|
2023-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-MAD
Ours Aariya Bhavan Vs CGST & CE
ST - The Assessee, in the relevant period, entered into an agreement with M/s Indian Railways Touring and Catering Corporation, as per which the Assessee would provide M/s IRCTC with a supply of bed rolls for use by the passengers travelling in AC & First Class compartments of trains - The Appellant collected service charges from M/s IRCTC for provision of this service - The Department was of the view that such activity and the charges collected by the Appellant were taxable under the head Business Auxiliary Services, and that the Appellant had omitted to discharge service tax liability on the charges so collected - Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to raise demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994, along with demand for interest and penalties - Subsequently, the Appellate Commissioner sustained these demands.
Held - In the Show Cause Notice it is alleged that the activity of providing bed rolls would fall under clause (vi) of the definition under Section 65 (19) - The Appellant is not providing any service on behalf of IRCTC - The Appellant is providing service to M/s. IRCTC - There is no amount collected by the Appellant from the passengers - In fact, the services are provided to M/s. IRCTC and amount is also collected from M/s. IRCTC - For this reason, the activity cannot be considered as a service provided on behalf of a client - On merits also the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - The Appellant succeeds on merits as well as on limitation: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1035-CESTAT-MAD
Almaa Traders Vs CC
Cus - Assessee has questioned valuation of "Tin plates defective rejected sheets scrolled" - When there is a reference made to variable factors like numerable types of descriptions, the same could lead to an impression that the item may be falling under CTH 7210 1110, which is classification declared by assessee - Further, assessee claimed that its import was from Belgium and quantity was about 138 M.T. whereas in O-I-O, there is no reference to country of origin, which even the original authority has felt as a variable factor - Moreover, the officer has relied on alleged contemporaneous imports which were never put across to assessee for rebuttal, but however, that such reliance on contemporaneous imports itself has been doubted by the adjudicating authority when he holds that value of imported goods could not be determined under Rule 4 and Rule 5 due to variable factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin - Rules 7 and 8 also could not be applied for want of quantifiable data at the place of exportation and importation respectively - By this, the approach of assessing officer in comparing the import value with that of the contemporaneous imports stood diluted - On the one hand officer says that value of contemporaneous imports were higher, but on the other hand he refers to various factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, place of exportation and importation which would apply in equal force in respect of value of imported goods as well - The quantity of import is much higher than the quantity of import in respect of the contemporaneous imports - Hence, so-called contemporaneous imports were in fact incomparables, due to which the rejection of the value of import as declared by assessee is without any basis - Redetermination of import value by Revenue is without any basis and certainly not in accordance with spirits of law, for which reasons the same deserves to be set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-AHM
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Appellant have undertaken production activity in their factory for and on behalf of the M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. by using their own plant - Case of department is that the appellant by managing the activity on behalf of M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. provided the services namely Management, Maintenance or Repair to M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. - Accordingly, SCN was issued and demand was confirmed by impugned order - In appellant's own case for previous period, on the identical issue this Tribunal has decided that under the same set of arrangement between appellant and M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. the demand under management, maintenance or repair service shall not be sustainable - Issue is squarely covered by said orders of Tribunal, whereby, it was held that under the arrangement between appellant and M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. there is no provision of service of management, maintenance or repair service, whereas, the activity of appellant is of production of excisable goods - Therefore, demand shall not sustain - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
