2023-TIOL-97-CESTAT-AHM
Lindstorm Services India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant is a subsidiary of Lindstrom OY Finland and is engaged in leasing workwear (uniform) to their clients on the conditions mentioned in agreements with their clients - It is observed that CESTAT's two benches have taken a consistent view that service in question is not taxable under supply of tangible goods for use or under declared service - Therefore, issue deserve to be decided in favour of appellant - As regard, the submission of revenue that against aforesaid two Chennai Tribunal's order, Revenue has filed appeal, as of now either side could not produce any stay order staying the operation of Chennai Tribunal's Order, therefore, mere filing of appeal before Supreme Court will not of any help to the Revenue - Accordingly, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal is allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-96-CESTAT-AHM
N R Agarwal Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is, whether appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service - Both the lower authorities have denied Cenvat credit on the ground that said service is excluded for allowing Cenvat credit as per exclusion Clause given in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 - Ongoing through exclusion Clause, it is found that exclusion is provided in respect of those Rent-a-Cab service where the vehicle taken on rent is not a capital goods - Vehicle taken on rent is defined as capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, exclusion clause is not applicable - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-95-CESTAT-AHM
Abhay Industries Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is that whether appellant is eligible for SSI Exemption available under Notfn 8/2003-C.E. - Case of department is that since the appellant has used brand "Bintex" belonging to some other person, benefit of exemption under said notification is not available - The "Bintex" brand is registered with Trade Mark Registry wherein, appellant partner Shri Rajesh Kumar Harshdrai Punatar is also one of owner - From the registration, it is clear that appellant's partner Shri Rajesh Kumar Harshdrai Punatar is one of owner of brand name "Bintex" out of other family members - It is also submitted by appellant that Shri. Rajesh Kumar Harshdrai Punatar is a partner in M/s. Abhay Industries from 01.04.2001 onwards - Appellant firm using brand name of "Bintex" for which appellant firm partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar is one of the owner of brand name "Bintex", appellant firm is eligible for exemption under Notfn 8/2003-CE - Appellant's partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar himself is one of the owner of brand "Bintex" as per Trade Mark Registration, therefore, there is no doubt that brand name cannot be said to be belonging to any other person - Consequently, appellant is eligible for exemption notification - Since the demand against main appellant is not sustainable, penalty on the partner also will not sustain - Moreover, since the penalty on partnership firm was imposed, a separate penalty on partner cannot be imposed as held by Gujarat High Court in case of PRAVIN N. SHAH and JAY PRAKASH MOTWANI 2009-TIOL-121-HC-AHM-CUS - Impugned order is not sustainable hence the same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
