|
2023-TIOL-352-CESTAT-MAD
Shanmuga Construction Services Vs CST
ST - The appellant, who is a developer, had entered into a joint development agreement for construction of residential complexes, for which it had engaged a contractor - Revenue entertained a doubt that construction services undertook by appellant were liable to Service Tax under 'works contract' service and consequently, issued a SCN proposing to demand Service Tax, interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994, under WCS - Tribunal have gone through orders of various CESTAT Benches which have been considered by Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in M/s. Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-3095-CESTAT-HYD - It has been categorically held that no Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract - Admittedly, period of dispute, as noted is from October 2007 to April 2010 and hence, said ruling is squarely applicable to present case - In view of the fact that no distinguishing/contrary order is placed on record, demand raised in impugned order cannot sustain, for which reason impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-351-CESTAT-MUM
SGL Carbon India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order wherein Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal as time barred - Commissioner (A) has held that the appellant had received copy of O-I-O on 05.08.2019 and therefore appeal was time barred - It is found that on 05.08.2019, copy of O-I-O was given to Shri Sumit Tawari and not appellant and therefore date of service of O-I-O on appellant is 27.09.2019 - Therefore, appeal filed before Commissioner (A) is within the limitation provided by law - Impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (A) for decision on merit: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-350-CESTAT-BANG
Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - After filing cash refund claims of accumulated CENVAT credit by appellant during relevant period, proceedings were also initiated simultaneously proposing denial of CENVAT credit and its recovery by way of issuance of SCN more or less on same grounds on which refund claims were proposed to be denied - Tribunal in its order examined the very same grounds of objections of revenue on admissibility of cash refund claims of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of service and remanded the matter after recording the principles to be followed in deciding refund claims - Pursuant to said order of Tribunal refund claims were adjudicated and allowed to the appellant vide de novo order which covers one month of present demand notice i.e., June 2008 - It is submitted that for subsequent period, Tribunal following the earlier order remanded the issue for de novo consideration - However, same is pending adjudication - Submissions for remanding the matter to consider demand notice along with refund claims pending de novo adjudication before Commissioner seems to be relevant and appropriate - Consequently, following the earlier two orders of this Tribunal, demand proceedings remanded to Commissioner to consider the same along with refund claims for period July 2008 to December 2008 - Appellants may be given an opportunity of hearing to present their case: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT
2023-TIOL-349-CESTAT-KOL
Cipla Ltd Vs CCGST & Excise
CX - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and located at Sikkim - The appellant had taken cenvat credit on various inputs and input services during the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 - The adjudicating authority upheld entire demand raised and also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - On appeal, the Commr.(A) allowed the appellant's appeal in part. Held - The services received by the appellant from M/s Sunanda Agri Marketing, are in the nature of fabrication and erection of pipes fittings and the services received from M/s Friends Traders, are in the nature of repair and maintenance in the factory premises - The appellants have specifically pleaded that the said services were essentially required for modernization, renovation or repairs of within factory premises - They are not a part of in execution of works contract or construction services as envisaged under Section 66E (b) of the Finance Act, 1944 - It's an admitted position that the said services are used for repair/renovation of and within the factory premises and were not a part of construction or execution of a works contract as in the nature for construction of civil structures and buildings. In support of his contention, the Advocate for the appellant has also relied upon Board's Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29th April, 2011 - It is also observed that on the very aspect for their sister unit, they have been allowed similar credit vide Order-in-Appeal No.PUN-SVTAX-000-APP- 012-16-17 dated 05.04.2016 - Admissibility of CENVAT Credit in the circumstances on the aforesaid services is now a settled proposition in law - As the appellants have availed the input service tax credit for repair, maintenance and modernization and fabrication & erection of pipe fittings at their factory premises, it is amply clear that the credit is admissible to them and are not hit by exclusion clause of Rule 2 (1)(ii)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Hence the appeal is allowed: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-348-CESTAT-KOL
Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The Appellant is in Appeal before the Tribunal assailing the Order-in-Original whereby the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.76,95,753/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs.76,95,753/- imposed in terms of Rule 25 of the Service Tax Rules - The Appellant claimed to have undergone the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - The Appellant claimed that that the CBIC has issued Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) vide CBIC Circular No. 1083/04/2022-CX.9 dated 23rd May, 2022 in respect of cases where assessees are undergoing insolvency process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Vide the said circular it has been clarified that the Central Government being the operational creditor in tax cases, may initiate insolvency resolution process and file claim in the insolvency resolution process, before the committee of creditors. Held - From the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLAT, the Appeal filed by the Appellant has abated and this Tribunal has become functus officio in the matters relating to this Appeal - It is also settled that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has got merged in the order of the NCLAT approving the Resolution Plan - The Appeal stands abated as per Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 w.e.f. the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLAT, i.e., 05.09.2019: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed off: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
