2021-TIOL-84-CESTAT-DEL

Beekay Engineering Corporation Ltd Vs PR.CCT & CE

ST - The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and have been discharging central excise duty thereon - During audit, it was found that they received amounts some of which were liable to Service tax under the heads of erection, commissioning or installation services, Commercial or Industrial Construction service and consultancy engineering services and on these amounts, no Service Tax was paid - Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellant invoking extended period of limitation, demanding Service Tax under aforesaid heads on the differential amounts between the contract receipts as per their ledger account and the amounts shown as receipts in their ST-3 returns - The contracts in question are contracts entered into between the Steel Authority of India Ltd./Bhilai Steel Plant and a consortium comprising the appellant and three other contractors - The role and responsibility of each contractor is individually indicated - Identical matter came up before this Bench in respect of same appellant in the case of Beekay Engineering 2017-TIOL-1116-CESTAT-DEL - Identical decision was again made in 2006-TIOL-411-CESTAT-DEL - The Commissioner should have followed the ratio of decisions which were binding on him - The Commissioner, however, sought to distinguish the case of appellant from the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - The impugned order is not sustainable and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

MS Exim Services Vs CC

Cus - The appellant is a customs broker and handled import consignment of the importer, namely, M/s Inder International - The allegation against appellant in SCN is that the appellant being a customs broker had filed 4 bills of entry for clearance of consignment of cold rolled coil (non-alloy) and cold rolled sheets (non-alloy) of prime nature which were found on examination as secondary and defective nature and the appellant being an experienced customs broker was expected to understand the difference between prime material and secondary & defective material, therefore, he has made a false declaration in respect of the said import consignment - Admittedly, nowhere it has been placed on record that the appellant was having prior knowledge of defective/secondary material - In fact, in the invoices, high-seas agreements, test certificates, it is mentioned that the material is of prime nature - On the basis of those documents merely being the appellant an experienced person it cannot be alleged that the appellant was having malafide intentions for clearance of said goods by mis-declaring the same - Revenue has failed to establish against the appellant that he has omitted to do any act which act or omission would render the such goods liable to confiscation - There is no allegation in SCN in respect of test certificate produced by appellant - The act of filing the test certificate shows that the appellant has no mens rea and filed the documents being a bonafide facilitator - No penalty is imposable upon appellant, therefore, the penalty under Section 112 alongwith 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT