I-T - In respect of professional fees paid by hospital to it's consultant doctors, TDS is to be deducted u/s 194J & not u/s 192, where consultant doctors do not enjoy privileges offered to resident-employee doctors: ITAT

I-T Act - Expenses incurred by assessee for incomplete projects that are work-in-progress and cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure : ITAT

I-T Act - CIT cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263, when assessee has duly furnished evidences relating to investments and same are duly examined by CIT but no major discrepancy is found: ITAT

CX - Once it is established that the products in question are by-product then demand under Rule 6 will not sustain: CESTAT

ST - The activity undertaken by police of providing armed security guards is not covered by definition of 'security agency services' and collection of charges for the same will not be liable to service tax: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-669-CESTAT-MUM

Superintendent Of Police (Rural) Vs CCE

ST - The appellant is a part of Maharashtra State Police force - The issue arises is that whether providing armed security guards to public sector banks / undertakings and government departments is to be covered under definition of 'security services' and collection of charges for the same will be liable to service tax under Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant is performing statutory duties and the amount so collected is being deposited in government treasury - CBEC has issued a Circular 89/7/2006-ST clarifying that wherever the charges collected by any sovereign public authority for carrying out any statutory function, the same is not liable to levy of service tax if the conditions are satisfied - Further, there is a decision in case of Dy. Commissioner of Police & Others 2016-TIOL-3507-CESTAT-DEL , where it was concluded that the police department which is in the agency of State Government cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services - The Tribunal in the said decision has held that the activity undertaken by police is not covered by definition of security agency service under Section 64(94) of FA, 1994 - The same view has been expressed by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in case of Mumbai Police 2018-TIOL-1067-CESTAT-MUM - Respectfully following the said decisions, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-668-CESTAT-AHM

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue arises is that whether the appellant is required to pay an amount as per Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 in respect of exempted product, namely, Silica Sand and Ball Clay when the input service is used for mining of Lignite as well as Silica Sand and Ball Clay - The main contract is for mining of Lignite while doing the excavation to achieve Lignite, the over burden has to be removed and this over burden constitute Silica Sand and Ball Clay, thereafter the Lignite is excavated - Therefore, from the nature of mining of Lignite, it is clear that the Silica Sand and Ball Clay are generated unavoidably which is inevitable - Any input/input services contained in any by-product/waste/refuse, Cenvat Credit cannot be varied or denied - With this logic, demand under Rule 6 in respect of by-product is not applicable - Once it is established that the product in question are by-product then it is settled in respect of by-product demand under Rule 6 will not sustain - Accordingly, Silica Sand and Ball Clay being a by-product, no demand under Rule 6 shall sustain - The impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT