This half-yearly round-up analytically summarizes the key Indirect Tax-Customs, Excise and Service Tax rulings of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reported at Taxscan.in during the first half of 2024.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that ‘Huy glass 1105 M-Membrane Bags’ Filter Bags made of Fibre Glass are Classifiable under Filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids.
A two-member bench of Mr P A Augustian, Member (Judicial) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member (Technical) observed that articles of glass fibres are excluded from Chapters 59 and 8421 specifically include air purifiers and therefore, the goods admittedly which are made of 100% glass fibres and which is meant for filtering the gaseous items are rightly classifiable under CTH 8421.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the Penalty imposed under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence. It was viewed that there is no evidence adduced by the investigating agency to allege that the Appellant knew of the presence of Muriate of Potash in the above containers at the time of arranging transport.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) viewed that in the absence of any admissible evidence, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no service tax for the construction of slaughterhouses for the municipal corporations. The CESTAT observed that there are no records to show that the said slaughterhouse was for commerce and industry.
A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) observed that the slaughterhouse was established for Kolkata Municipal Corporation in terms of Article 243W read with Schedule 12th of the Constitution of India. The CESTAT observed that there are no records to show that the said slaughterhouse was for commerce and industry. On the contrary in terms of Article 243W, this was the responsibility of the municipal corporation. That being so, the Appellant is entitled to benefit of Sr. No.12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the demand for Undervaluation of goods merely of higher discount given on import is invalid and set aside the differential duty demand.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that it is not unusual for a foreign supplier to give a higher discount to an importer who is importing a much larger quantity and merely because the supplier has given such a discount it cannot be said that there has been any undervaluation in the invoice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the demand for service tax along with interest on ‘Consulting Engineer Service’ due to failure in payment of tax.
A two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member ( Technical ) upheld the impugned order to the extent of confirmation of demand of Rs.1,15,651/- with interest under ‘Consulting Engineer Service’ and modified by setting aside the demand of Rs.15,00,040/- confirmed against ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that Reimbursable expenses cannot be included in the taxable value. The two members held that confirmation of demand of service tax Rs.5,78,742/- on reimbursement of the cost of defective parts replaced during the warranty period cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal in the case of TAFE Access Limited Vs. CGST&CE held that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in the taxable value. Following the said judgment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Dr D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) held that confirmation of demand of service tax Rs.5,78,742/- on reimbursement of the cost of defective parts replaced during the warranty period cannot be sustained.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside Service Tax Demand on Work Contract Service for the period before 1.06.2007.
A two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) observed that Works Contract Service became taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 as held in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and the said case, it has been held that before 01.06.2007, works contract service cannot be subjected to service tax levy by vivisecting the composite service contract, which includes both goods and service. The CESTAT set aside the demand of Rs.15,00,040/- confirmed against ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ which is ‘Works Contract Service’
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no service tax is leviable under management, maintenance or repair in the absence of receipt of consideration during the warranty period.
Dr D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member ( Technical ) held that “It is an incorrect approach of the adjudicating authority that the consideration be determined by resorting to valuation when no such consideration is received from the customers for providing services during the warranty period. It is not the case of the department that the Appellant though received the value of the services but the same could not be quantified or ascertained, hence resort to the method of valuation becomes necessary. It is a case of non- receipt of any consideration for the service rendered.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that cenvat credit cannot be denied stating service availed was beyond the place of removal. It was observed that the services related to effluent treatment are admissible input service and credit is admissible.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the revenue’s claim that since the service was availed beyond the place of removal, credit is not admissible completely fails and, on that ground, credit cannot be denied.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the Licensee of a duty-free shop is liable to pay customs duty when it violates a provision of the Customs Act, 1962.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) held that the licensee of the Duty-Free Shop is liable to pay duty if the provisions of Sections and the Procedures laid down therein are violated and therefore, the question of passengers paying duty does not arise. The Tribunal upheld the duty along with interest.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that software licence and software are distinct things and benefit of Nill Customs Duty rate allowable.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that documents such as manuals which are meant to be the instructions to activate the software are to be classified under Chapter 49. Therefore, the Commissioner was right in disregarding the fact that only because the value is high cannot be the criteria for classification of the product as software.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that appropriation of a refund claim against a disputed pending excise appeal is not valid without the final order.
A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that appropriation of refund claims against disputed pending customs appeals is not sustainable in law as the demands in those cases have not reached finality. Therefore, the bench set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any.”
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the licensee of a duty-free shop in the absence of suppression of fact to evade tax.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that since there is no intention to evade payment of duty and the fact that the officers are also to verify the vouchers and countersign the sale vouchers, the fact of awareness by the officers cannot be ignored. The CESTAT set aside the penalty.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed the release of the Confiscated Goods Which were cleared as HMS Scrap without Proper Mutilation. The CESTAT directed the effective mutilation under the supervision of the Customs Authority.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P.A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that the goods may be released to the appellants after effective mutilation under the Customs supervision ( as per the request of the appellant ), thereby rendering them as scrap. Scraps generated after mutilation will be cleared on payment of appropriate Customs duty as per the values declared by the appellant in the documents presented before the authorities.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that an extended period of limitation was not invokable in the absence of malafide intention to evade duty under the Excise Act, 1944.
It was found that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that its activity was not liable to service tax further, the Appellant has maintained proper records of its activity and has compliances with various laws including the Income Tax Act, Companies Act, and had been filing ST-3 returns under service tax, filing refund claims on quarterly basis in respect of service tax paid on input services used in the services exported out of India. In the absence of mala fide intention, the two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that an extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and set aside the impugned order.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that service tax is not leviable on the services under the category of Online Database Access and Retrievable ( OIDAR ) services two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) found that the Appellant has not maintained any website or electronic network to provide services that are essentially automated or involving minimal human intervention for the public in exchange for any consideration. The Appellant is providing digitized, abstracted and indexed data out of raw data received from third parties using the internet or electronic means of communication just to communicate resultant digitized or converted data, which are input services for their customers who may utilize the data for providing services under the category of OIDAR service ( main service ) by putting them on the internet for public/clients or their personal use.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed the refund of Cenvat Credit to Samsung India Ltd. The appellants contested that in terms of Rule 4(7) of the Rules ( CCR 2004 ), a manufacturer or a service provider can avail the credit of input services after payment of the value of taxable service along with the service tax.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that the entire amount that was debited by the appellant at the time of filing this refund claim should be allowed as cash refund to the appellant in terms of the above provisions of CGST Act, 2017.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT )rejected the question on the validity of notice issued under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Kerala Minerals & Metals is a Registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956.
The two-member bench of Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) rejected the question of considering as Government undertaking for issuance of notice. The appeal on the ground of limitation was rejected.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) directed the revenue department to release seized imported garlic on furnishing bond and bank guarantee covering demand of differential duty.
A two-member bench comprising Mr S S Garg, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member ( Technical ) observed that the goods were perishable and it would not be anybody’s gain to keep the goods rotting under seizure. that prima facie, the evidence available to the Department is in the form of transcripts of messages the investigation is in progress and the Department is yet to negate the certificate issued by the authorities in Afghanistan. Understandably, the enquiry as per the procedure laid down under the Notification regarding the rules of origin is likely to take some time. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in releasing the goods provisionally as has been ordered by the competent authority. However, the only difference of opinion lies in the quantum of Bond and Bank Guarantee to be furnished for such release.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in a ruling in favour of Samsung India, has held that Cenvat Credit Cannot be denied during refund proceedings under rule 5 without initiating proceedings under rule 14 Cenvat Credit Rules ( CCR ), 2004 A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that any amount which is not allowed as a refund under Rule 5, is to be credited back to the CENVAT account of the appellant.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Non has held that non-furnishing of bond as per amendment of customs notification does not amount to misdeclaration and set aside the demand of interest and penalties.
A two-member Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed that there are no grounds of fraud, misdeclaration or suppression of facts established against the appellant. The only allegation is that the appellant did not fulfil the condition as introduced in the amended notification and that this amounts to misdeclaration. Except that the bond was not furnished as per amendment notification 17/2009 there is no allegation indicating misdeclaration.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that duty exemption is allowable on concrete mix used for on-site construction. The Excise Circular of 23.05.1997 also clarified so and extended the benefit of exemption to the concrete mix, produced at the site of construction.
A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) observed that the dispute is with regards to the determination of the nature of the goods manufactured at the site of construction, “whether they are concrete mix or ready- made concrete mix” this purely a question of fact. The Circular of 23.05.1997 also clarified so, and extended the benefit of exemption to the concrete mix, produced at the site of construction.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that scrips utilised for debiting duty in availing exemption notification cannot be considered as exempted goods.
A two-member bench comprising Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) held that “in the clearance of 131 Nos. of tipper trucks, the scrips utilised for debiting the duty in availing exemption Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 as amended vide Notification No.15/2013-CE dated 18.04.2013, would not be considered as exempted goods; hence, Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be attracted.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that a contract for doing a particular job will not fall under manpower recruitment or supply agency service.
two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) found that there is no dispute that there is no contract between the appellant and the recipient of service for the supply of several manpower and the charges are not based on wages of their manpower deputed.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that no penalty is imposable on the assessee without corroborative evidence proving involvement in the invalid importation of the BMW M5 Car.
A single member bench of Shri K Anpazhakan, Member( Technical ) observed that the BMW M5 car was imported in the name of Mrs Sadhana Aggarwal. She has already filed an application before the Settlement Commission regarding the duty involved and settled the issue wherein she has been imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- by the Settlement Commission for the commission of the offence.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that a composite contract of mining service cannot be vivised to demand service tax and sets aside Service Tax Demand
A two-member bench comprising Shri R Muralidhar, Member( Judicial ) and Shri Rajeev Tandon, Member( Technical ) held that the Department’s case of breaking of Mining Service into several services is not legal, still, he has gone ahead and held that they are liable to pay Service Tax before 06.06.2007 under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Services’.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker licence for more than 4 years due to facilitating fraudulent import and export. The Tribunal viewed that the revocation of the Customs Brokers License is too harsh a punishment which is bound to affect the livelihood of the Customs Broker and his employees.
A two-member bench of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) viewed that “revocation of Customs Brokers License is too harsh a punishment which is bound to affect the livelihood of the Customs Broker and his employees and by taking into consideration that the Customs Broker License was suspended on 15.07.2019 and thus more than four years elapsed since, thus, the revocation is set aside.”
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that fingerprint readers having individual functions cannot fall under Customs Tariff Heading ( CTH ) of computer accessories.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) held that “the product in question merits classification under CTH 8543 instead of CTH 8471 as claimed by the respondent.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed to pay interest @ 12 % on the delayed refund of Service Tax. The Tribunal observed that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the amount of refund sanctioned at the rate of 12% to be calculated from the date of payment till the date of disbursement.
A two-member bench comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Member( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member( Technical ) held that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the amount of refund sanctioned at the rate of 12% to be calculated from the date of payment till the date of disbursement.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) has viewed that Web Cameras are not Digital Cameras and set aside the demand against Xiaomi Technology India Ltd.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) And Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that as per Chapter Note 5(C) and 5(D), the items are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8471 as long as they satisfy the conditions laid therein and there is no dispute that these conditions have not been satisfied, the item has been excluded from Chapter 8471 only on the ground that Chapter Note 5(D) excludes television camera, digital cameras and video camera recorders.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that charges paid for service rendered by FTOs cannot be taxed under head business auxiliary service and set aside the demand of service tax. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant made the payment of roaming charges to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad and the service is rightly classifiable under ‘Telecommunication Service’.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr R Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) and Mr K Anpazhakan Member (Technical) observed that the payment of roaming charges was made by the Appellant to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad. It was viewed that the services are appropriately classifiable as ‘Telecommunication Service’. During the relevant period, only telecommunication services provided by a ‘Telegraph Authority’ to a person were taxable
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the refund claim of import duties under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 thereby granting relief to M/s. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.
A Two-Judge Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “On perusal of records and also considering the submissions made by both sides, we note that the main grievance put forward in the grounds of appeal filed by the department is that the respondent is not eligible for refund filed under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is to be noted that the department does not deny the claim of the respondent for eligibility of drawback.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and noted that the Race Promotion Contract between Formula One World Championship and Jaypee Sports is not a franchise agreement.
A Two-Member Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “franchise means an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is involved. The sine-qua-non for Franchise Service is therefore grant of representational right to sell or manufacture goods, or to provide service or to undertake any process identified with the franchisor.”
A two member bench of Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has held that the allegation of bogus quantity against assessee is factually wrong. The bench held that the allegation that assessee has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 of Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash was factually wrong. The bench dismissed the impugned order initiated against the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Rudra Beewi C.S ( Member, Judicial ) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao ( Member, Technical ) held that “the appellant has been able to successfully establish that the alleged bogus quantity of fly ash was actually received in their factory and used in the manufacture of final product. In such circumstances, the allegation that appellant has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 dt. 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash is without any factual basis. The impugned order was set aside.
A two member bench of CESTAT Ahmedabad ( Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ) has held that non-inclusion of costs of transportation in assessable value is no ground to deny CENVAT credit
The bench comprising Ramesh Nair ( Member, Judicial ) and Raju ( Member, Technical ) held that it cannot be said that the assessee had a mala fide intention to evade the excise duty by taking the wrong credit. The bench observed that there was no suppression of fact or misstatement on the part of the assessee and further held that non-inclusion of costs of transportation in assessable value is no ground to deny CENVAT credit.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has allowed the exemption of service tax for manpower supply to hospitals, emphasizing the importance of not suppressing facts to evade tax payments.
The coram of Ramesh Nair ( Judicial member ) and Raju ( Technical member ) observed that whether the respondent was entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification or not depends on the interpretation of the exemption notification and on the contrary, to a very large extent, their interpretation is found correct. Thus, it is evident that there was not even an iota of evidence to even suggest that there was any willful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the Respondent. Consequently, extended period was not invokable in this case.
A two member bench of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. The bench observed that royalty is payable only for use of technology to produce the products in India. The tribunal observed that royalty cannot be added to the finished goods imported by the appellant for trading purposes.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the calculation of assessable value as the calculation of Basic Customs Duty on MRP of the goods was contrary to Proviso of Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ( CETA ).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “It would be evident from the calculation appearing on the Appeal that the Principal Commissioner has wrongly calculated the Basic customs duty on the MRP of the goods, which is contrary to the provisions of Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act. As per Proviso to said Section 3 (1), Excise duty on goods manufactured by a 100% EOU and brought to any place in India shall be an amount equal to aggregate of customs duties leviable on like goods when imported into India and the value of such goods shall be as per the Customs Act 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act 1975.”
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that sufficient compliance of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ( CCR ) is complete on reversal of cenvat credit on common input services.
A Two-Member Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty, Member ( Judicial ) and M.M. Parthiban, Member ( Technical ) observed that “In view of the above facts of the case and the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the appellants had incorrectly availed and utilised CENVAT credit, inasmuch as the appellants had not taken Cenvat credit in respect of exempt projects/services and had also reversed the Cenvat credit in respect of common input services, duly informing the department with complete details. Further, in view of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it could be concluded that the reversal of Cenvat credit in respect of common input services by the appellants is sufficient for compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.”
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit allowable service tax for financial services provided by the bank.
A division bench comprising Mrs Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) found that the disallowance of credit is without any basis. While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that the responsibility cast on customs broker ( CB ) under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 ( CBLR ) stands fulfilled when verification of address is complete.
A Two-Member Bench of Binu Tamta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that “We find that both the GSTIN as well as the IEC indicates the address of the client. This in itself is independent data to verify the correctness of the identity/address of the client. We also note that there is nothing on record to show that either of these documents were fake or forged. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed above, the responsibility cast on the appellant under Regulation 10(n) stands fulfilled.”
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the excise duty demand against Pepsico on scrap-veg-refuse from manufacture of exempted goods.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The Appellant No.1 effectively does not take any process to extract the potato starch from the potatoes except for extraction of water for reuse. The Appellant No.1 has also placed the literature explaining the process of potato starch extraction explained by the International Institute of Starch, Denmark and also filed an affidavit of their Associate Director of Research & Development Division clarifying the difference between ‘potato starch’ and ‘scrap- veg-refuse’.”
The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the order of revoking the customs broker license against the allegation of fraudulent Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) Refund. It was observed that the responsibility of the customs broker was fulfilled once the verification of the address was done.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member(Technical) observed that under Regulation 10(n) the Customs Broker is required to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents data or information so long as they are reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises.
The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that mere non-traceability of an exporter by itself does not amount to a violation of regulation 10 (n) of Custom Brokers under Regulation ( CBLR ), 2018.
A division bench comprising of Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member ( Technical ) viewed that Regulation 10(n) of CBLR cannot be read to mean the latter as it would imply treating the Customs Broker as one who is competent and responsible to oversee and ensure the correctness of the actions by the Government officers. It would also mean that actions by the Customs Broker under the CBLR prevail over the actions by officers under the Foreign Trade ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1992 ( under which the IEC is issued by DGFT ) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ( or state GST Act ) ( under which the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers ).
In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the redemption fine imposed on jute bags. Further, observed that the redemption fine imposed cannot exceed the market value of the product.
The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Insofar as penalty is concerned, the action of the appellant in shooting the letter dated 26.02.2014 before the adjudicating authority itself is an indication, which prompted the adjudicating authority to pass the Order-in-Original assuming that the import, primarily, was improper. Since the Revenue has accepted the reduced penalty amount by the first appellate authority’s order, the same is sustained.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT
) has ruled that no service tax can be imposed on “incentives”.
The tribunal bench of Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and P.V. Subba Rao ( Technical Member ) explained that “commission” directly correlates with the service provided by the appellant, specifically the booking of airline space. On the other hand, “incentive” represents the profit earned from charging clients more than the negotiated price with airlines, indicating a trading activity rather than a service.
In a ruling in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Levy under the Finance Act will apply to goods manufactured or produced in India other than goods produced in Special Economic Zone ( SEZ ).
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju Member ( Technical ) viewed that the appellant was completely justified in contending that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 about levy and collection of Central Excise duty, to the extent they are not inconsistent, apply equally to the provisions of the Finance Act and accordingly the levy under the Finance Act will apply to goods manufactured or produced in India, other than the goods produced or manufactured in SEZ.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that goods kept in a factory are not liable for confiscation in the absence of evidence to show an attempt to remove clandestinely without payment.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju Member (Technical) observed that the goods were lying within the appellant’s factory. There was no evidence on record to show that there was any attempt to remove those goods clandestinely without payment of duty.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
