2021-TIOL-144-AAR-GST

National Institute Of Design

GST - National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad has been formed by an Act of Parliament to carry out the function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution and to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution - Applicant will qualify as 'Governmental Authority' if it also fulfils the condition namely 'ninety percent or more participation of Government by way of equity or control' - Applicant will have to register themselves as a tax deductor under the provisions of Section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w s.51 of the Act, if they fulfil the condition of 'fifty-one percent or more participation of Government by way of equity or control, to carry out any function': AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-143-AAR-GST

Manoj Bhagwan Mansukhani

GST - Services such as stevedoring, transportation, storage, bagging, stuffing and again transportation of the goods (which have been temporarily imported into India) rendered by the applicant shall not be considered as 'export of service' upto 31.01.2019, but shall be considered as 'export of service' w.e.f. 01.02.2019 onwards - Applicant will not be eligible for 'Zero rated supply' under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, upto 31.01.2019 - However, they shall be eligible for 'Zero rated supply' as per the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) of the IGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.02.2019: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-142-AAR-GST

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd

GST - 'Flavoured milk' [Amul Kool/Amul Kool Café] is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a "beverage containing milk": AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-327-CESTAT-MAD

VV Minerals [100% EOU] Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue relates to rejection of refund claims filed under Notfn 41/2012-ST - The reason for rejecting refund claims for period from May, 2016 to December, 2016 is that the appellant has committed illicit mining of Beach Sands and unlawfully transported the same - The export of goods procured by violation of MMDR Act/Rules and, therefore are Illegal exports as per section 11H of Customs Act, 1962 - There is no SCN issued under Customs Act, 1962 against appellant alleging Illegal export - By depriving the refund, department has sought to impose a punishment or penalty on appellant for alleged illegal export - The intention of Notfn 41/2012 is to refund the service tax paid by exporter on the goods exported - To deny refund would be directing the appellant to suffer the burden of taxes on goods exported - If the department has reasons to believe that appellant has contravened any provision of Customs Act, 1962, then the appellant has to be put to notice by issuing a SCN - Without such due process of law, the appellant cannot be punished indirectly by denying the refund claim - The goods were inspected and LEO [Let Export Order] was issued by Customs authorities before export of the goods - Till date, there is no action taken on the side of department alleging that these goods are illegally exported - The rejection of refund claim is unjustified, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-326-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Zinc/Lead & other metal concentrates - In the course of inquiry by the Department with regard to cenvat credit on Outward transportation on FOR basis & Landline phone connection, the assessee provided therein the appropriate details regarding cenvat credit - It appeared to Revenue that the cenvat credit on the two items were wrongly taken in terms of Rule 3 r/w Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - It also appeared to Revenue that the definition of input service covered services tax availed by a manufacturer up to the clearance of final product from the place of removal only - Further, Rule 2 (l) further provides that words and expressions used in these Rules and not defined, but defined in Central Excise Act or Finance Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in those Acts - Further, place of removal has been defined u/s 4 (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, provides that place of removal includes a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory - Hence SCN was issued proposing to disallow the Cenvat credit so availed by the assessee - On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority disallowed Cenvat credit, observing that in spite of the cenvat credit for transportation by road from factory to port in the show cause notice, it can be alleged that the assessee has taken cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation by road, (Goods Transport Agency Service) from factory to customer's place only - It was also observed there to be specific allegation cenvat credit on GTA was availed after removal of goods to customer's premises, not for export.

Held - The SCN is vague inasmuch as it does not contain any specific allegation whether the goods removed from the factory are by way of any clearance in DTA or for the purpose of export. Secondly, the contention made by the appellant in reply to the show cause notice as well as by way of certificate issue by the Unit Head, M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., certifying that the clearance were made to the port of export and the contention made by the appellant have not been found to be untrue, and still have been rejected without there being a contrary finding of fact - Hence the disallowance of credit on outward transportation is not tenable: CESTAT

Held - The assessee has not taken a specific plea that the landline phones were provided at the residence of key officers, which were required to be in touch with the plant and the affairs of the company - Hence the disallowance of cenvat credit pertaining to landline phones, is upheld: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT