|
2022-TIOL-305-CESTAT-KOL
K D Iron And Steel Company Vs CCE & ST
CX - The Appellant manufactured and cleared excisable goods, the value of which are assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - They had availed VAT remission under Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Order, 2005 w.e.f. March 2011 - Department alleged that as per Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the aforesaid amount of 99% of VAT collected from buyers, which was not paid to the State Government is not excludible and should have formed part of Assessable Value for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty - After considering the Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX as well as the decision of Supreme Court in Super Synotex (India) Ltd. 2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX , Gauhati High Court has upheld the view that the demand is required to be restricted to normal time limit - The differential duty, if any, is to be held as payable only for the period falling within the normal time limit - The extended period of limitation will not be available to Department to raise such demand - Original Adjudication authority is directed to re-quantity the demand within the normal time-limit - No justification found for imposition of penalty, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-304-CESTAT-AHM
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is admissibility of Cenvat Credit in respect of garden maintenance service for garden being maintained within factory premises - The lower authorities had not denied cenvat credit on gardening service per se but on the ground that the appellant have not established that garden is maintained for purpose of Pollution Control - This reason is absolutely incorrect on the face of facts of case - It is evident from consent order of Pollution Control Committee for renewing pollution control license that appellant is required to green up the surrounding of factory inside and outside - For this reason only, appellant is maintaining the garden, therefore, entire basis of department to deny cenvat credit does not stand - Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of maintenance of gardening service - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-303-CESTAT-BANG
Excelpoint Systems India Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - The issue required to be considered is, whether the authorities below are justified in treating the appellant as an "intermediary" and consequently justified in rejecting refund claim of appellant - Appellant has entered into a Management Services Agreement with its parent-company whereby the appellant was required to provide Management Support Services and Technical Support Services to the company, for which the management fee payable to appellant would be the total monthly expenses incurred by appellant with a markup of 10% which is, admittedly, received by appellant in foreign currency - There is no allegation that the appellant was involved in any way, either in purchase or sale of goods or even in collection of sale proceeds from customers of company - By this alone, it can be safely concluded that appellant is not acting as an agent or a middleman for anyone, and hence, is not covered by mischief of definition of 'intermediary' and consequently, Rule 9 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 - Hence, the same cannot be held that there is no export of services under Rule 6A ibid - Authorities below have grossly misconstrued the relevant provisions to deny valid refund claims of appellant and hence, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot sustain and hence, the same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2022-TIOL-302-CESTAT-ALL
Ranjit Singh And Company Ltd Vs Pr.CCE & ST
ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein demand of service tax has been confirmed alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed - Whether the value of material supplied by M/s Power Grid to appellant free of cost for erection commissioning of transmission lines shall form the part of gross value of services provided by appellant from payment of service tax - Said issue has been examined by Apex Court in case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST - In view of the same, issue is no more res-Integra , therefore, for the period prior to May 2015, free supplies of material by service recipient is not includable in gross amount of service provided by service provider i.e. the appellant - Therefore, whole of demand is not sustainable - As regards to the issue, whether the services of erection commissioning and installation provided for distribution of electricity is exempt from payment of service tax under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994, said service has been provided by appellant for distribution of electricity which is exempt from payment of service tax as held by Tribunal in case of U. P. Rajkiya Nirmam Nigam Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1485-CESTAT-DEL - Therefore, services provided for distribution of power is exempt from payment of service tax - As regards to SCN issued for period April 2011 to March 2015 , appellant has informed to the respondent that they will discharge their service tax liability under Composite Scheme under Works Contract Services and the said activity was known to respondent during the period of execution of work - Thus, SCN issued by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable - Accordingly, the whole of demand is barred by limitation - Impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-301-CESTAT-DEL
Farishta Exports Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order dated 12.09.2018 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) that rejects the appeal filed by appellant to assail the order dated 08.02.2014 passed by Adjudicating authority for the reason that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation contemplated under section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 - The order dated 08.01.2014 was received by appellant on 09.01.2015 - Appeal was required to be filed within a period of 60 days from this date and the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to condone any delay of 30 further days provided the appellant could satisfy Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within stipulated period - The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appeal for this reason: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
