|
2023-TIOL-586-CESTAT-KOL
CST Vs Rakesh Advertising Pvt Ltd
ST - Issue involved is that whether assessee is liable to penalty under Section 76,77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 in a case where demand of service tax was confirmed under Section 73(A) of Finance Act, 1994 where assessee has collected service tax from their customer and not deposited to government - In case of confirmation of demand under Section 73(A), there is no application of Section 76 and 78 for imposition of penalty - Therefore, adjudicating authority has rightly not imposed the penalty under Section 76 & 78 - However, assessee has not followed the provision such as non-obtaining service tax registration nor deposited service tax collected from their customer on their own therefore, in terms of Section 77 they are liable to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- - Accordingly, penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed on assessee: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-585-CESTAT-KOL
Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant is engaged in providing 'mining Services' which came under service tax net w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - They took service tax registration on 24.08.07 and paid past service tax dues along with interest and furnished the complete information to investigating authority - The appellant was subjected to audit for Financial Year 2007-2008 and Final Audit Report (FAR) did not mention any non-payment, short-payment or erroneous payment of service tax - The audit has only reported about some ineligibility of CENVAT Credit, which were accepted and corrected by appellant by payment of equivalent amount through GAR-7 Challans - Appellant voluntarily paid their entire service tax liability with interest thereon and reported such payments in their periodic returns filed - Appellant has been in correspondence with department about their liability of service tax on mining service - When a clarification was issued, they have voluntarily paid service tax along with interest - Thus, there is no suppression or mis-representation of facts - As per provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Ac 1994, SCN should not have been issued to appellant - This view has also been clarified by Board in its Circular 137/46/2015-Service Tax - No penalty imposable under section 77 also, as the Appellant has taken registration and filed periodical returns regularly : CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-584-CESTAT-KOL
CC Vs SPP Impex
Cus - Assessee imported old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated which were assessed after value enhancement, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Adjudicating Authority has imposed redemption fine and penalty at the rate of 19.5% & 7.8% of assessed value respectively - In some of the cases where goods are not available, no redemption fine is imposed - Revenue is before Tribunal for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty - Following the decision of Tribunal in Venus Traders , it is held that redemption fine and penalty imposed on assessee by Adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice - Therefore, redemption fine and penalty confirmed by Adjudicating authority is upheld - Consequently, no infirmity found in impugned order and same are upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-583-CESTAT-MAD
Kalima Exim Vs CC
Cus - The issue that is to be decided is, whether exported goods are overvalued and whether confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties are justified - Appellant was allowed to re-export the goods after re-determining the value on the basis of cost construction statement submitted which was duly certified by Chartered Accountant - In orders of lower adjudicating authority, there is a specific mention that re-determined values before allowing provisional export of goods were found to be 'reasonable' - He has confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty on the basis of prices fixed by Valuation Committee - There is no dispute as to the basis for fixation by Valuation Committee has not been communicated to the appellant and appellant was not accorded any opportunity to rebut the same, thus, violating principles of natural justice - The revised values are fixed in terms of Rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, restricting the drawback amount to such re-determined value - In view of orders in Woodern Style Plus Exports 2018-TIOL-2744-CESTAT-MAD and M/s. Abhishek Exports India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3259-CESTAT-MAD , it is held that drawback as applicable is payable on re-determined value in respect of Exports effected under Shipping Bills and on re-determined value of Rs.22,23,609/- in respect of Exports effected under Shipping Bills dated 26.04.2012 - However, having regard to the facts of appeals, redemption fine imposed is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and penalty imposed is reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and in respect of O-I-O dated 04.10.2012, redemption fine imposed is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and penalty imposed is reduced to Rs.50,000/-: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-582-CESTAT-MAD
Sundaram Industries Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - The demand has been raised alleging that appellant is liable to pay service tax by reverse charge mechanism under category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agency service' - It is not disputed that the services were provided as well as consumed outside India - Appellant has paid charges for clearing and forwarding agency services provided by M/s. Project Management Inc. USA for the goods manufactured and exported by them - The very same issue was considered by Tribunal in appellant's own case 2018-TIOL-3875-CESTAT-MAD and observed that the said activities having been performed outside India will not be exigible to service tax - Following the decisions in appellant's own case, it is held that the demand cannot sustain - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
