addressed to the Head Office is concerned, Bench finds that such invoices were addressed to "Waldies Division" and given that the Appellant had only one factory in the "Waldies Division", denial of such credit is unjustifiable by following the decision rendered in Parekh Plast (India) case (supra): CESTAT [para 7]
CX - CENVAT - ISD invoices clearly reflected that the credit was being distributed to the Waldies Division and, therefore, non-reflection of the factory address is only a curable procedural defect not warranting denial of the substantive benefit of cenvat credit - impugned O-I-A is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequental relief: CESTAT [para 7]
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-375-CESTAT-MUM
Srinivas Clearing And Shipping India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is a Customs Broker - In the present appeal, the appellant assails an order directing revocation of license as per the CBLR 2013.
Held: It is settled law that though the time lines prescribed in the CBLR are directory and not mandatory, there is an implicit responsibility on part of the competent authority to adhere to the time lines with acceptable justification for delays, if any - This is more so when the assessee places on record that it was non-cooperation or intransigence on its part that caused delay - It is seen that the suspension though challenged successfully before the Tribunal and later withdrawn, a delay of 15 days was caused till the enquiry proceedings commenced - Thereafter, there is a lapse of more than six months in completion of enquiry and further a lapse of more than two months in revocation of the licence - Considering the nature and scope of investigations normally undertaken by the DGRI, whose report led to initiation of proceedings under the CBLR, the delay in commencement of proceedings for revocation of license does not command itself as indicating proper undertaking of responsibility - There is nothing on record to infer that the G-card holder who was investigated for his role in the conspiracy to smuggle red sanders outside of India, was concerned with the activities of which the appellant herein was licensed - The allegedly nefarious activities of such a pass-holder, although obtained through the licenced customs broker, cannot be visited upon the broker in the absence of a link between the two in the context of established misdemeanor - It is probable that the unwarranted delay in completion of proceedings arose from the lack of any such proximate participation in such incident - Hence the contined revocation of the license is not warranted: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
| 
