2022-TIOL-1041-CESTAT-MUM
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and had availed credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on eligible 'inputs' used in manufacture of excisable goods but under the impression that 'liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)', exempted by Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. when cleared for use under 'public distribution system (PDS)' were 'exempted goods' within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, reversed such proportion and also excluded it for computation prescribed in Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The principle stands established that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is inoperable ab initio in such clearances - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1040-CESTAT-MUM
Lenovo India Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The dispute is about the intent of customs authorities to deny them the benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs beyond 6%, accorded to 'hard disk drives' in Notification No. 6/2006-CE and Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. by adoption of tariff item 8471 70 30 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on import of 'external/portable hard disk drive' of several makes and models effected by them between March 2011 and March 2013 to substitute for claim of coverage by description corresponding to tariff item 8471 7020 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Assessment to duties of customs are a function of rate of duty and value; the former is determined from First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The design of Schedule encompassing all products within the tariff enumeration does not offer scope for traversing beyond the ninety eight chapters making it evident that certainty of fitment is one of the characteristics of classification for smooth operation of international trade - Discriminatory treatment compelled by whims of incumbents in office, obsessive antipathy to tax concessions, persistent refusal to acknowledge judicial authority for classification or conviction that escapement from tax can only emanate from patronage offered by revenue administration is anathema to seamless international trade - Consequently, settled classification may be unsettled only by argument of inapplicability owing to distinguishable nature of product - Judicial propriety requires non-discriminatory application of classification so held and notwithstanding the continuing cavil of Revenue about eligibility for concessional duty - Needless to state, Central Government, the fount of policy formulation, does not appear to entertain such doubt about judicial interpretation of executive intent; it is the foregoing of revenue and not the principle espoused in said exemption notification that engenders the contrarian approach on the part of tax collector and that is not an acceptable argument to unsettle settled law - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1039-CESTAT-DEL
CC, CE & ST Vs Neo Corp International Ltd
CX - The Department is in appeal against impugned order by which demand proposed in three SCNs has been dropped as goods manufactured by assessee have been classified under Chapters 54, 60 and 63 of Central Excise Tariff in view of decision of Tribunal in M/s Flora Agro 2014-TIOL-2273-CESTAT-AHM (which decision was subsequently accepted by Department) as also the orders of Commissioner (A) which have also been accepted by Department - It is not disputed by Department that issue raised before Commissioner in present matter was the issue considered in two orders passed by Commissioner (A), which orders have been accepted by Department - Thus, there is no error in order passed by Commissioner: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1038-CESTAT-AHM
Welspun Syntex Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Revenue has confirmed the demand of service tax during activity of appellant - Adjudicating authority has categorized the activity of appellant under Infrastructural Support Services - Entire plant and machinery equipment is outrightly leased out to M/s ISFPL and it is the ISFPL who are conducting activity on their own with plant and machinery equipment taken on lease, therefore, appellant has not provided any service as service of outsource agency - From the agreement, it is clear that activity of appellant falls under renting of immovable property in respect of land/ plant, land fixed plant - In respect of movable machinery equipment, activity at the best can be classified as supply of tangible goods for use - Both services became taxable after relevant period - Since the very activity of appellant have been brought under taxable net subsequently it makes clear that said activity was not covered under any taxable activity for earlier period - Activity of appellant, i.e., of renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service - Accordingly, impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1037-CESTAT-MUM
Desai And Diwanji Vs CCGST
ST - Service Tax was held to be payable by law firms between 01.09.2009 and 30.06.2012 - Accordingly, Service Tax was discharged by appellant from its Mumbai Head office for both its Mumbai and Delhi Branches without a centralised Registration - SCN was issued for reversal of CENVAT Credit which they availed in respect of unregistered Delhi office for providing service from Delhi - Facts of the case in Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. and present one are almost identical since in Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. also documents in name of Appellant therein were addressed to its other premises located at Bangalore, New Delhi and Chennai Office which was held to have contravened provision of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - It was held in that decision that in event of centralised billing and centralised accounting system, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2) ibid, discharging Service Tax liability from registered premises would not disentitled the benefits of CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid by service provider if invoices are raised in name of Branch offices, even if said Branch offices are unregistered one since Service Tax liability has been discharged by main office also for service provided by Branches - Further, when Service Tax has been paid from main office for input services received by branch office, it was held that the ratio of decision of Tribunal in case of Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. and Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. 2005-TIOL-641-CESTAT-MUM , though delivered in respect of MODVAT Credit on Central Excise duty, would also be applicable to the case in hand - Impugned order to the extent of denial of CENVAT Credits to appellant for input services availed by branch office at Delhi is hereby set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
