2023-TIOL-222-CESTAT-AHM
CC Vs Shree Cement Ltd
Cus - Issue involved is that whether the value declared by appellant in respect of import of Non-calcined petroleum coke as Rs. 2871.15 is correct or price of comparable import made by BGH Exim Limited @ Indian Rs. 3701.20 is correct - Accordingly, whether enhancement of value should be made taking the price of comparable imports - Case of department is that due to similarity in various factors, import price of BGH Exim Limited needs to be followed and price declared by appellant should be rejected - Commissioner (A) has considered the entire issue in detail not only on the facts but also on the law point - There is an important difference between the facts of present import and import made by BGH Exim Limited in which there is only one consignment whereas in respondent's case the contract was for a quantity of minimum 8 lakh Tonnes Per Annum for the period of 5 years and respondent had imported 89249 MT of Non-calcined petroleum coke compared to import quantity of 9400 MT of M/s BGH Exim Limited - On this difference itself, it can be construed that when there is a long term contract for lifting of a minimum 8 Lakh Tonnes Per Annum, obviously there will be substantial discount in the price - On this basis, it cannot be said that comparable price of BGH Exim Limited should be taken for assessment of import of appellant - Commissioner (A) has examined each and every aspect of case and came to the conclusion that there is a vast difference between nature of supplies made by BGH Exim Limited and appellant in as much as there is a long term contract of appellant with suppliers and for huge quantity of 9000 MT Per Annum - There is no infirmity in findings of impugned order - Hence, same needs to be sustained: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-221-CESTAT-AHM
Jagdish Warehouse Owners Association Vs GST
ST - A SCN was issued proposing to demand short paid service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties - The rented property are owned by 39 individual in their name individually and separately and they had entered into lease agreement with State Bank of India to provide their individual property collectively to Bank through single lease agreement - Appellants also placed on record a copy of Lease deed signed by each individual owner, copies of Municipal Tax Bills issued in name of each owner separately - Individual owner received the rent separately and independently - As per payment terms, Bank paid different amount of rent to individuals as per their property - The amount received by individual owner for renting of their immovable property cannot be clubbed for purpose of service tax demand - When the property is not owned by appellant and they have not received the rent, demand of service tax raised on appellants alone, therefore, cannot be sustained - Consequently, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-220-CESTAT-DEL
Synergy Engineers Group Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CC, CE & ST
ST - The dispute relates to services provided by assessee as a main consultant as also to services provided by assessee as a sub-consultant of main consultant - The Principal Commissioner has confirmed demand of Rs. 44,42,823/- on services provided by assessee as a sub-consultant to main consultant and an amount of Rs. 01,05,625/- on services provided by assessee as main consultant - So far as confirmation of demand for services provided by assessee as a sub-consultant to main consultant is concerned, issue has been decided by Larger Bench of Tribunal in Melange Developers Private Limited by holding that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay service tax even if main contractor discharged service tax liability on activity undertaken by sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract - In view of said decision of Larger Bench of Tribunal, it has to be held that a sub-consultant would have to discharge service tax liability even if main consultant has discharged service tax liability - Decision taken by Principal Commissioner to confirm demand for normal period of limitation does not suffer from any illegality - Next issue required to be decided is as to whether Principal Commissioner was justified in holding that extended period of limitation contemplated under first proviso to section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 could not have been invoked - At the relevant time there were conflicting decisions of Tribunal regarding payment of service tax by a sub-contractor or a sub-consultant and it is only when Larger Bench decided the issue on May 23, 2019 - The finding, that has been recorded by Principal Commissioner for denying invocation of extended period of limitation does not suffer from any illegality: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-219-CESTAT-MAD
Integral Coach Factory Vs CGST & CE
CX - The contest in appeal is confined only to demand of interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on appellant - The appellant is a Central Government undertaking and had omitted to pay excise duty only because they were under bona fide belief that goods cleared by them (railway coaches) are exempted from excise duty as per notification - They have paid duty on 31.01.2012 - No ground found to set aside the demand of interest - In case on hand, demand raised is within the normal period - Further, there is no penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Commissioner has considered all the facts and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- only - On this score, no grounds found to interfere with demand of interest and imposition of penalty: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
