|
2023-TIOL-1067-HC-AHM-VAT
Tekni Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat
Whether inter-state sales against statutory declaration forms attracted concessional rate of tax under the CST Act - YES: HC
- Assessee's writ allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-804-CESTAT-CHD
CC Vs Veer Agency
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) has reduced redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and also reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - The impugned goods were freely importable and there is no allegation of misdeclaration of goods and there is no evidence on record to show that appellant has acted with malafide intention to import substandard goods intentionally - It is a fact that on test, it was found that goods are of substandard and is not fit for human consumption and therefore original authority as well as appellate authority both allowed re-export of the same - As far as demand of redemption fine and penalty is concerned, Commissioner (A) has rightly relied upon various decisions of Tribunal involving similar circumstances of re-export of food items after being denied NOC by FSSAI and took the lenient view and rightly reduce the fine and penalty - There is no infirmity in order passed by Commissioner (A) reducing redemption fine under Section 125(1) of Customs Act, 1962 to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty under section 112(a)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 to Rs. 50,000/- - As a result of casual approach of authorities below, impugned goods are lying on port since 10.11.2020 but customs authorities did not bother to comply with order of Commissioner (A) - It shows complete insensivity of officers to the financial loss occurring to respondent due to deterioration of goods, in addition to, it shows complete dereliction of duty on their part - The assessable value of consignment was Rs. 49,24,504/- and respondent has paid the duty of Rs. 3,52,439/- as recorded in impugned order, moreover respondent also paid Rs. 1,50,000/- towards redemption fine and penalty but customs authorities below did not release the goods for re-export thereby allowing goods to further deteriorate in quality and in addition incurring huge demurrage due to lapse of considerable time for no fault of respondent - It is directed that impugned goods be released immediately to respondent for the purpose of re-export and refund the duty back to respondent as observed by Commissioner (A) in impugned order - Further, goods are lying at the port on account of negligence of customs officers; therefore, respondent may be given a detention certificate in order to claim waiver of detention/demurrage charges: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2023-TIOL-803-CESTAT-MAD
Abc Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant is rendering 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' service - It is the case of Revenue that appellant had received Rs. 11,86,998/- towards reimbursement of advertisement charges from their clients for period from October 2007 to January 2010, on which, apparently, appellant did not pay Service Tax - It is the further case of Revenue that appellant had availed input service credit on services like training, insurance on various office equipment, car hire charges and pest management services, for above period - Revenue issued a SCN proposing inter alia to demand Service Tax of Rs. 1,46,713/- - This Bench in its Final Order dated 04.12.2017 has after following the decision of Madras High Court in case of Sangamitra Services Agency = 2013-TIOL-606-HC-MAD-ST set aside the demand - Issue is no more res integra since the same has been decided in appellant's own case for a different period by this very Bench - Further, Revenue has also not made out any case for deviating from said order - Hence, following the said order, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-802-CESTAT-KOL
Aditya Aluminium Vs CCE, C & ST
CX - The impugned order has denied credit availed by appellant on input services availed for 'setting up of a factory' as same has been specifically omitted from 'includes' part of definition vide Notfn 03/2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - Since the subject input services are covered in 'main clause' of definition of input service, unless it is specifically excluded under excludes clause of definition, appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit on subject input services used in setting up of factory - This view has been held by Tribunal in case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. = 2021-TIOL-448-CESTAT-HYD - In case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd = 2021-TIOL-682-CESTAT-KOL the Tribunal allowed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid towards setting up of plant - Subject input services have a direct nexus with manufacture of finished goods in 'means' clause of definition of input services - Accordingly, even if the word 'setting up of a factory' has been specifically excluded from definition w.e.f.01.04.2011, such services are covered within ambit of main clause of definition - Hence, it would still qualify as an input service as per Rule 1(I) of CCR, 2004 - Cenvat credit availed by appellant on input services used in setting up of factory is allowed - Consequently, impugned order confirming demand along with interest and imposing penalty is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
