|
2021-TIOL-570-CESTAT-MAD
Opms Clearing And Forwarding Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is a Customs Broker, clearing and forwarding agent and holding Regular Licence - A SCN was issued alleging that the appellant had contravened various provisions under CBLR, 2018 and thereby proposing to revoke CB Licence issued to them, forfeit the security deposited by them and also to impose penalty upon them under Regulation 18 for their failure to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018 - The appellant relied on the decision in case of M/s. Kunal Travels (Cargo) 2017-TIOL-894-HC-DEL-CUS wherein the High Court has analysed the similar provision under CHALR, 2004 - The role and responsibilities of Customs Broker are limited, more so when the IE code has already been issued by concerned authority and hence, the Customs Broker cannot be found fault with - Moreover, the Inquiry Officer has, after going through the relevant documents, concluded that the appellant had no role to justify invoking irregularity under provisions of CBLR, 2018 - Hence, penalty is imposed without any justifiable reasons by Commissioner and therefore the same cannot be sustained - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-569-CESTAT-MAD
Australian Foods India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & CE
CX - The appellant is the manufacturer of cookies and they also manufacture "dough" - They were availing CENVAT Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under CCR, 2004, as amended - Only issue to be decided is, whether CENVAT Credit would be allowable with reference to certain services at a depot outside the factory from where the manufactured finished goods were cleared/sold - The co-ordinate Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Barmalt (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2668-CESTAT-DEL has dealt with an identical situation - Said ruling takes care of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of CEA, 1944 as well and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained - Following the said ratio decidendi , the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-568-CESTAT-CHD
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein cenvat credit on event management service has been denied for period June 2012 to June 2017 on the ground that the same does not covered under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 as input service - Cenvat credit has been denied only on two types of services; Skill Competition between dealers and employees and other business events services - As regards to Skill Competition between dealers and employees, said competition is an event which shows the sale skill of employees as well as the dealers - The skills of the employees shows that how they participate in bringing more production of the product and the skills of the dealers shows that how they increased the sale of the product - Therefore, said service is an integral part of manufacturing as well as sale activity, which is conducted by appellant - Said service do qualify as input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - As regards to Other business events services, Vishwakarma Puja and inauguration of new pipe line are basically two others business events services for which cenvat credit was sought to be denied - In fact, Vishwakarma Puja is a big festival for the workers who work on machines and they pray to the God for good running of their machines by doing Vishwakarma Puja - Further, when a new pipe line starts, a puja is performed for good running of this pipe line - These two pujas are also integral part of manufacturing activity - Therefore, for these services also, appellant is entitled for cenvat credit: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2021-TIOL-567-CESTAT-HYD
Divis Laboratories Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The appellant filed a refund claim on various input services used in their SEZ operations - The SCN proposed rejection of part amount on the ground that the said services are not approved by Development Commissioner, VSEZ except for partial refund as shown in the list of invoices as per the provisions of Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. - The said prayer was confirmed vide common O-I-O but only for the amount of Rs. 37,21,746/- - However the refund claim of Rs. 3,72,19,764/- was sanctioned - The issue that arises for consideration is about exemption from service tax on the services rendered to SEZ units - According to appellant, the impugned services were utilized for authorized operations by recipient SEZ units, there was no necessity to pay any service tax - The Department, however, alleged that though the exemption provided under SEZ Act is contained in the Notification, but the service as that of ocean freight was not covered under approved list - This issue has been considered time and again - In Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3115-CESTAT-BANG, the Tribunal held that the SEZ Act had an overriding effect, in view of the provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act, over all other laws and, therefore, the ground for rejecting the refund claims was not tenable in law and even otherwise, approval from UAC was only procedural in nature and not a mandatory condition - The finding of Commissioner (A) that since ocean freight service has been included in list of services with SEZ services authorities only on 27.11.2017 i.e. subsequent to their refund application, the retrospective application can not be allowed is not sustainable - The Commissioner is held to have failed to appreciate the judicial precedents - Order under challenge accordingly is hereby set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT |
|
