2023-TIOL-645-CESTAT-KOL
Unique Transmission India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein benefit of Notfn 21/2002-Cus was denied - Appellant has supplied goods for Mega Power Project to be executed by M/s BHEL and certificate to that effect has been received - For the same project and other suppliers in case of M/s United Metal Industries, this Tribunal has allowed the benefit of exemption and in case of M/s Sarita Steels & Industries Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1702-CESTAT-BANG , Tribunal has also allowed the benefit of exemption - By following the said decision of Tribunal, it is held that appellant is entitled for benefit of said Notfn - Consequently, no merit found in impugned order and the same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-644-CESTAT-KOL
Ramky Infrastructure Ltd Vs CST
ST - The appellant was issued a SCN proposing to demand Service Tax under category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' as defined under Section 65(25b) of FA, 1994 for construction work executed by appellant - Appellant has executed the construction work of Garment Park for West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, Malda Food Park for West Bengal Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation and Ash Handling System for DC Industrial Plant Services Ltd. during period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2007 - It is stated that all the contracts executed by them were involving both supply of goods and services and hence such services are classifiable as 'Work Contract' service which was not liable to service tax during the period involved in impugned order - Appellant submitted that they have paid VAT on said work contract service - 'Work Contract Service' was liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - Issue has already been settled in case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST wherein Supreme Court has categorically held that 'Work Contract Services' involving both supply of goods and service, were liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - Hence, prior to 01.06.2007, such services cannot be charged to service tax under any other category of taxable service, namely 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - As the demand involved in impugned order pertains to the period prior to 01.06.2007, demand of service tax confirmed under category of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service is not sustainable - Accordingly, demand is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-643-CESTAT-MUM
M D Ruparel And Sons Vs Pr.CC
Cus - Appeal filed against suspension of customs broker licence by impugned order and subsequent to post-decisional hearing as prescribed in regulation 16 of CBLR, 2018 was continued - Appellant had filed bills of entry for import of 'air gun pellets dummy' by M/s Firoza Movie International Enterprises that, upon examination and subjecting to forensic test, was found to be 'blank cartridges' that are restricted for import under Foreign Trade Policy - The suspension has been ordered for a single alleged misdemeanour of August/September 2021 and that, too, in clearance of an article that is permissible for import subject to necessary licences - The goods are not a normal item of import requiring close familiarity on the part of importer - The claim of appellant to unblemished record of half a century as a professional 'customs broker' has not been disputed - The apprehension of similar modus operandi that exercised the mind of licencing authority is, thus, needless - Several months have elapsed since the alleged incident before suspension was resorted to by licencing authority - Regulation 16 of CBLR, 2018 may be invoked only when immediate action is warranted and such circumstances did not obviously exist - Accordingly, suspension is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
