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 Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the Customs House Agent ( CHA ) is not required to advise on assessment aspect to clients unless solicited and set aside Penalty under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. There is nothing on record to show that he has been subjected to action under Customs Broker License Rules, ( CBLR ) 2018.
The two-member bench comprising Mr Raju, Member (Technical) and Mr Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial) observed that CHA is not required to advise on assessment aspects to its clients unless solicited. Again there is nothing on record to show that he has been subjected to action under C.B.L.R, 2018.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed the re-adjudication on Service Tax leviability of work undertaken for BECL under Construction of Complex Service. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the facts/ terms of the contract.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the levy of service tax under the construction must be based on the terms of the contract. However, the adjudicating authority has not properly examined the facts/ terms of the Contract and he has not seen the light of the judgements given subsequently on the identical issue.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT )has held that Maximum Retail Price ( MRP ) based assessment is not applicable to Packaged Drinking Water. The MRP-based assessment as per the above notifications applies only to mineral water and aerated water falling under Tariff Heading 22011010 or 22011020. The appellant does not manufacture mineral water.
The two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) and Sulekha Beevi Cs, Member ( Judicial ) held that the invocation of the extended period cannot be sustained. The CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed on the Executive Director of the appellant company is not warranted.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that abatement of 60% of assessable value is allowable as per Exemption Notification. The Tribunal held that there is no need to pay Service Tax for renting vehicles to Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( UPSRTC ).
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that āthe impugned order to the extent of confirmation of the demand and imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Act of Rs.200 for every day during which the party continued to fail to get itself registered under Section 69 of the Act read with provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules ibid, starting with the first day of such failure after the due date, till the date of actual compliance and penalty of Rs.1,40,911/- under Section 78 of the Act are set aside. ā
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Regional Bench in Allahabad, has held that insurance charges collected by a manufacturer are to be excluded from the assessable value and are therefore exempt from excise duty.
the two-member bench comprising Mr. P.K. Choudhary ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava ( Technical Member ) set aside the Order-In-Appeal and reinstated the Order-In-Original upholding the principle that excise duty does not extend to profit elements. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that refund of Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) cannot be denied stating invalidity of certificate even after issuance of correlation certificate. The tribunal viewed that when the chartered accountant has examined the documents relating to the import as well as the sales as accounted by the appellant and issued a correlation certificate, the refund cannot be denied.
A two-member bench comprising Mrs Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed that when the Chartered Accountant has examined the documents relating to the import as well as the sales as accounted by the appellant and issued a correlation certificate, the department cannot deny the refund stating that the said certificate is not valid. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant is eligible for a refund.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Ahmedabad has made a significant ruling clarifying that the limitation period to file an appeal begins from the date of acknowledgment of the order, not from the date of dispatch.
The bench, comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), noted that while there was evidence of the department dispatching the order to the appellant, there was no proof of acknowledgment. In accordance with appeal provisions, the time limit commences from the communication of the order, not its dispatch. Since there was no evidence of the order being communicated, the date on which the department provided the copy of the orders-in-original to the appellant was considered the date of communication. Consequently, the appeals before the Commissioner ( Appeal ) were deemed not time-barred.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the transaction between licensee and licensor does not fall under renting of immovable property and sets aside the Demand of Service Tax. The said transaction was a business transaction between the two since the consideration was not like regular rent but depended on the annual performance and the profits generated.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr K Anpazhakan, Member ( Technical ) observed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the one decided by the co- ordinate Bench for earlier periods ( supra ) and hence, the decision arrived at in the earlier order squarely covers the issue in the case on hand as well.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the beneficial notification can be claimed at a later stage also if otherwise the same is eligible at the time of import of goods.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the issue of whether after import, the appellant can claim alternate exemption notification is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Share Medical Care, wherein it was held that the beneficial notification can be claimed at a later stage also if otherwise the same is eligible at the time of import of goods.
In the recent case, the Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Explanation 3(a) to Sec.65(44)of the Finance Act does not apply to members of clubs/associations that are incorporated.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr A K Jyotishi, Member ( Technical ) observed that the Appellant is a body registered or incorporated under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Further explanation 3(a) to Sec 65(44) does not apply to membersā clubs/associations, which are incorporated.
The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate (CESTAT) of the Chennai bench while setting aside the Confiscation of Goods ruled that any goods which fall under the category of equipment apparatus are freely importable as per Foreign Trade Policy (FTP)
A two-member bench comprising of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) relying on the decision viewed that FTP, any goods which fall under the category of pieces of equipment, apparatus etc. are freely importable irrespective of their size and nature.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the demand recovery of 5 years in the matter regarding interest on wrongly taken cenvat credit.
A Two-Member Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that āIt was for the appellant to have paid the interest along with the reversal of the excess credit taken. It is also observed that during the period of dispute section 11A did not provided, for recovery of interest and hence was not applicable. The recovery of interest was made in terms of Section 11AB/ 11AA which did not provided for any limitation.ā
The Chennai in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) remanded the matter regarding the allegation on the amount reversed by Lotte India on Processed milk under reversal of proportionate credit to the adjudicating authority.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) viewed that the said issue as to whether the appellant has reversed the correct amount requires verification by the adjudicating authority. The demand raised for paying 5% / 6% of the value of the exempted goods as per Rule 6 (3) (i) cannot be sustained, as the appellant has exercised the option by reversing some amount of credit.
In a recent judgement, the Chennai in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that reverse proportionate credit as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules ( CCR ), 2004 are allowable on manufacturers of processed milk and set aside the demand against the Lotte India Corporation Ltd.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed that the appellant is liable to either reverse the proportionate credit under Rule 6 (3) (ii) or pay an amount equal to 5% / 6% of the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6 (3) (i) of CCR 2004.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that a penalty under the Excise Act is not leviable when duty to proportionate CENVAT credit of exempted goods paid. Further held that since the appellant has paid the amount of 60,15,116/- which is proportionate Cenvat credit attributed to the exempted goods belatedly, they are liable to pay the interest till the date of reversal.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr C L Mahar, Member ( Technical ) that the appellant has a strong prima facie case on time bar, despite that the appellant has paid the proportionate credit of Rs. 60,15,116/- and despite the demand being time bar they are not contesting the payment of Rs. 60,15,116/- but they are only seeking a lenient view as regard imposition of equal penalty.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), South Zonal Bench, Chennai, has held that deodorants are not considered prohibited goods under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The bench dismissed the penalties and fines imposed on the importer highlighting the lack of legal basis in the re- determination of the value based on non-contemporaneous imports.
The two-member bench comprising Mr. S.S. Garg ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. Ajit Kumar ( Technical Member ) set aside the enhancement and dismissed penalties and fines, except for a Rs.1,00,000 penalty under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the violation of port restrictions.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty exemption cannot be denied in the absence of wilful suppression of fact to evade tax. As there is no case of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade and the larger period of limitation is inapplicable in the present case.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that exemption from Excise duty equal to SAD under Notification No.23/2003-CE is not required since the said goods if imported are exempt from SAD and therefore Excise duty equal to SAD payable under the Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, will be NIL.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the confiscation order and noted that balloons used for decorations are not required to satisfy BIS Registration as they are not toys.
A Two-Member Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that āIn the present case, the appellant has consistently from the very beginning contended that they are engaged in the business of decorations using balloons, and the goods ( balloons ) imported were intended to be used only for decoration. The department has not been able to establish otherwise. As per the list of items shown in the IS 9873 ( Part I ): 2012 item at (k) shows that holiday decorations that are primarily intended for ornamental purposes are excluded. Thus goods used for decoration is excluded. The said item at (k) does not make any distinction or differentiation based on the material used in for the balloon. Further, in the present case the appellant offered to test the goods as to the nature of the material used. The department did not conduct any test.ā
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that valid availment of credit after three and half years implies that excise duty refund was sanctioned correctly.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that āWe find that in the present case, it is not the stand of the Department that it has sanctioned/approved, refund of duty which was not paid by the appellant, but this is the case, in which the Department has sanctioned refund equal to the amount which was paid by the appellant in cash or through PLA, therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case of excess availment of refund by not complying with the condition of the said Notification.ā
In the case of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL), the Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cenvat Credit is allowable on Rent a cab services availed in course of business of providing output services. In terms of Rule 2(l)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant providing output service is entitled to take the Cenvat credit on service tax paid by them.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr K Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) observed that the said service has been availed by the appellant in the course of their business of providing output services. Therefore, in terms of Rule 2(l)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant providing output service is entitled to take the Cenvat credit on service tax paid by them.
The Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit is allowable on service tax paid on transportation under the Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ). The Tribunal viewed that when the entire demand is under reverse charge mechanism and if the appellant had paid the service tax under reverse charge mechanism, they would have been entitled to Cenvat credit of the same amounts.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr K Anpazhakan, Member ( Technical ) found that the appellant was required to pay service tax on transportation services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ). If the said charges had been paid by the appellant, the same were entitled to take the credit to the appellant. Therefore, it is a situation of revenue neutrality as the appellant himself has to take the credit for the same.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that service tax is not leviable merely on basis of figures reflected in statutory records.
A Single Member Bench comprising P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that āIt is clear that the cases are made on the basis of third party data i.e., amounts reflected in Income Tax Returns and in Form 26AS. Revenue takes the stand that in the Negative List regime, Department is not obliged to prove the provision of a particular service to demand service tax and further, the Appellants could not explain that the difference satisfactorily. I find that this is not the correct approach; exigibility to service tax depends on the service provider, service rendered, service recipient and the consideration thereof.
The Delhi bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that delayed payment charges ( DPC ) is not a commission/brokerage for sale/purchase of securities and no Service Tax Chargeable.
A two member bench comprising of Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member ( Technical ) observed that there persisted several confusion between the revenue and the appellants in respect to determination of accessible value of taxable service provided by the stock brokers and therefore there was a bona fide belief that there was no levy on receipts other than commission or brokerage received by the stock broker and consequently, no suppression of material facts can be attributed on the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that following rescinded Excise Circular by Commissioner ( Appeals ) is condemnable act of judicial indiscipline.
The Single Bench of Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member observed that āCircular dated 25.04.2016 was held unsustainable in law. Subsequent to the said decision that Department also came up with another Circular No.1084/2005 dated 07.07.2022 rescinding the Circular of 25.04.2016 in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court. Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case is observed to still have followed the said rescinded Circular dated 25.04.2016. The said act of the adjudicating authority not merely amounts to mis-interpretation of the provision, but it amounts to the violation of statutory principles, the circular dated 07.07.2022 being binding upon him. The ignorance of law laid down by the Honāble Supreme Court is a condemnable act of judicial indiscipline.ā
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that minor discrepancies cannot be reason for recovery of customs refund when Chartered Accountant (CA) certify stock report.
A two member bench comprising Mr Raju, Member (Technical) and Mr Somesh Arora (Judicial) held that minor discrepancies cannot be the reason for recovery of refund when the appellant had submitted Chartered Accountant certified stock report. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeals.
The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Applellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that sale of beer which is an alcoholic liquor for human consumption is taxable under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the same and allow the benefit of exemption notification as claimed by the appellants.
A two member bench comprising of Mr Somesh Arora, Member ( Judicial ) And Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member ( Technical ) allowed the affidavit to be taken on record and directed the adjudicating authority to consider the same and allow the benefit of exemption notification as claimed by the appellants. The CESTAT held that the adjudicating authority shall appropriately consider the benefit of the notification to be allowed to the appellant in the light of affidavit having been filed with undertaking of not availing the credit, which has been stated to be not taken till date by the appellant.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that process of making lacquered plastic film not amounts to manufacture and CENVAT credit is admissible if such inputs are cleared on payment of duty.
In various decision, the Supreme Court and High Court has been held that when process undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture, even then the CENVAT credit is admissible if such inputs are cleared on payment of duty which would amount to reversal of credit availed. In view of the ratios of various decisions, the coram comprising Mr S S Garg, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member ( Technical ) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) viewed that the importer cannot be penalized for incorrect mention of country of origin in the bill of entry and set aside the Penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
A two member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju Member ( Technical ) held that for incorrect mention of country of origin, the importer cannot be penalized. Considering overall facts and the fact of incorrect declaration, the bench viewed that if any misdeclaration regarding country of origin in the Country of Origin Certificate, the appellant is not liable for any penalty or fine.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the demand of service tax under āAdvertisement Serviceā is invalid in absence of evidence to show engagement in making or preparing or advising for advertisement.
A two member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that it is evident from the details given in above invoices that the Appellant was not engaged in designing and conceptualising advertisement. So, they were not covered under the taxable services.
In a recent judgement, the Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded matter for re compute service tax payable under Good Transport Agency Service (GTA) Service, as the service undertaken for carriage of food grains and pulses are exempted by notification.
A two member bench of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) directed the Lower Adjudicating Authority to re-compute the tax payable giving the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and exemption benefit under Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. GTA Service undertaken for carriage of food grains and pulses is also exempted from payment of Service Tax w.e.f. 29.02.2010 under Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) of Ahmedabad set aside the order of adjudicating authority demanding extended period as the department failed to establish non utilisation of common input services for trading. It was viewed that the department has failed to establish the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty against the assessee so as to invoke the extended period.
A two member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C S Member ( Judicial ) and Mr C L Mahar Member ( Technical ) observed that the department has failed to establish the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty against the assessee so as to invoke the extended period. The show cause notice issued beyond the normal period cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The issue on limitation is answered in favour of assessee and against the department.
In a major relief to M/s Kuoni Travel India, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that service tax is not leviable without identifying specific service provided and consideration received.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that āWe fail to understand as to how the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that this 10% of the income or advances shown in the books of accounts of the appellants leads to the inevitable conclusion that the amounts were for provision of certain services. We find that no specific service has been identified by the Adjudicating Authority, while accepting in principle that duty evasion cannot be proved with mathematical precision, the same cannot be established by applying a mathematical formula. We find that Courts and Tribunal have been consistently holding that service tax cannot be fastened without identifying the specific service provided and consideration received or to be received for the same.ā
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and held that the services of planning travel itinerary of clients classifiable as air travel agent
A Two-Member Bench comprising Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Hemambika R. Priya, Member ( Technical ) observed that āThe fact that the appellant has been discharging service tax under Rule 6(7) implies that they are acting as āair travel agentsā and hence no further liability arises. There is no doubt that the appellant is engaged in the travel agency business and has been charged service tax under āAir Travel Agentā service as defined in Section 65(4) read with section 65(105)(l).ā
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad has held that the remuneration paid to whole-time directors of a company in the form of a commission based on profit constitutes an employer-employee relationship, thereby exempting it from service tax.
The CESTAT emphasised that whole-time directors hold significant positions under the Companies Act, are considered key managerial personnel, and are held responsible for any defaults or violations. Therefore, their remuneration, including commission on profit, is part of the employer-employee relationship and not subject to service tax, irrespective of the form of remuneration.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the transfer of goods from a 100% Export Oriented Unit ( EOU ) to its own Domestic Tariff Area ( DTA ) unit should be deemed as a stock transfer and not a sale. It was also held that such stock transfers from 100% EOUs to their domestic units are not subject to Special Additional Duty ( SAD )
the two-member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. Raju ( Technical Member ) dismissed the revenueās contention regarding the limitation issue, noting that the appellant had regularly filed returns indicating the nature of their clearances of goods to their sister units and claiming the benefit of SAD exemption. Consequently, the orders demanding SAD were set aside and the appeals were allowed.
In the case of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cenvat Credit is allowable on Rent a cab services availed in course of business of providing output services. In terms of Rule 2(l)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant being providing output service is entitled to take the Cenvat credit on service tax paid by them.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr K Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) observed that the said service has been availed by the appellant in the course of their business of providing output services. Therefore, in terms of Rule 2(l)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant providing output service is entitled to take the Cenvat credit on service tax paid by them.
The Delhi bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that delayed payment charges ( DPC ) is not a commission/brokerage for sale/purchase of securities and no service tax chargeable.
A two member bench comprising of Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member ( Technical ) observed that there persisted several confusion between the revenue and the appellants in respect to determination of accessible value of taxable service provided by the stock brokers and therefore there was a bona fide belief that there was no levy on receipts other than commission or brokerage received by the stock broker and consequently, no suppression of material facts can be attributed on the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. no demand of service tax both can be raised on the appellant on account of transaction charges and delayed payment charges. The impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appeal is, accordingly allowed.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the excise duty not payable on waste and scrap of packing material of inputs when demand travelled beyond show cause notice ( SCN ).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member ( Judicial ) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) observed that āWe are of the view that no demand is raised on the Appellant in the Show-cause notices on the ground that it was engaged in trading which was treated as an exempted service against which it cannot avail credits on inputs but the demand was solely based on the ground that out of two varieties of manufacturing waste, one is exempted from payment of Excise Duty for which demand is raised against non-reversal of the allegedly inadmissible credit availed on those exempted products and it is a settled principle of Law.ā
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed service tax demand and ruled that the burden is cast upon the Department to show that assessee recovered cost of service rendered.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member relied on the judgment in Indian Oil Sky Tanking Ltd. vs CST, Bangalore, wherein it was held that āBurden cast upon the department to show that the assessee has recovered the cost of service rendered. In the absence of such recovery, the question of levy of service tax does not at all arise. The book adjustment cannot be the ground to fix the liability.ā
In the present case, we observe that the Show Cause Notice as well as orders of the adjudicating authority have just appreciated the difference noticed between the amount mentioned in the profit and loss account and are mentioned in ST 3 returns of the appellant. Without appreciating the amount out of the impugned invoices to have been actually received by the appellant and without verifying as to whether the requisite services were finally being provided. Resultantly, we hold that order confirming such a demand is not sustainableā the Bench noted.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no Service tax is demandable on Works Contract Service. It was viewed that the activity of āproviding and placing hard stone boulders on the slope of the embankment of PST of required thickness, including all cost of materials, labour, T&P, royalty taxes, etc.ā as directed by the service recipient. As no demand has been raised under the category of āworks contract serviceā, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant.
A two member bench comprising Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri K Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) held that the merit classification of the services rendered by the appellant is under works contract service. As no demand has been raised under the category of āworks contract serviceā, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.
The Allahabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no excise duty is demandable in the absence of evidence to establish the use of the machine for packing gutkha. The CESTAT viewed that the demand of duty was contrary to the declaration filed along with the ground plan, which is required in terms of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008
A two member bench comprising of Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that all the evidences produced in form of declaration, ground plan and correspondences show that the machine was installed in the separate room and was used only to pack sweet supari. The CESTAT viewed that the demand of duty was contrary to the declaration filed along with the ground plan, which is required in terms of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and set aside the same while allowing the appeal.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in a ruling in the case of Yamaha Motor Solutions India Pvt. Ltd has held that Service Tax is not payable under Consulting Engineerās Service for Advisory Support Service. The CESTAT viewed that during the period in dispute, the activities of the appellant were exempted by Notification No. 04/1999 dated 28.02.1999 and Circular No. 70/19/2003-ST dated 17.12.2003.
The CESTAT viewed that during the period in dispute, the activities of the appellant were exempted by Notification No. 04/1999 dated 28.02.1999 and the Circular No. 70/19/2003-ST dated 17.12.2003. When the appellant is not liable to pay service tax, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise. The Tribunal set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Shri Tanuj Hazari appeared for the appellant and Shri Raman Mittal, Authorised Representative appeared for the Respondent.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed penalty and noted that the misdeclaration of country of origin in bills of entry is immaterial towards valuation.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that āAs regard the issue of misdeclaration of Country of Origin in the bills of entry filed by the appellant, the material information declared in the bill of entry mainly corresponds to the goods that are under import and mis declaration of country of origin is immaterial towards the valuation, description and other such particulars concerning the goods, and the appellant would have gained nothing as no preferential rate of duty was claimed by the appellant.ā
Hindalco Industries Limited, one of Indiaās leading producers of aluminium and copper, has been deemed eligible for Cenvat credit on inputs used in fabricating capital goods.
In result, the two-member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. Raju ( Technical Member ) concluded that Hindalco Industries Limited is eligible for Cenvat credit on inputs used in fabricating capital goods. The denial based on immovability and timing was rejected and the appeal was allowed.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that issuing a consolidated hearing notice with multiple hearing dates constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
In result, the single bench of Mr. S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with clear instructions. The CESTAT directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the case on its merits, ensuring that the appellant is afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to render a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe to expedite the resolution of the appeals.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
