|
2023-TIOL-125-CESTAT-DEL
Parvatiya Plywood Pvt Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST
CX - Issue involved is, whether appellant is entitled to 'Area based exemption' under exemption Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. r/w subsequent Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. (as amended) - Appellant is entitled to benefit of recalculation of demand on cum-duty basis in accordance with explanation to Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Admittedly appellant have not collected Central Excise duty in addition to sale price in view of their claim of Area based exemption - Thus, appellant shall be entitled to benefit of calculation of duty on cum-duty-price - Appellant shall be entitled to benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs and input services and demand payable shall be re-calculated accordingly in view of clear mandate of Central Excise Act r/w Cenvat Credit Rules - So far, penalty under Section 11AC ibid is concerned, there is no case of mis-representation, misstatement, suppression or fraud on the part of appellant - Appellant was under bona fide belief in claiming Area based exemption from Central Excise duty, as several other manufacturers located in same locality, where also extended the benefit of Area based exemption - Penalty under Section 11AC ibid both on appellant and its Managing Director Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-124-CESTAT-BANG
Forbes And Company Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant, a steamer agent, was included in proceedings initiated against M/s ASEAN Cableship Pte Ltd, Singapore along with Mr Too Talk Leong, Master, CS ASEAN EXPLORER, by SCN proposing recovery of duty evaded under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and other detriments, including confiscation of vessel, for alleged violations under Customs Act, 1962 in relation to 'stores', 'spares' and 'bunkers' while in India - The vessel had been contracted for maintenance and repair by owners of underwater cable passing over the floor of Arabian Sea - Impugned order held that, in guise of 'foreign going vessel' entitled to privileged consumption of 'stores' and 'bunkers' even while in territorial waters and by incorrect representation while discharging obligations in section 29, section 30, section 40, section 41 and section 42 of Customs Act, 1962, principal noticee had evaded duty with acts of omission and commission on the part of other two, including appellant, justifying confiscation of vessel and imposition of penalties - Appellant, as representative of person-in-charge of conveyance, was held responsible for enabling stay in Indian waters for 1450 days interspersed with occasional sorties outside during a total of 1750 days with only one repair having been undertaken beyond territorial waters even as 36 episodes of such took place within - There is no doubt that, in accordance with section 148 of Customs Act, 1962, the steamer agent, as appellant herein is, assumes full responsibility on behalf of person-incharge of conveyance for compliance with chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962 - It is on record, however, that confiscation of said vessel for alleged violations of chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962 as well as duty liability arising from misuse of 'ship stores' and 'bunkers' in findings of adjudicating authority had been set aside by Tribunal - Related act of wrong-doing urged by revenue has ceased to be and consequently there is no scope for imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on the representative of person-in-charge of conveyance - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2023-TIOL-123-CESTAT-HYD
CC & CE Vs Vikas Educational Institutions Ltd
ST - Commercial coaching has been provided against collecting same fees as has been collected by respondents (VEIL) and though by Vikas Educational Society (VES) also but through separate receipts - VES/VEIL are interdependent entities - Once the documents as that of bills/profit & Loss accounts of respondent were before authorities showing that VEIL had been collecting money from students of commercial coaching in name of tuition fee and that VES was not capable of imparting such commercial coaching, the evidence with respect to infrastructural facilities being provided by VEIL to VES to impart such coaching becomes absolutely redundant to falsify that VEIL was collecting money in name of tuition fee for Commercial Coaching - There is no denial that Commercial Coaching was being provided and that VES couldn't provide the same - Imparting of coaching for competitive examinations such as IIT/JEE, AIEEE is a taxable service in terms of Section 65(26) of Finance Act, 1994 - Findings of Commissioners in Order under challenge are in total ignorance of evidence on record rather are held to be purely presumptive and is based on probabilities to just accept the submission in defence - On the contrary, taxable services were being admittedly imparted and VES was not competent to impart these things - VEIL though is admitted to be interdependent/same organizations as that of VES, but it is VEIL which was providing taxable service as that of Commercial Coaching against collecting an amount in name of tuition fee - Hence, demand of service tax for providing taxable/commercial coaching services against VEIL has wrongly been dropped by Commissioner - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT |
|
