2022-TIOL-1013-CESTAT-AHM
City Gold Media Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant is engaged in providing taxable services of 'Sale of Space and Time for Advertisement' but they were neither registered with service tax department nor they were paying service tax and were also not filing service tax returns - Appellant have not disputed tax liability along with applicable interest - Issue to be decided is only penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - As regards the penalty under Section 76 ibid, simultaneous penalty is not imposable as settled by Gujarat High Court in case of Raval Trading Company 2016-TIOL-112-HC-AHM-ST , therefore, penalty imposed under Section 76 ibid is not sustainable - As regard to penalty under Sections 77 and 78 ibid, entire case was made out on search conducted by departmental officer in the premises of appellant, the appellant have never disclosed their activity before department, therefore, they suppressed the fact from department accordingly, penalty under sections 77 and 78 ibid were rightly imposed: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1012-CESTAT-MUM
Roche Products India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & ST
ST - Appeal filed against impugned order which has upheld the order of original authority rejecting their claim for refund under Notification No. 27/2012 for second quarter between October 2015 to December 2015 and last quarter of 2016 - Denial of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit arose from presumption of taxability of said activity within Rule 4 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 - No demand has been raised in relation to alleged 'taxable service' owing to which present claim for refund has been denied for not being export within meaning of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - It is only by raising such demand that taxability can be asserted and exports held as not having taken place - Essential to invoking of Rule 4 of Rules, 2012 is providing of goods upon which service can be rendered - No records are available of such having been done and there is also no reference in SCN to such - Notwithstanding the submission of revenue that agreements should be subject to a fresh consideration by original authority which amounts to permitting the scope of SCN to be expanded, absence of any findings in orders of lower authorities, or even an allegation, that goods had been furnished to appellant for rendering any service to overseas entity renders denial of refund as improper - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and refund application is restored to original authority for proceeding in accordance with provisions of said notification on finding that it is Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 which applies: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1011-CESTAT-MUM
Morganite Crucible India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Issue relates to proposal to deny CENVAT Credit on sale commission to the appellant and its confirmation with direction for recovery alongwith interest and penalty - Having regard to the changes made in 2011 to definition of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 judgment of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. was rendered but considering factors that would case the manufacturing industries Notification No. 2/2016-C.E. (N.T.) was issued - Contention of Department is that the said notification is prospective in nature while appellant claims that being a beneficial provision, it is a clarification which is retrospective in nature and it covers the period of dispute of appellant occurred post 2011 amendment - Appellant draws attention of this Bench to the decision in M/s. Essar Steel India Ltd. wherein by applying the ratio of judgment in case of Vatika Township Ltd. and Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-78-SC-IT-CB it was held that explanation inserted in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that is in conformity to Board Circular dated 29.04.2011 extending benefit to assessee would have retrospective effect - This being the judicial precedent set by Tribunal coupled with earlier order passed in case of Mclube Asia Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-3061-CESTAT-MUM , appellant is eligible to avail credits on tax paid on sale commission paid to both Indian and overseas agents for the period between April, 2013 and August, 2015 - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1010-CESTAT-MUM
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Early hearing - Issue involved is in regard to classification of "Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh" - Matter has been agitated before Larger Bench of Tribunal and Tribunal has given favourable decision - Further, Tribunal has followed the Larger Bench and observed that the demands raised and confirmed by Original Authority holding the said beverages to be falling under Tariff Item 2202 10 20 are not sustainable - Respectfully following the said decision and consensus arrived at by Larger Bench, all the appeals are allowed: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1009-CESTAT-MUM
Aryan Mines And Minerals Vs CCE & ST
Cus - A gainst the estimated value of Rs. 64,26,000/- of seized goods, appellant has been directed to execute a bond of estimated value supported by bank guarantee i.e. 50% of estimated value - In view of the order issued by JNCH, request made by appellant for execution of bond of estimated value of seized goods supported by bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs appears to be in line with order issued by JNCH - Accordingly, Revenue authorities are directed to accept the offer made and provisionally release the goods on execution of a bond of value of Rs. 64,26,000/- supported by bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- for allowing the goods back to town - All other conditions as specified in provisional release order shall stand: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT |
