News Update

GST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part IV (See 'TOG INSIGHT')Bharat -22 follow -on offer attracts Rs 140 bn24 labs set up for imparting maritime skillIndia aims to open Chabahar Port in Iran by 2019Infra financing - policy makers to hear PM on MondayImport Prohibition - Reference to the Patents Act, 1970 omitted from notification 51/2010-Cus(NT)Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 amendedImport of Milk and Milk Products from China - import prohibition extended till 23.12.2018I-T - Tax deducted at source on income of charitable trust cannot be treated as taxable income: ITATGST - Howrah Commissionerate detects Rs 43 Crore tax evasion through fake invoicesGeM - Transactions worth Rs 8700 Crore done in short time, says PMRanchi NCB seizes 400 kg ganja from truck in Bokaro Steel CityIndia to make Chabahar Port operation by 2019: GadkariST - For any inaction on part of Revenue to submit Final Verification Report, petitioners cannot be made to suffer - matter remanded to Settlement Commission: High CourtGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part III (See 'TOG INSIGHT')I-T - Application of fund for benefit of earthquake victims and its communication to donee before stipulated date, is sufficient for charitable trust to avail benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5C): HCPanama Papers - Leak-I - Out of 426 only 76 cases found actionable: GovtST - Taxability is not determined by section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 but by coverage in section 65: CESTATCIC decides proceedings not to abate even if complainant diesGovt sets up Panel to update Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental & Economic Responsibilities of Business12 lakh pax electric cars sold in 2017; up by 58% from 2016: UNCommerce Department to get new homeCentre invites views on draft CSR guidelinesCanada passes bill to legalise use of marijuana from Oct 17, 2018Govt appoints Mr M K Sinha as new Joint Secy - TRU-IIDrive Against Shell Companies - A cul-de-sac!Liquor licences: Undoubtedly Taxable before as well as after GST Roll outMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains Bonds
Cus - Bench is not concerned about taxability under GST law since not being an Authority under that law: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 12, 2018 : AGAINST the order passed by the lower appellate authority, the importer is before the CESTAT.

While it is the claim of the appellant that the imported goods were‘old and used reconditioned Brunswick bowling equipment' considered to be ‘equipment' covered by definition of capital goods and there shall not be levy of duty even though that is second hand in terms of para 2.17 read with para 9.12 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, Revenue denies the same saying that the goods in question not being “equipment” shall not fall in the category of capital goods and, therefore, an import licence is required.

The appellant further submitted that the equipment imported as above was installed in a mall to render service and such services are recognised by the GST law for taxability .

To this submission, the Bench retorted - “We are not concerned about the taxability under GST law not being an Authority under that law.”

As for the matter involved, the CESTAT observed -

“2. The definition of capital goods given by para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, throws light that “equipment” itself is an independent goods and characterised to be capital goods. Therefore, an equipment does not go out of the fold of definition of capital goods. The second hand capital goods in question is also permitted to be imported. The imported goods is an equipment for the reason that it is a system itself and independent by its character and nature having its independent existence to serve its purpose. Therefore such inbuilt character recognises the goods as equipment which cannot be ruled out. That falls in the fold of capital goods as envisaged by the Policy and import thereof does not call for licence.”

The plea made by the Revenue that the equipment was not installed for rendering service was dismissed as being without any evidence.

In fine, the appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-179-CESTAT-MUM)