| SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-472-CESTAT-BANG
City View Bangalore Properties Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The assessee-company is a real estate developer which is engaged in providing output services of works contract, transport of goods by road, architect services, consulting engineer services and management consultancy services - The assessee is registered with the Department - It appeared to the Revenue that in the relevant period, as the project was under construction stage, no output services of renting had been rendered in such period - Hence Cenvat credit was proposed to be disallowed.
Held: The the issue of availability of CENVAT credit, for construction of commercial complex which is meant for commercial activity and for earning rent, taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994, is decided in favour of the assessee - Hence the assessee is entitled for Cenvat credit - In interests of justice however, the matter is remanded for the purpose of verifying the commercial nature of the transaction - The same shall be verified from the plan approved by the Town Planning Authority and other facts as may be put forth before the adjudicating authority - Hence, Cenvat credit be allowed on verification as directed - Hence the matter is remanded for arithmetical calculation: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-473-CESTAT-MUM
Purna Ssk Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX- Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses - alleging that during the period March, 2015 to November, 2015, the appellant had cleared the exempted goods namely, Pressmud and Boiler Ash which emerged as a by-product/waste, without reversing the amount required under rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR], SCN was issued to them on 31.3.2016 for recovery of the amount of Rs.1.42 lakh, being 5% of the value of the Press-mud and Boiler Ash sold by them - demand confirmed, hence appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Issue of applicability of rule 6(1) of CCR to Press-mud and Boiler Ash which emerges during the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, has been settled taking note of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX in favour of the assessee in the cases of Athani Sugars Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-4280-CESTAT-MUM and Pannageshwar Sugar Mills Ltd. - 2018-TIOL-3393-CESTAT-MUM - the principle laid down in DSCL Sugar Limited's case, has been accepted by the Department by issuance of Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX dated 25.4.2016 - following the aforesaid precedent, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-471-CESTAT-DEL
CC & CE Vs Artex Textile Pvt Ltd
Cus - The assessee-company filed 140 bills of entry for import of polyster knitted fabrics and non-textured lining cloth from China and declared the transaction value for payment of customs duty - The declared transaction value was rejected by the Revenue and the assessable value was enhanced, which the assessee paid under protest by cash and by debting the DEPB duty entitlement pass bookscrips and cleared the goods - On remanded ordered by the Commr.(A), the adjudicating authority rejected the transaction value and re-assessed the imported goods - On appeal before the Commr.(A), the O-i-O was quashed, with directions to the assessing authority to re-assess the bills of entry by accepting the transaction value as declared by the assessee and after allowing benefit under the relevant Notfn regarding exemption from payment of duty - Pursuantly, the assessee filed refund claim before the Assistant Commr.(Refund) u/s 27 of the Customs Act - The Asst Commr. (Refund) sanctioned the refund, payable partly through RTGS and by re-crediting in the DEPB scrips - The Revenue filed appeal to the Commr(A) contending that since DEPB scrips had been withdrawn by the DGFT, the re-credited scrips could not be utilised by the assessee - The Commr.(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed that part of the refund claim be disbursed to the assessee by way of RTGS - Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.
Held: The Commr.(A) relied on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Allen Diesels - In this petition, the additional duty of Customs was exempted if the goods that were imported were meant for subsequent sale - However, if the special additional duty is already paid, the notification allowed exemption by way of refund - The importers paid the Customs duty including the additional duty of Customs by using DEPB scrips - The Revenue did not process the refund applications under the notification dated 14.09.2007 on grounds that the additional duty of Customs was not paid in cash but was paid by utilising the DEPB scrips - The Department relied upon certain Circulars to substantiate its arguments - Such circulars had been assailed before the writ court, which proceeded to hold the denial of refund to be bad in law - In MK Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs- Mangalore the issue involved was whether refund could be allowed in cash, if duty was paid through DEPB scrips - It was held that the holder of the scrip could utilize these scrips for payment or discharge of duty liability at the time of importation of goods - The Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs- New Delhi ICD TKD Export v/s SEL Manufacturing Company Ltd. also examined such issue and settled the same in favor of the assessee - Therefore, the findings of the Commr.(A) warrant no interference with: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
| 
