SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-455-CESTAT-CHD
GN Construction Vs CCE & ST
ST - The assessee-company was engaged in providing Construction services, in terms of Works Contracts Service, considering that the activity in question was composite in nature - The assessee was paying service tax and therefore SCN was issued, proposing to demand duty and impose penalty on the assessee - On adjudication, the duty demand was confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation, along with interest and penalty - Hence the present appeal.
Held: The assessee constructed EWS flats, for which it claimed benefit under Sr No 12(a) of Notfn No 25/2012-ST - As per the said provision, if the said services provided to the Govt or local authority by way of construction meant predominent use for other than commerce, industry or any other business or profession - Admittedly, these flats were constructed by the assessee for Improvement Trust, Amritsar - Such flats were distributed amongst slum dwellers at much below the cost of construction - Such flats were not built for commercial gain - Hence the assessee is entitled for benefit as per Notfn No 25/2012-ST - On this count, the assessee is not entitled to pay service tax for the period prior to 31.03.2015 - Such exemption was taken over by the Notfn No 06/2015-ST w.e.f. 01.04.2015 - Hence, for the period post this date, the assessee is liable to pay only 50% of the service tax as per Notfn No 30/2012-ST: CESTAT
Held: The rest of the services, the Revenue claimed, were not provided to the business entity registered at body corporate - The construction of multi level car parking for Government Medical College and Hospital and contract was entered by PWD, B&R [Public Works Department (Building and Roads)], Amritsar; Repair and renovation work at Medical College, Amritsar to a contract with PWD (B & R), Amritsar; Meritorious School at Ferozpur to a contract with PWD (B & R), Ferozpur; Construction of foot-over bridge at Amritsar to a contract with PWD (B & R), Amritsar. The Sr. No. 9 in the Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 is available to the appellant if they provided services to a business entity registered at body corporate - The name of Punjab State Small Industries Corporation Ltd. was converted into Punjab Small Industries& Export Corporation Ltd. w.e.f. 21.10.1982 which is engaged in business/profession to acquire and hold movable and immovable property - It also gives cash loans or in kind or in form of building, developed plot of land in the small industry state or machinery and equipment on lease or on hire purchase basis to borrower for the purpose of small, cottage and other industries - It furnishes guarantee to the scheduled banks for the repayment of loans to borrower for development of industries - Therefore, the same is also covered as business entity a body corporate - Therefore, the assessee provided services to a business entity registered as body corporate and is required to pay 50% of the service tax as per Sr No 9 of Notfn No 30/2012-ST - The assessee is directed to quantify the demand and deposit the same within 30 days' time: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2020-TIOL-454-CESTAT-MUM
Moneygram India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner
ST - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Issue is whether the appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT credit on Event Management Service.
Held: It is not in dispute that event management service has been used by the Appellant for promoting their brand value as recorded by both the authorities below in the respective orders - similar issue has been considered by the Division Bench of Tribunal in Honda Motorcycle & Scooter (I) Pvt. Ltd's - 2016-TIOL-2127-CESTAT-CHD case - following the aforesaid decision, no merits in the impugned order - consequently the same is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-573-HC-MUM-CX
Commissioner of CGST & CE Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd
CX - CENVAT credit of Rs.64,56,066/- availed on inputs procured during the period 2005-06 to 2006-07 denied along with penalty and interest on the ground that exempted goods were manufactured by appellant - Appellant claims that they are not manufacturers of "exempted goods" as they are required to discharge automobile cess and education cess - adjudicating authority held that this claim is not maintainable as appellants, by their own admission, had stopped availing CENVAT credit on inputs after insertion of Explanation III in rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 w.e.f 16.05.2005 and had reversed the credit availed on inputs till 1 st June 2005 - The Tribunal relied on the findings in the assessee's own case, wherein it was held that reference to duty of Excise in any other law, even if deemed to be ‘duty' for the purposes of the CEA, 1944 does not extend to CCR, 2004 which has been established as the machinery provision for eliminating the cascading effects of taxation, would continue to guide the Bench till it is set aside by appropriate superior court - hence, erasure of Cenvat credit in the order could not be faulted and interest liability as per law would be applicable - It was also held that since the issue was not free from doubt, the availment of credit could not be viewed through the prism of evasion or attempt to seek undue benefit - Hence penalty was quashed.
Held - It is seen that the issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal have been settled in its favor in the assessee's own case - Hence the questions do not arise for consideration: HC - Revenue's appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 2020-TIOL-453-CESTAT-MUM
Accusynth Speciality Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Commissioner(A) has denied the refund benefit claimed by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, holding that the period of limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be applicable for claiming the refund amount - aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before CESTAT.
Held: Issue is no more res integra in view of the Tribunal decision in Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd. Order No. A/85514/2019 - it is held that the limitation period provided u/s 11B of CEA, 1944 is applicable for refund claim of accumulated CENVAT credit in terms of rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - in view of the said decision, no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner(A) - appeal is, therefore, dismissed: CESTAT [para 2, 3]
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-452-CESTAT-MUM
Milan Laboratories India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Denial of refund of cenvat credit to the appellant on the ground that the same could have been adjusted against payment of tax on inputs and cenvat credit account was not debited at the time of making the claim is assailed in this appeal.
Held: Appellant's only contention is that even after payment of all duties, it had accumulated cenvat credit because of high rate of duty on the input and low rate duty on the output, which is required to be refunded - in the instance case, adjustment of 12% duty on inputs can never be made possible against 6% on output to bring the difference to 'zero' level - therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have refunded the balance amount which was available to the claimant as further adjustment was not possible - the other ground of rejection that debit was not made in the cenvat ledger by the appellant on the date of filing of refund needs no further elaboration in view of the judgements in the cases of Idol Textiles Ltd. and Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2076-CESTAT-MUM , which were probably lost sight of by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) - the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside - the appellant is entitled to get refund of Rs.5.25 lakhs under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with applicable interest as per section 11BB of the CEA - the respondent department is directed to pay the same within 3 months: CESTAT [para 5, 6, 7]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-569-HC-DEL-CUS
Vijendra Singh Vs CC
Cus - The petitioner is a Customs broker, seeking stay on the forfeiture of bank guarantee and also sought that directions be issued allowing him to work under his Customs Broker's license.
Held - It is seen that an appeal has already been filed against the subject O-i-O before the CESTAT, where the petitioner can seek stay on the operation of the O-i-O - It is directed that as an when such application is filed, the same may be processed as per law - Hence the present petition need not be entertained: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-451-CESTAT-MUM
Fomento Resources Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Miscellaneous Application has been filed by applicant-appellant to take the floating crane MV MARIA LAURA from the Customs jurisdiction in Goa to Redi Port in Maharashtra for the purpose of handling, loading/unloading operations and use the said floating crane - applicant submits that pursuant to the direction of the Bombay High Court at Goa, the Director filed an undertaking and pursuant to the said undertaking, their Bank Guarantee has been returned to them by the High Court; that no confiscation has been ordered by the Commissioner in the impugned order and the appellant has challenged the confirmation of customs duty, interest and penalty and has deposited 7.5% of the duty demand confirmed while filing appeal thus complying with the provisions of s.129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held: In the circumstances narrated, Bench does not find merit in not allowing the appellants to take the vessel out of the jurisdiction of the Goa Customs for its use at Redi in Maharashtra - leave is granted to take the vessel out of the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Goa, to Redi Port in Maharashtra - application is disposed of accordingly and matter to be heard on 18.03.2020: CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Application disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT
|
