2022-TIOL-1382-HC-MUM-ST
CST Vs Surindra Engineering Company Ltd
ST - Revenue has filed appeal against the CESTAT order dated 14 August 2014 by framing the following questions of law viz. Whether laying, connecting, joining pipeline for water supply project falls within "Erection, Commissioning or installation Service" as defined under section 65(105)( zzd ) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is taxable under the Service Tax and whether the respondent assessee is entitled for abatement under Notification No.1 of 2006, dated 1st March 2006.
Held: Since the issue involved in the present appeal pertains to whether the service rendered by the assessee is a taxable service or not, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of the clear mandate contained in sub-section (2) of section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inserted with effect from 6th August 2014 - Appeal is not maintainable: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Appeal disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1381-HC-MUM-CUS
Pr.CC Vs Signet Chemicals Pvt Ltd
Cus - Import of "Neutral Pellets" - It was alleged by the Department that the classification declared by the respondent against 20 bills of entry, during the relevant period under CTH 1702 9090 was incorrect and that the correct classification proposed was CTH 1701 9990 - Differential duty demand made by invoking the extended period of limitation was confirmed by the adjudicating authority but CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the respondent holding that the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as there was no suppression of facts or mis-declaration - Aggrieved, Revenue has filed an appeal before the High Court. Held : CESTAT, in the present case, has clearly observed that the respondent had been importing the goods under CTH 1702 and attracted the same rate of duty as the goods imported and falling under CTH 1701 and held that the department was very well aware of the said classification and that in the past, assessments were completed based thereupon - Respondent had been consistently adopting the classification under heading '1702', even when the rate of duty applicable for goods under heading '1701' were either lower or completely exempt - This fact has neither been denied by the appellant before the CESTAT, nor has the appellant made any effort to belie the same before the Bench - Therefore, only because there was a change of view by the department, the respondent could not have been said to have either mis-declared or suppressed facts in classifying its goods at the time of its import under CTH 1702 - View expressed by the CESTAT in the order impugned warrants no interference - Revenue Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 14, 15, 17]
- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1380-HC-MUM-CX
CCGST & CE Vs Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd
CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order of CESTAT dated 9 th September 2019 - It was alleged in the SCNs that CENVAT Credit had been 'irregularly' availed on improper document i.e. on the basis of Cargo Sales Report (CSR), which was a summary of the Air Way Bills, and which was not in conformity with Rule 9(1) of the CCR, 2004 - Adjudicating authority vide its order dated 16th July, 2015 held in favour of the Respondent and dropped both the show cause notices by holding that the Air Way Bills could be considered as an invoice/bill or Challan, as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Tribunal dismissed the appeal by taking the view that the ground on which the appeal is sought to be filed, was beyond the scope of adjudication of the show cause-cum-demand notice - Inasmuch as the Revenue contended that the activity of the assessee was not an 'output service', within the meaning of Rule 2 of the CCR, 2004. Held: It is trite law that the show cause notice is the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty, penalty and interest and since the grounds on which the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal did not find any basis in the show cause-cum-demand notice, the appeal on that basis could not have been entertained or allowed - No reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal - Revenue appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 6]
- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
