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.
In a recent case, the Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed the claim of self-credit refund on M. S. Ingots as the manufacturing of the same is exempted under excise notification. The Bench viewed that the refund of excise duty claimed by an assessee and sanctioned by the competent Authority under Notification No. 56 of 2002-CE which has attained finality as not having been challenged before any appellate or revisional authority under the Excise Act cannot be termed as âerroneous refundâ and recovered by resort to section 11A of the Act.
A two-member bench Sh. S S Garg, Member (Judicial) and Sh. P Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) viewed that in the case of M/s Alu Bond Enterprises vs. CCE & ST, J&K, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has held that â5. I heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the impugned order considers the self-credit taken by the appellants as âerroneousâ credit and confirms the demand of the same in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC ibid. We find that the Honâble High Court Jammu & Kashmir vide their order in CEA 06/2018 held that: The refund of excise duty claimed by an assessee and sanctioned by the competent Authority vide its order under Notification No. 56 of 2002-CE which order has attained finality as not having been challenged before any appellate or revisional authority under the Excise Act cannot be termed as âerroneous refundâ and recovered by resort to section 11A of the Act.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of returns is not sufficient to extend the period of limitation. The Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that a mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of Returns would not be a sufficient reason to extend the period of limitation.
A single member bench of Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member ( Technical ) found that except for stating that the show-cause notice has been issued only after the conduct of the audit and that the appellants have suppressed the material facts, no evidence has been put forth in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order to show that there has been a positive act of suppression on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the demand of service tax under financial leasing without considering the nature of the transaction is invalid.
A two-member bench comprising Mr S S Garg, Member (Judicial) and Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) held that for facility management, demanding service tax under financial leasing during the relevant period is not sustainable. It was found that an amount of Rs. 9,37,76,673/- has been received by the appellant for providing financial leasing service without taking into consideration the actual nature of the transaction. Hence, the demand is liable to be set aside and we accordingly do so.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed the Proper Officer to pass speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was mismatch in the reassessed value and self-assessment by the importer.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that âThe value was enhanced without any speaking order as the proposed enhancement was fully accepted by the importer vide his consent given in writing to the proper officer. Due to this, speaking order was not required as per sub-clause 5 of Section 17 of the Act, as quoted above. In such situation, Commissioner (Appeals) had to refer the matter back to the proper officer/adjudicating authority for fresh decision/order, in terms of above quoted sub-clause (ii) of Section 128A (3) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.â
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that no jurisdiction is vested for Adjudicating authority to decide whether availed cenvat credit issued by the Input Service Distributors ( ISD ) is incorrect.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member and K Anpazhakan, Technical Member observed that âAs the Head Office of the appellant is registered as ISD and distributed the cenvat credit in proportionate to the appellant i.e. 54.51% is valid documents to avail the cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. If the Revenue wants to deny the availment of cenvat credit i.e to be only to the Head Office, who is registered as ISD. As no investigation has done at the end of the ISD for distributing ineligible cenvat credit to the appellant, the cenvat credit cannot be recovered from the appellants.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed service tax demand and ruled that handling of the container not covered under the taxable activity of cargo handling.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that âThe activity of handling of container cannot to be covered under the taxable activity of cargo handling as cargo handling service also. This activity is essentially a service in relation to merchandise. As per the dictionary also cargo means goods carried on a ship, aircraft or motor vehicle. The empty containers are not the merchandise. The Circular No. B11/1/2002-TRU has explained that empty containers cannot be treated as cargo. In light of these observations, the activity in question cannot even be called as the taxable activity of Cargo Handling Service.â
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that reviewing the earlier order of the commissioner of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) is Impermissible by law.
A two-member bench of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) observed that the adjudicating authority has proceeded to finalize the provisional assessments without putting the appellant on notice and hence, the Orders-in Original have been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Customs Excise & Service Tax Applellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the Confiscation and Penalties Imposed Under Customs Act, 1962 as the imported fabrics under advance authorisation were diverted for sale in open market.
A two-member bench of Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member( Technical ) viewed that the benefit of Notification 99/2009-Cus dt 11.09.2009 cannot be extended to the appellant because of the overwhelming evidence of the diversion of imported raw material to the open market.
The Allahabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that clearance of plastic in both units owned by members of the same family cannot be clubbed in the absence of mutuality of interest.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) reduced the penalty on appellant-II to Rs.50,000/- only and on appellant-III to Rs.75,000/-. With the above modification, the CESTAT upheld the impugned order. The Appeal of appellant-I is dismissed and the appeals by appellant-II and appellant-III are partly allowed to the extent of reducing penalties.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that penalty under section 114 AA of Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable unless mens rea is established beyond doubt. The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 114 AA of Customs Act is not imposable as the department failed to either prove that goods had originated in Iran or prove role of the Appellant or its Directors in the alleged Mis-declaration.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) that viewed that in relation to Section 112 (a) of the Act it has been held in various ruling that mens rea is not a requirement for imposition of penalty, however the same cannot be a standard principle in all matters. In cases where there is absolutely no involvement of assessee and where there is no evidence produced to show their role in the alleged fraud/misdeclaration, then imposition of penalty in our view will amount to injustice as far as the assessee is concerned.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that extended period limitation is not applicable when the assessee paid service tax along with interest.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that once the demand of Rs.20,36,32,619/- is not found sustainable on merits, the question of imposition of penalty under Section 78 does not arise. The penalty of Rs.1,12,23,633/- is also not sustainable in view of Explanation 2 to Section 73(3), which provides that no penalty is to be imposed when short-paid service tax is deposited along with interest before the issuance of show cause notice. The demand is not sustainable on merits, the imposition of penalty under Section 77 and demand of interest is also not sustainable.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the benefits of exemption notification cannot be denied when documents show the import of coffee beans. Since the Tribunal has already remanded the matter for further examination and verification with regard to the procurement certificate, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals by way of remand.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr P A. Augustian, Member (Judicial) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member (Technical) observed that there is no doubt that the Bill of Entry describes the goods as âIndonesia robusta coffee beansâ and the Indonesian Agricultural Quarantine Agency also declared the goods as Robusta coffee beans, however, on examination it was found that the goods contained 71% coffee husk and the remaining rejected defective beans, thus described as coffee husk/bits as certified by the Bangalore Coffee Board Laboratory.
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no penalty is imposable in the absence of intent to evade tax. The Tribunal held that violation of non-filing of the returns under the existing law has not been saved under the present regime of GST.
A single bench comprising Sh S S Garg, Member (Judicial) held that violation of non-filing of the returns under the existing law has not been saved under the present regime of GST. Nothing emerges from the impugned order that the appellant has not filed the requisite returns with intent to evade the payment of tax. The CESTAT held that the imposition of penalties amounting to Rs.96,000/- is not sustainable and set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the classification of old and used lead acid batteries based on their technical nature cannot be challenged without any evidence. In the absence of any investigation, the technical nature of the product poses a challenge for classification.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the lower authorities had not appreciated the nature and characteristics of the batteries in question before classification. As regards the submissions made by the Appellant the batteries that have been sold are an outcome of ship breaking and not that of manufacturing therefore it has not been sufficiently established that the said goods be classified as scrap altogether.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that corrugated boxes for packaging glassware which are non-cenvatable are not liable to Excise Duty.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the demand was raised on all the scrap sold by the appellant value of which is reflected in the balance sheet. The appellant while giving the information, as asked by the department vide their letter dated 06.03.2013, in their letter dated 11.03.2013 categorically stated that they have paid the excise duty on manufacturing scrap nor cenvatable scrap, they also stated that on the general scrap which is neither manufacturing scrap nor cenvatable scrap, they have not paid the duty.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that no service tax leviable on installations on CNG Kits in absence of separate invoices.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that âWe find that separate invoices were not found as regards the Assessee having carried out installations on CNG kits that despite the assessee having carried out such installations and paid VAT thereon, it cannot be ipso facto concluded that they have not rendered any taxable service and are not liable to service tax. Therefore we find that in the interest of justice the said issues need to be examined in depth. The issue needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the value for demand taking to consideration the dispute raised in the show cause notice and submissions made by both the sides.â
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed customs duty demand and held that Emotionally Intelligent Companion Device is human-like companion for children and the same is classifiable as automatic data processing ( ADP ).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member and CJ Mathew, Technical Member
observed that âThe facts, indelibly clear, does not controvert conformity with the essential requirements set out in note 5(A) in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 There is no finding that
the impugned goods, by incorporating or working in conjunction with âautomatic data processing ( ADP ) machinesâ, performs the function of âtoysâ which should be the consummation of resort to note 5(E) in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and such finding is well nigh impossible in the absence of any authoritative guidance on âtoysâ and its intended functions.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Income received by Smaaash from bowling covered under Section 66D(j) of the Finance Act, 1994, and thereby holding that service tax is not leviable.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and PV Subba Rao, Technical Member observed that âIt has to be held that the income received by the appellant from bowling alley would be covered under section 66D(j) of the Finance Act and, therefore, would not be leviable to service tax.â
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that excise duty is not leviable on printing Activity as it does not amount to âmanufactureâ.
A Two-Member Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that âWe are of the view that the activity of printing done by the appellant does not amount to âmanufactureâ. The demand of Excise duty, interest and the penalties imposed cannot sustain. The demand, interest and penalties are set aside. The impugned order is set aside.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that pump for lotion dispenser not scent spray or toilet spray and hence basic customs duty ( BCD ) is leviable at rate of 7.5%.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that âWe hold that the product in question is a pump for displacing and dispersing the lotion/cream. Hence, it is definitely not a scent spray or toilet a spray ( CTH 9616 ). It is a pump but not the one under 8413 where the pumps meant only for displacement of liquids are covered. The goods in question is held to be covered under CTH 84248990 being the pumps meant not only for
displacing the liquid/lotion but for simultaneously dispersing the same.â
The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd has held that the construction service in connection with immovable property is not to be denied as credit under Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
A division bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President, Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Mr Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) held that âThe decision in Bharti Airtel is limited to âinputâ as a source of credit consequent on the finding of ineligibility for claim as âcapital goodsâ and, therefore, not relevant in dispute over entitlement of âinput serviceâ as credit. There is no break in the CENVAT chain insofar as âinput serviceâ is concerned. The decisions of the coordinate benches survive as precedent to the extent appropriate to the facts of the present dispute.â
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the supply of manpower service to educational institutions is exempted from service tax. The Tribunal held that the respondent is eligible for exemption from payment of Service Tax for the supply of manpower to educational institutions under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) held that the respondent is eligible for exemption from payment of Service Tax for supply of manpower to above mentioned educational institutions under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that service tax is not leviable on work done in the capacity of subcontractor. It was argued that the majority of demand has been confirmed for the work done under the capacity of a sub-contractor since the same would be tantamount to double taxation, therefore no demand can be sustained.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr C L Mahar, Member ( Technical ) found that the appellant has submitted that for computation of demand service category- wise demand was not given in the adjudication order. The Tribunal viewed that at least before 01.07.2012, the correct classification of services is are must to demand the service tax. Therefore, the adjudication order is lacking with regard to the service-wise bifurcation of the demand which needs to be done.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the freight amount is not includible in the assessable value of goods for charging excise duty.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that âWe find that freight/insurance have been charged separately and received separately. We also take notice that the buyers of the goods Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. have issued purchase order specifying the price for the goods separately and also specifying the transportation cost for the supply of goods. Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to act under whims of to allow or reject request for cross- examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that âMainly the case is based on statements of various persons. The appellant have requested for cross-examination of the witnesses, which has been rejected by the Adjudicating authority. In the Adjudication process, the conducting the examination-inchief and thereafter offering the witness to appellant for cross-examination is mandatory under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit was not available in the absence of a Declaration of Duty in the invoice issued to the buyer and remanded the matter to consider the Chartered Accountantâs certificate dated 06/06/2014 apart from the other documents already submitted by the Appellant at the time of filing the refund claim adjudication.
A single bench of Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) found that the Board vide instruction circular issued from F.No. 275/34/2006- CX.8A, dated 25-7-2008 has stated that Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeals filed before him under Section under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, shall, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. He can direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness to enable him to dispose of the appeal. In the circumstances, it was not proper of him to have rejected the appeal without examining it on its merits and after issuing a proper speaking order.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax liability arises under section 66 A of the Finance Act, 1994 on a company operating as an agency to carry out under the purview of Section 66A of the Finance Act,1994 when a permanent establishment of the foreign service provider exists in India the recipient of service in India cannot be made liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that a branch office is covered under the scope of permanent establishment. Since Sarin India is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sarin Israel carrying out and coordinating essential trading activities it would be safe to say that Sarin India is in itself a branch office of the Israel company.
In a recent judgement, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the denial of the Claim of 4 % Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) refund alleging trivial procedural requirement is invalid and allowed the refund. The Tribunal viewed that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007 â Customs should not be denied to the Appellant thereby the Appellant is entitled to refund the claim.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) viewed that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007 â Customs should not be denied to the Appellant thereby the Appellant is entitled to refund claim.
In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd, the Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the credit of steel used to support capital goods is eligible for cenvat credit.
A two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that the Cenvat credit has been denied on iron and steel items used in the fabrication of supporting structures for capital goods is eligible. The Appellants have availed Cenvat credit on H.R. M.S. & S.S. plates used in the fabrication of supporting structures of capital goods.
The Hyderabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no Services tax exemption was allowable on the Construction of Residential Complex Services (CRCS) for the period before 01.07.2010. The CRCS were brought under WCS from 01.07.2010.
A two-member bench of Mr Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr A K Jyotishi, Member (Technical) observed that once the service is rightly covered under WCS post 01.06.2007, the next question is whether they will be entitled to exemption under Circular No.151/2/2012-ST dt.10.02.2012.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the transfer of balance cenvat credit on account of Britco Foods Company to Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd is allowable on confirmation of the merger.
A two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) held that the department should have allowed the transfer of Modvat/ Cenvat credit lying in RG23A and RG23C accounts of M/s. Britco Foods Company Limited to M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Limited on receipt of the letter of the merger of two companies.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that service tax is not leviable on flats, less than 12 in units constructed prior to 01.07.2010.
A Two-Member Bench comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that âWe find that there is no dispute that only four residential units / flats were constructed in this case on hand and hence, by virtue of this alone the case of the appellant does not get covered under the definition of residential units since the definition covers any complex of a building or
buildings, having more than twelve residential units.â
In a ruling in favour of Indian Airlines Ltd, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the cost of freight insurance is not included for calculating the duty of ATF consumed in the fuel tank of aircraft.
A Two member bench comprising Shri Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Shri P V Subba Rao, Member (
Technical ) observed that the cost of the freight, transit insurance and the landing charges being
ascertainable as NIL, they cannot be included in the value of the ATF. In the appellantâs case in Customs Appeal, the Tribunal held that the cost of freight, insurance and landing charges need not be included while raising the duty on the ATF consumed in the fuel tank of the aircraft.
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excuse and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the admissibility of discounts subsequent to clearance is eligible deduction for the determination of assessable value.
A Two Member Bench comprising Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member and Rajeev Tandon, Technical Member observed that âWith regard to valuation of the goods is quite clear and in terms of the law, the valuation of goods under clearance is to be done on the basis of sale price prevailing on the date of removal at the time of removal, which in the present case is the depot.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that the service tax is not leviable on sale of goods or by way of including value of goods in service.
A Two-Member Bench of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that âIn the present case undisputedly there is a separate transection of sale of goods right from beginning that is much before of execution of contract and the appellant have discharged the VAT/CST. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position the sale of goods by any stretch of imagination cannot be brought into for levy of service tax. Having observed as above we find that no service tax is payable on trading of goods in the present case, the trading of goods is not in dispute. Even post 01.07.2012 in terms of section 66D(e) of the Act trading of goods is specified under the negative list on which the service tax is not leviable.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible before the court of law.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial) and P. V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) observed that âStatements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible before a Court of Law and in view of the admissions made in these statements, he referred to the settled principles that what is admitted need not be proved. We therefore, do not find any infirmity or perversity in the conclusion arrived at in imposing the punishment by the impugned order.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the service tax demand and held that the value of services provided free of cost to engineers and staff of service provider is not includable in gross amount charged.
A Two-Member Bench of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt.
Limited vs. UOI has held that âThe quantification of the value of the service can therefore never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided by him. Even if the rule has been made under Section 94 of the Act which provides for delegated legislation and authorises the Central Government to make rules by notification in the official gazette, such rules can only be made âfor carrying out the provisions of this Chapterâ i.e. Chapter V of the Act which provides for the levy, quantification and collection of the service tax.â
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) dismissed revenue appeal as the expenses incurred by the petitioner was included in the gross transaction value which has already suffered service tax.
A Two-Member Bench of DM Misra, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member observed that âIn the Review Order, only the statutory principle of law has been reiterated and no evidence has been adduced to negate the specific findings of the adjudicating authority holding that the service tax on all these expenses, by including the same in the gross transaction value has been discharged by the respondent. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenueâs appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed to submit relevant documents in the matter concerning exemption under threshold limit of exemption for small scale service providers.
A Single Member Bench of Binu Tamta, Judicial Member observed that âNormally, the present appeal needs to be rejected considering the conduct of the appellant in not submitting the required documents at any stage, however with all fairness and in the interest of justice, I feel that an opportunity to produce all the relevant documents in support of the submissions made, needs to be granted to the appellant.â âThe appellant is once again directed to produce the VCES-2 and VCES-3 as the burden of proof is on the appellant. The appellant may also produce the documents in support of his submissions that he is exempted under the threshold limit of exemption for small scale service providers and that the services rendered by them are classifiable as âworks contract servicesâ where discharge of 50% of service tax liability under reverse charge by JVVNL is in consonance with the notificationâ the Tribunal noted.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed service tax demand as the agreement between service provider and recipient not for supply of man power.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member relied on the judgment in Dhanashree Enterprise vs CCE Pune-I, wherein it was observed that âWe find from the show cause notice that though the department has proposed the service of the appellant as classifiable under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service but no evidence was adduced to conclusively hold that the service is of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service. The figure of the service tax was retrieved from the bank account which does not show what is the basis of the service charge by the appellant to the service recipient. Therefore, we do not find any material evidence in the show-cause notice to hold that the appellant are providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply
Agency service.â
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods transportation documents would not absolve liability that inputs against which credits availed were not valid.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) observed that âThis being so, we have got no hesitation to come to the conclusion that goods were imported in sealed condition, taken to M/s. J.G. Spices Ltd., Meghalaya and kept therein also in sealed conditions and again returned back to different traders including the Appellant in sealed conditions affixing transit permit, railway freight invoices and in the process additional Excise Duty which was VAT component of Stateâs tax collected by Union and Central Excise duty both were realized at both the points by the supplier and purchasers respectively causing loss to the State exchequer.â
The Allahabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Transporters/contract Services in mines cannot be GTA in the absence of a consignment note and service Tax not leviable. The tribunal found that the essential requirement is the issuance of consignment notes to be covered under the definition of GTA and in the absence of the same, the transporters/contractors rendering transport services in mines cannot be said to be GTA.
A two-member bench of Mr P K Choudhry, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) held that the demand of Service Tax confirmed in the impugned order cannot sustain and set aside the same.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that an extended period of limitation under the Excise Act cannot be invoked when the assesee disclosed credit availed in monthly ER-1 returns.
A two-member bench of Dr D M Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) found that the duty paid by a 100% EOU is an Excise duty, though the measure adopted in computing the Excise duty is aggregate applicable duties of Customs, payable by a 100% EOU; it cannot be the criteria, in determining the nature of duty.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) remanded matter to Commissioner as the necessary documents were provided to cross examine Government approved valuer on SHIS ( Status Holder Incentive Scheme ).
A Two-Member Bench comprising observed that âWe hold that all necessary documents have been provided to the appellant. In the interest of justice, we give one last opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Shri N J Lalwani. From the record, it is apparent that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the appellant to cross-examine the Shri N J Lalwani. The reasons why shri N J Lalwani change his strance will be helpful in reaching proper conclusion in this case. In this background, in the interest of justice we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner. The commissioner will give two dates for cross-examination of Shri N J Lalwani and the appellant can avail any one of the
dates.â
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the benefit under drawback and Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies ( ROSCTL ) scheme cannot be denied due to procedural lapse as under the Central Board of Excise and Customs ( CBEC ) Circular.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) observed that âIn the facts of the present case, we find that the export goods is not in dispute and therefore, the entitlement of the appellant to claim the benefit under the scheme is clearly admissible and the same cannot be denied on account of any procedural lapse as provided in the circular. We also find that the examination level of Drawback Scheme and that of Drawback along with ROSCTL Scheme is the same and therefore, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the scheme.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand thereby holding that heavy water attracts nil rate of duty and hence are classifiable as excisable goods.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that âWe take note of the fact that the consideration which were received by the appellant were for operating the Heavy Water plant and production of Heavy Water which was the main activity and the other activities carried out by the appellant were incidental to the main activity and are undertaken for smooth functioning of Heavy Water plant. We find that the appellant has acted in operation and maintenance of Heavy Water plant for generation of Heavy Water which falls under CETH 28.45 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracts nil rate of duty.â
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
