2023-TIOL-479-CESTAT-DEL
Prem Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
ST - The only issue that arise for consideration is as to whether appellant, as an authorised dealer of M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, is liable to discharge service tax on the activity of "free servicing" of motor vehicles during warranty period, in relation to motor vehicles sold by appellant to customers, where such free service charges are inbuilt in dealers margin - This issue has been decided by Tribunal in number of cases and reference can be made to one such decision of Tribunal in Jabalpur Motors Ltd. - In view of said decision, it has to be held that appellant was not liable to pay service tax on free services provided to motor vehicles during warranty period - Impugned order is accordingly, set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-478-CESTAT-DEL
Donypolo Udyog Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The appellant is manufacturing railway sleeper falling under Tariff Item 6810 99 90 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff - They are also registered with service tax under category of Goods Transport Agency - The issue arises is, whether the service received by appellant is Manpower Supply Service or job work service - Commissioner (A) has relied on GAR-7 challans of M/s Balaji Udyog, one of the five service providers, who has classified their service under Manpower Recruitment Agency - Therefore, Commissioner (A) has concluded that service received by appellant are to be covered under reverse charge mechanism and service tax is payable on 75% of value of service - A plain reading of agreement clearly indicates that service received is that of job work - Perusal of invoices raised by service provider to appellant along with statement of job work done by them also shows that appellant was receiving job work service from service provider viz., Ms/ Balaji Udyog - It is not material to rely on definition of service indicated by service provider in GAR 7 challans, when agreement between appellant and service provider is crystal clear - Issue is no longer res integra as Tribunal in Shivshakti Enterprises 2015-TIOL-2589-CESTAT-MUM and Shailu Traders has held that where the service provider had deployed his employees in manufacturing premises of appellant for specified job works, same cannot be held as Manpower Supply Services - Impugned order challenged by appellant is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-477-CESTAT-KOL
Cement Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant has manufactured cement as well as capital goods in factory - During manufacture of capital goods waste and scrap was also generated - Whether duty is payable on waste and scrap is not a question before Tribunal - However, appellant has chosen to pay duty on waste and scrap by utilizing CENVAT Credit - The payment of duty on scrap has not been questioned by Department - The Department has only questioned payment of duty by utilizing CENVAT Credit availed - Waste and scrap generated is also a product manufactured within factory for which duty can be paid by utilizing CENVAT Credit account - Hence, payment of duty for waste and scrap by utilizing CENVAT Credit account was in order - For payment of duty for cement, they have utilized the balance CENVAT Credit and remaining duty through PLA - The refund claimed was only on payment of duty through PLA for cement, which is permissible as per Notification No. 33/99-C.E. - Payment of duty for scrap has been correctly paid by utilizing CENVAT Credit account and refund of duty paid through PLA on cement has been correctly claimed by appellant as per Notification No. 33/99-C.E. and hence refund sanctioned was in order: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-476-CESTAT-MUM
Ramji Pal Vs CC
Cus - Appellant was partner of a firm called Ranjana Trading Corporation - The other partner of said firm was Shri Anand Singh who imported certain goods in capacity of partner of Ranjana Trading Corporation on behalf of Ranjana Trading Corporation and mis-declaration of description of goods was established - The matter was adjudicated by original authority and orders were passed invoking provisions of Customs Act, 1962 against Ranjana Trading Corporation, Shri Anand Singh and present appellant - Appellant was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs each under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - For imposition of personal penalty, contravention of provisions of law on by a person is required - The original authority has given the finding that appellant has not transacted any business - That itself establishes that appellant was not responsible for any omission or commission - Therefore, imposition of personal penalties on appellant are untenable - That part of O-I-A is set aside through which personal penalties of Rs. 4 lakhs each under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on appellant - O-I-A stands modified to that extent: CESTAT
- Appeal alowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-475-CESTAT-DEL
Banco Products India Ltd Vs UoI
Anti dumping duty - Appellant is in appeal with a prayer that final findings of designated authority be modified so as to exclude the product 'colour coated aluminium coils' from imposition of anti-dumping duty - The second relief that has been claimed is to also modify consequential Customs Notification dated 06.12.2021 issued by the Central Government to exclude 'colour coated aluminium coils' from imposition of anti-dumping duty retrospectively w.e.f. 06.12.2021 and for refund of excess/additional duty so collected on import of 'colour coated aluminium co ils' w.e.f. 06.12.2021 - A preliminary objection was raised by respondents that appeal would not be maintainable as appellant had not participated in investigation and proceeding before designated authority - The appellant, therefore, filed Miscellaneous Application with a prayer that permission may be granted to file additional documents - It has also been stated that a similar issue has also been raised in appeal filed by M/s. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited - Appellant, however, fairly stated that since appeal of M/s. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited raises the same issues as have been raised in present appeal, it would not be necessary to decide the appeal because relief, if any, granted to M/s. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited would also enure to benefit of appellant - In view of said statement made by appellant, application would have to be rejected: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
