2023-TIOL-187-CESTAT-AHM
Hasmukh Tobacco Products Vs CCE & ST
CX - Issue involved is, whether the appellant is entitled for interest from the date of deposit of pre-deposit or after the three months from the date of filing of refund application in a case where the Tribunal has finally passed final order setting aside the demand - On this issue Supreme Court/ High Courts and this Tribunal has taken a view that in case of pre-deposit, interest should be given from the date of deposit - Appellant is entitled for interest on refund of pre-deposit amount @6% from the date of deposit till the date of refund - Accordingly, impugned orders are set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-186-CESTAT-AHM
Sales India Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Issue arises is as to whether appellant is liable to pay service tax on franchise service for period post its implementation i.e 01.07.2003 - The fact which is not under dispute is that appellant have entered into a contract of franchise agreement before 01.07.2003 and payment of such contract was also made at the time of enterin g into contract - In this fact the Rajasthan High Court has decided the matter holding that when contract was entered and payment thereof was made at a subsequent stage if service was brought under levy of service tax, appellant is not liable to pay service tax, for the reason that the provision of services shall be treated as provided on date of contract on payment of service value - It is settled that in respect of Franchise Service, service tax will arise as per date of contract and date of payment for service and if the same is at a time when there is no levy, no service tax can be charged - Accordingly, service tax on frenchise service is not chargeable - As regard the demand on Business Auxiliary Service under head of commission, issue was not free from doubt and this Tribunal in case of Silicon Honda 2007-TIOL-1159-CESTAT-BANG & Tribhuvan Motors Ltd. 2010-TIOL-57-CESTAT-BANG held in favour of assessee that mere providing the table space to financial institutions, it is not taxable - However, the issue was subsequently referred to larger bench and in the case of Pagariya Auto Center 2014-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL-LB , it was held that the commission received from financial institution shall be liable to service tax - Suppression of fact cannot be alleged against appellant - Therefore, the demand being covered under extended period will not sustain as the same is hit by limitation - Impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-185-CESTAT-MAD
Dharani Developers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Appellant is engaged in providing Construction of Residential Complex Services and during disputed period, was a real estate developer engaged in promotion of land, construction of building and sale of residential properties at PGVP Village, Coimbatore, for which a composite contract is entered into with the buyers - A SCN was issued to appellant thereby proposing to levy Service Tax with respect to various projects executed by appellant under Construction of Residential Complex Service - Ruling of Chennai Bench of CESTAT in M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. covers the period post 01.06.2007 also and hence, the ratio laid down therein applies to the case on hand - Therefore, issue is settled in favour of appellant - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-184-CESTAT-KOL
CC Vs Amit Jalan
Cus - Appeals filed against impugned order wherein Commissioner(A) dropped the penalty imposed on assessee under Section 112(a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962 - In view of instructions F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, revenue involved in appeals are nil as Commissioner(A) has not imposed any penalty on assessee, therefore, appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal - Commissioner (A) has rightly dropped penalty against assessee as there is no corroborative evidence on record in support of statement made before DRI Officers which were retracted on first available opportunity before CMM and no cross-examination of any witness has been granted to assessee - Therefore, no merits found in appeals filed by Revenue: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
