2021-TIOL-1885-HC-MAD-VAT

Conybio Healthcare India Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner(CT)

Whether dispensing with appellate remedy is to be granted cautiously so that appellate remedy cannot be diluted nor benefit be denied to aggrieved person to exhaust same - YES: HC

- Case disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1881-HC-DEL-NDPS

Axat Gulia Vs Customs

NDPS - Bail - 21 corrugated boxes, 1810 strips comprising of 70 tablets of each i.e. 1,26,700 tablets of psychotropic substances "Alprazolam" was found concealed in box in commercial quantity which is listed in schedule of NDPS Act, 1985 - The scheme of Section 37 of NDPS Act reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to limitations contained under Section 439 of CrPC, but is also subject to limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause - The petitioner is involved in one another case under NDPS Act titled as Ashish Kumar and others - As far as contention of petitioner that he is entitled to parity is concerned, same has no force in it - The perusal of order of co-accused shows that the ASJ while granting bail to co-accused Rohit Kumar has completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitation provided under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for - In view of judgment in 2020-TIOL-32-SC-NDPS , the contention of petitioner that no steps has been taken by Customs (respondent) to challenge the grant of bail to the co-accused is of no consequence - As the petitioner is also involved in another case of similar nature, he is not entitled to bail: HC

- Bail application dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-602-CESTAT-AHM

NR Agarwal Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of Outward transportation of Hazardous Waste transported from their factory to the M/S Satyen Flourine Industires and Gujarat Paper Mills Association who is supposed to handle the Hazardous waste - Both the Lower Authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit on Outward Transportation of Hazardous waste relying on Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Ultra tech 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX - However, the facts are entirely different, as in Ultratech judgment the fact was removal of Excisable Goods and payment of duty however, in the present case the disposal of Hazardous waste is as per the requirement of Gujarat Pollution Control Board and the cost of transportation for disposal of such waste is borne by appellant - In fact this activity is though the way of transportation but it is the disposal of Hazardous waste which is generating during the course of manufacture - The service of transportation is covered under the main clause of definition provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Therefore, the judgment of Ultratech of the Apex Court is not at all relevant - The identical issue has been considered by Tribunal in the case of M/S L'OREAL INDIA PVT LTD 2018-TIOL-39-CESTAT-MUM wherein certain services were used for disposal of Hazardous waste and credit in respect of such service has been allowed - Even though it is a transportation service, but in respect of disposal of Hazardous waste that is the activity related to manufacturing, it is covered under input services definition - Hence, the credit is admissible: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-601-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The two units of appellant are engaged in manufacture of lead, zinc and other concentrates - SCNs were issued proposing demand of service tax on foreign currency expenditure alleging that it was towards receipt of taxable services on which the appellant was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism - Neither is there any allegation in SCNs nor any finding has been recorded in impugned order to demonstrate how the provisions of 66 read with 66A of Finance Act, 1994 and the Import Rules are attracted - In fact, neither the SCNs nor the impugned order specify the category of service under which the demand has been confirmed against appellant - The demand has been proposed and confirmed merely because of difference between the figures in balance sheet of appellant and ST-3 Returns - It is well settled that the SCN as also the order of adjudicating authority should specify the taxable service - The confirmation of demand on the basis of such a vague SCN cannot, therefore, be sustained.

Appellant repeatedly requested the Department to provide details of bank reference number and details of foreign currency against each of the entry, but Department did not provide the information - The order passed by Principal Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax by simply observing that in respect of entry of annexure to SCN, appellant could not produce any document which may indicate that service tax had been paid in respect of these entries - If the Department had proposed the demand, it was for the Department to substantiate from the records that the proposed demand was justified - Contention of appellant is that its records do not indicate that the foreign remittances on which service tax was demanded could be related to appellant - There is nothing on record which may conclusively establish that the aforesaid foreign remittances are in respect of appellant - This demand, therefore, cannot also be sustained.

As regards to the issue relates to service tax on 'market research and exploration' executed outside India for which service tax has been confirmed, it would clearly be seen that though market research and exploration have not been specifically stated in the contract, but still the scope of the work clearly suggests that the contract is basically for the work of market research and exploration which would be taxable under section 65(105)(y) of Finance Act but in view of the provisions of rule 3(ii) of Import Rules, no service tax would be payable - As regards to the extended period of limitation, when there was some ambiguity regarding levy of service tax on services received from abroad under reserve charge mechanism and it was clarified later, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed any material fact from the department with intention to avoid payment of service tax - Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT