Loading...

More Judgements

2018-VIL-569-CESTAT-BLR-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – the appellants are 100% EOU and they are engaged in the activity of mining of Iron ore and processing of various products from Iron ore – demand for Excise duties under proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944 on DTA clearances – appellant contention that the process undertaken by it does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, there shall be no liability to pay duty – HELD - It is not denied by the appellants that they have obtained a license for EOU claiming that they are manufacturers of Iron ore and it is also not denied that they have obtained license from manufacturing bond in terms of Customs Act,... [Read more]

Central Excise – the appellants are 100% EOU and they are engaged in the activity of mining of Iron ore and processing of various products from Iron ore – demand for Excise duties under proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944 on DTA clearances – appellant contention that the process undertaken by it does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, there shall be no liability to pay duty – HELD - It is not denied by the appellants that they have obtained a license for EOU claiming that they are manufacturers of Iron ore and it is also not denied that they have obtained license from manufacturing bond in terms of Customs Act, 1962 - The facts being so, the appellants cannot take the plea that their goods are not manufactured, non-excisable and therefore, they are not liable to pay the duty - the appellants failed to distinguish between a DTA unit and an EOU unit. Understandably, the appellants have availed all the benefits of EOU under various Acts; they should be aware of the fact that any clearance by EOU into DTA shall be treated as imports in India as they are governed by the Customs Act, 1962 - The goods cleared by the appellants into DTA ought to be treated as imported goods and duty shall be levied accordingly - the appellants’ contention are misplaced irrespective of the fact that whether the process undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture or otherwise, they are liable to pay duty in terms of clause (ii) proviso to Section 3(i)(b) of the CEA, 1944 – matter remanded to the original authority to quantify the duty liability on the clearances made by the appellants into DTA after extending the benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-C.Ex. dated 31.03.2003 – answered in favour of Revenue [Read less]

2018-VIL-568-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - assessee is appointed by various ministries of Government of India & other autonomous bodies to co-ordinate & gets the computerization / networking projects completed from various vendors - The payment against the invoices is settled by the assessee from the funds allocated in terms of administrative approval of the Ministry. The assessee retained a definite amount from the allocated funds as administrative charges – revenue in appeal against impugned order confirming demand on outstanding advances along with interest but dropping the demand under the head Erection, commissioning or installation services ... [Read more]

Service Tax - assessee is appointed by various ministries of Government of India & other autonomous bodies to co-ordinate & gets the computerization / networking projects completed from various vendors - The payment against the invoices is settled by the assessee from the funds allocated in terms of administrative approval of the Ministry. The assessee retained a definite amount from the allocated funds as administrative charges – revenue in appeal against impugned order confirming demand on outstanding advances along with interest but dropping the demand under the head Erection, commissioning or installation services – HELD - the respondent has acted only as an implementing agency and the disbursed the payments to the vendor's on behalf of DoIT, GoI and others, acted as a pure agent. It is established law that the expenses incurred as a pure agent are not liable to be included in the gross value of services under section 67 of the Finance Act read with Rule 5 of STR 2006. Further, the respondent has rightly discharged the service tax liability on the administrative charges charged and received from the Government Department, as implementing agency, and has also paid service tax in respect of other services under the head Consultancy Engineering Services. Further, the assessee paid service tax on the income recognized in their accounts and has shown in the profit and loss account. The Revenue has erred in demanding service tax on the gross amount received from Department of Government of India, out of grant-in-aid - the respondent has provided only ‘Consulting Engineer Services’, on which they have discharged the service tax liability – further, the show cause notices is not maintainable for invocation of the extended period of limitation – the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-561-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - demand of service tax under the category of “Construction of Complex Service - Demand under the category of Renting of Immovable Property on 99 years Perpetual Lease – HELD - The activity undertaken by appellant includes the development of land and construction of residential units on the land made available by the Rajasthan Government. The demand under Construction of Complex Service has been mainly resisted by the appellant on the ground that they have undertaken construction of independent houses/ residential units and not of any complex with more than twelve such units - before concluding on the servi... [Read more]

Service Tax - demand of service tax under the category of “Construction of Complex Service - Demand under the category of Renting of Immovable Property on 99 years Perpetual Lease – HELD - The activity undertaken by appellant includes the development of land and construction of residential units on the land made available by the Rajasthan Government. The demand under Construction of Complex Service has been mainly resisted by the appellant on the ground that they have undertaken construction of independent houses/ residential units and not of any complex with more than twelve such units - before concluding on the service tax liability in respect of the row houses constructed by RHB, it will be necessary to go through the layout plan of the residential units constructed by RHB in the form of row houses with a view to examine the factual position in each of those layouts. Without such clear findings, the demand of service tax under this category cannot be sustained - the demand for service tax under the category of Construction of Residential Complex is set aside and matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-examination and denovo decision – Regarding Renting of Immovable Property, the appellant has constructed various commercial buildings/ shops which have been allotted on the basis of auction on a 99 years Perpetual Lease. From such allottees, various amounts were recovered as lease charges. The charges are partly payable in lumpsum at the time of allotment and partly as recurring charges on annual basis – the appellant is liable to service tax on the lease amounts recovered by them from the allottee of commercial properties and shops by whatever name. But no service tax levied can be upheld in respect of such lease amounts recovered for allotment of residential units - The appellant is an instrumentality of Rajasthan Government and performing statutory functions in accordance with the RHB Act and they were under the bonafide belief that the activity would not attract service tax - this is a fit case and waive penalty in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 – the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-353-KER  | High Court SGST

GST – Section 129 (3) of CGST and KSGST Act, 2017 - Petition seeking to declare the provisions empowering the GST officials to demand tax and penalty and to detain goods and vehicles, as unconstitutional till the smooth, efficient and glitches free functioning of the GST network system is guaranteed to assessees - detention proceedings under Section 129 of the Act - Can the Court exercise its discretion to dilute the statutory rigour – HELD – when the language and the legislative intent clear, the Courts cannot do violence to the statutory mandate. In the name of discretion the statutory rigour on tax and penalty can... [Read more]

GST – Section 129 (3) of CGST and KSGST Act, 2017 - Petition seeking to declare the provisions empowering the GST officials to demand tax and penalty and to detain goods and vehicles, as unconstitutional till the smooth, efficient and glitches free functioning of the GST network system is guaranteed to assessees - detention proceedings under Section 129 of the Act - Can the Court exercise its discretion to dilute the statutory rigour – HELD – when the language and the legislative intent clear, the Courts cannot do violence to the statutory mandate. In the name of discretion the statutory rigour on tax and penalty cannot be diluted – the assessee-petitioner can have the provisional release of the goods, pending further adjudication under Section 129(1) of the Act, only if it complies with the statutory mandate. If the petitoner provides a bank guarantee for the tax and the penalty, besides executing a bond for the value of goods, as directed under Rule 140 of the KSGST Rules, the authorities will provisionally release the goods – the writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

2018-VIL-351-BOM  | High Court VAT

Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 - Package Incentive Scheme 1993 - The petitioner is aggrieved by the retrospective amendment to Section 93 of the MVAT Act which prescribed an entirely new mechanism for determining the quantum of deferral amount as incentives under the Package Scheme of 1993 - retrospective amendment providing for benefit of incentives proportionately as per the expansion of production capacity, when the expansion is in pursuant to the additional investment - petition challenging the reopening of the assessments where petitioner has already enjoyed the tax benefit by deferring it as contemplated by the Package Sc... [Read more]

Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 - Package Incentive Scheme 1993 - The petitioner is aggrieved by the retrospective amendment to Section 93 of the MVAT Act which prescribed an entirely new mechanism for determining the quantum of deferral amount as incentives under the Package Scheme of 1993 - retrospective amendment providing for benefit of incentives proportionately as per the expansion of production capacity, when the expansion is in pursuant to the additional investment - petition challenging the reopening of the assessments where petitioner has already enjoyed the tax benefit by deferring it as contemplated by the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 - doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – HELD - Section 93(1) stood amended with retrospective effect and by the validating Act, it has been held to be on the statute book from 1.04.2005. The contention of the petitioner that there was a promise contained in Package Scheme of Incentives and it could be carved out from its various terms and condition and therefore, it could not have been curtailed in the manner in which it has sought to be done also is not a sustainable argument. By the Package Scheme of Incentives the State Government has granted a tax concession but there is no embargo to withdraw the said concession under the Package Scheme of Incentives of 1988 and 1993 - On introduction of the MVAT Act, the Package Scheme of Incentives came to be recognized as the schemes introduced and amended from time to time - Since the benefits granted to the petitioner under the scheme formulated under a statue came to be withdrawn and the petitioner is deprived of the said benefits by another statutory amendment, the concession withdrawn cannot be said to be arbitrary. The tax exemption granted in the Package Scheme of Incentives was only by way of concession for encouraging the industries to start operating in the underdeveloped areas and since it was concession it could be withdrawn any time and the Government was fully empowered to withdraw the same. The concept of promissory estoppel would not come to the rescue of the petitioner since the exemption is withdrawn by a legislation and there can be no applicability of said doctrine to a legislative act – the present case does not amount to only change in the opinion and it is not only a case of reopening of the assessment on account of change of opinion - The Writ Petition is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-128-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - liability to pay tax on Pure Service received by Governmental Authority – eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - HELD – in the present application the applicant is recipient of service and not service providers and also, the said services are not under reverse charge mechanism. The notification as referred applicant is applicable to provider of service and not recipient of service. The applicant being the recipient of service and not service provider is not the proper person to make the present advance ruling application - the application is rejected as it... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - liability to pay tax on Pure Service received by Governmental Authority – eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - HELD – in the present application the applicant is recipient of service and not service providers and also, the said services are not under reverse charge mechanism. The notification as referred applicant is applicable to provider of service and not recipient of service. The applicant being the recipient of service and not service provider is not the proper person to make the present advance ruling application - the application is rejected as it is not maintainable [Read less]

2018-VIL-129-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Classification and rate of CGST on the supply of Modelling Dough – HELD - the applicant have taken "Plastics" and "Plastic" as one and the same and are therefore not able to be certain of the correct classification of their product - 'plastic' is not the same as 'plastics'. Chapter 34 uses the word "plastic" whereas Chapter 39 uses the word "plastics". The word "plastic" as found in the HSN Notes to CTH 3407 should be read in the context in which the same has been used – the CTH 3407 covers modelling pastes, for amusement of children. The impugned product being a dough used for amusement of ch... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Classification and rate of CGST on the supply of Modelling Dough – HELD - the applicant have taken "Plastics" and "Plastic" as one and the same and are therefore not able to be certain of the correct classification of their product - 'plastic' is not the same as 'plastics'. Chapter 34 uses the word "plastic" whereas Chapter 39 uses the word "plastics". The word "plastic" as found in the HSN Notes to CTH 3407 should be read in the context in which the same has been used – the CTH 3407 covers modelling pastes, for amusement of children. The impugned product being a dough used for amusement of children, the Heading 3407 would be the correct classification [Read less]

2018-VIL-127-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - The applicant is engaged in the providing the services in the nature of warehousing, loading unloading, packing, storage of agricultural produce - Whether the supply of warehouse services used for packing & storage of tea is exempted vide Serial No 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) or otherwise – HELD – even if it is assumed that M/s. Unilever is bringing raw tea leaves or may be semi processed tea leaves to the godown, they are undertaking further processing and manufacturing of the same as per processes given and are finally storing manufactured tea as per details given b... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - The applicant is engaged in the providing the services in the nature of warehousing, loading unloading, packing, storage of agricultural produce - Whether the supply of warehouse services used for packing & storage of tea is exempted vide Serial No 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) or otherwise – HELD – even if it is assumed that M/s. Unilever is bringing raw tea leaves or may be semi processed tea leaves to the godown, they are undertaking further processing and manufacturing of the same as per processes given and are finally storing manufactured tea as per details given by them which finally culminates into packing of tea bags. This activity of M/s. Unilever of processing of raw tea leaves into tea results in emergence of a new product having distinct name i.e. Tea, which has distinct name, character and use i.e. Tea bags. As such the impugned activity is a ‘manufacture’ as defined in clause (72) of section 2 of the CGST Act. The final product considering various processes undertaken by M/s. Unilever cannot be considered as Agricultural Produce - the goods being stored in the applicant's godown are not agricultural produce as per definition given in Notification No.12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 and the same is reiterated by Board Circular No. 16/16/2017-GST – the applicant is not eligible for exemption provided in serial no. 54 to Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) [Read less]

2018-VIL-566-CESTAT-CHD-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - whether the goods supplied to a Mega Power Project, treated as deemed export in terms of Foreign Trade Policy, are eligible for refund under the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from March, 2015 to June, 2015 - appellate authority rejected the refund claim for the period post 1.3.2015 by holding that the refund for export of goods defined under Foreign Trade Policy cannot be considered as export under amended Rule 5 of CCR and refund of credit is admissible only for goods which have been physically exported out of India - Explanation 1 to Rule 5 of the CCR - Notification NO.... [Read more]

Central Excise - whether the goods supplied to a Mega Power Project, treated as deemed export in terms of Foreign Trade Policy, are eligible for refund under the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from March, 2015 to June, 2015 - appellate authority rejected the refund claim for the period post 1.3.2015 by holding that the refund for export of goods defined under Foreign Trade Policy cannot be considered as export under amended Rule 5 of CCR and refund of credit is admissible only for goods which have been physically exported out of India - Explanation 1 to Rule 5 of the CCR - Notification NO.6/15-CE dt.1.3.2015 – HELD – prior to the amendment in Rule 5 brought about vide Notification No.6/15-CE, under Rule 5 refund has been allowed in respect of physical exports of goods as well as deemed exports. In view of the above, it is clear that the amendment has been made with a view to restrict refund to the goods which are physically exported out of India and, by necessary implication, deemed exports have been disallowed the facility of refund of credit as a result of insertion of clause (1A) - The specific inclusion of clause (1A) in Rule 5 clearly shows the legislative intent to allow refund facility to actual physical exports. As the right to refund for exports other than physical exports did not accrue under law, which in the impugned period is permitted for physical exports only, there is no conflict between Rule 3, 4 and 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - In the scheme of Cenvat Credit Rules, availment and utilization of credit are permitted from the assessee subject to condition mentioned in the said Rules. Refund in cash is exceptional provision meant for certain categories of assessees including those, who physically export the goods. Hence, the provision after 1.3.2015 which restricts the refund to the category of physical exports cannot be said to take away since the right to refund of Cenvat credit is not a vested right and they are allowed to utilize credit like any other assessee - there is no ambiguity in the wording of the Rule 5 of CCR or in Section 11B nor is there any contradiction between the two. Intent of the legislature is clear from the plain wording of the Rule – the impugned order is upheld and assessee appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-559-CESTAT-MUM-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand under Reverse Charge - Programme Producer’s Services – Appellant hired the services of certain non-resident service providers for producing the live feed of the cricket matches being played in India to be telecasted on various TV Channels, against payment of commercial consideration – SCN demanding the service tax due in respect of payments made to the said non-resident service providers and levy of penalty – appellant claim for Revenue Neutrality – HELD – The arguments advanced by the Appellant that since the entire amount of tax demanded by them would be available as credit to them the de... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand under Reverse Charge - Programme Producer’s Services – Appellant hired the services of certain non-resident service providers for producing the live feed of the cricket matches being played in India to be telecasted on various TV Channels, against payment of commercial consideration – SCN demanding the service tax due in respect of payments made to the said non-resident service providers and levy of penalty – appellant claim for Revenue Neutrality – HELD – The arguments advanced by the Appellant that since the entire amount of tax demanded by them would be available as credit to them the demand of tax is not justified, do not appear to be convincing as the Service Tax liability which is being determined, is in respect of the services received by them from the non-resident service provider. This is not the case of payment of tax on the forward charge basis, and the tax is payable by the recipient of the service, as if the same was due from the service provider - Manner of payment of the tax would not change the nature of levy and in any case if the argument of revenue neutrality is accepted as permissible defense in the present case entire scheme of payment of taxes on reverse charge basis will become otiose and no business liable to pay service tax would be required to pay service tax in respect of services received by them from non-resident service providers, for the reason that the tax so paid will be available as credit to them - demand of service tax along with the interest and penalty is upheld – the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-08-AAAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAAR - whether appellant is eligible for Input Tax Credit on purchase of motor vehicles (cash carry vans) which are used for cash management service and supplied, post usage, as scrap – Whether in the context of appellant’s business ‘money’ can be termed as ‘goods’ for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit under the GST law – HELD – in terms of definition of money under the Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017, "money" means the Indian legal tender…but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value. Since the cash carry vehicles are deployed to carry cash and b... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAAR - whether appellant is eligible for Input Tax Credit on purchase of motor vehicles (cash carry vans) which are used for cash management service and supplied, post usage, as scrap – Whether in the context of appellant’s business ‘money’ can be termed as ‘goods’ for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit under the GST law – HELD – in terms of definition of money under the Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017, "money" means the Indian legal tender…but shall not include any currency that is held for its numismatic value. Since the cash carry vehicles are deployed to carry cash and bullion for other than for numismatic purposes, the cash carried by them is to be construed as money and not goods - The fact that the GST Council has felt the need for widening the scope of ITC by allowing the ITC in respect of motor vehicles used for transportation of money for or by a banking company or financial institution, which were previously not available to them, clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was earlier to not treat 'money' as 'goods', as defined under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act - the definitions provided in Acts are universal and same cannot be interpreted for suiting the requirement of any individual as claimed by the Appellant. If 'Money' is not covered as 'Goods' in the definition of 'Goods' under CGST Act, then it is not 'goods' for everyone and it cannot be said that it is not 'goods' for general perception and it is 'goods' for the Appellant - as the law now stands, Input Tax Credit is not available to appellant on purchase of motor vehicles i.e. cash carry vans, which are purchased and used for cash management business and supplied post usage as scrap [Read less]

2018-VIL-09-AAAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAAR - Brand Name - Whether mention of name of the Appellant on the goods, as required by FSSAI regulations and Legal Metrology Rules, amounts to brand name or not - Whether use of general words like ‘Choice’, ‘Value’ or ‘Superior’ on the goods to be sold in ‘More Stores’ would render the said goods as branded or not – HELD - Merely mention of manufacturer's name on the product as required under different statutes may not necessarily result in consideration of that product as branded. But if the name of manufacturer mentioned on the product, even as per statutory requirements, clearly ... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAAR - Brand Name - Whether mention of name of the Appellant on the goods, as required by FSSAI regulations and Legal Metrology Rules, amounts to brand name or not - Whether use of general words like ‘Choice’, ‘Value’ or ‘Superior’ on the goods to be sold in ‘More Stores’ would render the said goods as branded or not – HELD - Merely mention of manufacturer's name on the product as required under different statutes may not necessarily result in consideration of that product as branded. But if the name of manufacturer mentioned on the product, even as per statutory requirements, clearly establishes a link with the manufacturer and the product, then it surely amounts to be a brand name, as brand name includes any name as per explanation provided under the exemption notification under the GST Law. Though there is no laid down criterion in this regard, but the surrounding environment needs to be scrutinized as to whether the name of manufacturer on the product can result in consideration of brand or not - merely by removing their registered brand name logo viz. ‘MORE’ and ‘Aditya Birla Retail’ from the packaging of some of their products and keeping the surrounding environment intact to take advantage of the said brands would not render such goods unbranded and the benefits of exemption notification from GST would not be available to such goods. Also, the use of words like ‘CHOICE’, ‘VALUE’ or ‘SUPERIOR’ on the proposed packing, which are already in use with the brand 'More' on the present packing, would amount to branding of goods as the goods can be identified with the brand 'More' by the use of these words - the use or words ‘VALUE’, ‘CHOICE’ or ‘SUPERIOR’ on the proposed packing, without altering the surrounding environment to take advantage of brand 'MORE', would be construed as 'brand name' for the purpose of Exemption Notification – AAR Order is upheld and answered against appellant-assessee [Read less]

2018-VIL-567-CESTAT-CHE-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Refund - clearance of goods under EPCG scheme - Rejection of refund claim on the grounds that the Bill of Entry was filed on 1.5.2008 and duty paid under protest on 7.5.2008, whereas the Notification No.64/2008-Cus. lowering the Customs duty to 3% from 5% was issued on 09.05.2008 - the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee appeal claiming refund of excess duty paid - Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal – HELD - only a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 shall govern the issue of exemption of Customs duty. By implication, the exemption from Customs duty will be available to any i... [Read more]

Customs - Refund - clearance of goods under EPCG scheme - Rejection of refund claim on the grounds that the Bill of Entry was filed on 1.5.2008 and duty paid under protest on 7.5.2008, whereas the Notification No.64/2008-Cus. lowering the Customs duty to 3% from 5% was issued on 09.05.2008 - the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee appeal claiming refund of excess duty paid - Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal – HELD - only a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 shall govern the issue of exemption of Customs duty. By implication, the exemption from Customs duty will be available to any importer only by way of an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act, 1962 which is prevalent and in force as on the date of import - the Bill of Entry was admittedly filed by the respondent only on 1.5.2008. Applying the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Act, the respondent-importer can then lay claim for exemption from customs duty on the basis of a customs notification, issued under the Customs Act, which was in force on 1.5.2008. As per the facts of this case, the notification in force was EPCG N/No.97/2004-Cus. This being so, the respondents cannot then get the rate of Customs duty which was actualized by Customs Notification No.64/2008-Cus. only on 9.5.2008 - the impugned order cannot be sustained and set aside - the order-in-Original issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) is restored and Revenue appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-565-CESTAT-DEL-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – SSI exemption – Brand Name – HELD - the person availing the benefit of the exemption notification has to ensure or take necessary precautions before availing the benefit of such exemption notification. It is expected from the person availing the benefit of any notification that he himself has to be sure and meet all the conditions of such notification before making any claim of benefit - it was the duty of appellant-assessee to ensure that the brands used by them does not pertains to any other person and in case the same was pertaining to any other person it was also required from them to have paid t... [Read more]

Central Excise – SSI exemption – Brand Name – HELD - the person availing the benefit of the exemption notification has to ensure or take necessary precautions before availing the benefit of such exemption notification. It is expected from the person availing the benefit of any notification that he himself has to be sure and meet all the conditions of such notification before making any claim of benefit - it was the duty of appellant-assessee to ensure that the brands used by them does not pertains to any other person and in case the same was pertaining to any other person it was also required from them to have paid the appropriate central excise duty on manufacture and clearance of such branded goods. It is a settled law that it is the onus of ensuring compliance of the conditions of the notification are to be made by the person who is availing the benefit of such exemption notification - the appellant have been using the brand name of other persons and thus the SSI notification benefit No. 8/2003-CE is not available to them as per the conditions provided thereunder - extended time proviso under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable in this case – assessee appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-349-CHG-ST  | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service tax liability on services provided by the respondent-CSIDC to the industries within its industrial area, on payment of charges/ fees – revenue appeal challenging Tribunal order dropping of demand of service tax pertaining to the extended period invoked under Section 73 of the Act, 1944 - respondent cross objection challenging part of the order by the CESTAT wherein its liability to pay tax has been upheld for the normal period – HELD - the CSIDC is an entity under the control of the Government of Chhattisgarh. It does not belong to an individual who would evade tax to corner profit in its business activity. The... [Read more]

Service tax liability on services provided by the respondent-CSIDC to the industries within its industrial area, on payment of charges/ fees – revenue appeal challenging Tribunal order dropping of demand of service tax pertaining to the extended period invoked under Section 73 of the Act, 1944 - respondent cross objection challenging part of the order by the CESTAT wherein its liability to pay tax has been upheld for the normal period – HELD - the CSIDC is an entity under the control of the Government of Chhattisgarh. It does not belong to an individual who would evade tax to corner profit in its business activity. The explanation putforth by the CSIDC that it was under bona fide impression that being an entity under the control of Government it was not liable to pay service tax appears to be reasonable explanation, therefore, mere non registration under Section 65 or non payment of service tax on the maintenance charges collected from industries would not amount to wilful supression or mis-statement of fact, hence, the CESTAT has rightly held that the present is a case where the Revenue is not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation – the cross-objection filed by the respondent is maintainable, however, the argument that the Corporation having providing services in the sovereign capacity, is not liable to pay service tax, is rejected – Both the appeals are dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-24-SC  | Supreme Court SGST

STATE OF HARYANA Vs CAPRO POWER LTD: 13.08.2018 - GST - Even after the implementation of the CGST Act, the item ‘Natural Gas’ continues to be covered under the CST Act, 1956 and the State is liable to issue 'C' Forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner from the Oil Companies in Gujarat and used in the generation or distribution of electricity at its power plants in Haryana - the High Court order is upheld and the State appeal is dismissed

2018-VIL-06-TRB  | Tribunal VAT

Odisha VAT Act, 2004 – Sale – Tax invoice – Credit Note - The appellant-assessee issued credit notes in favour of its purchasing dealer against ‘return of goods’ but without receiving corresponding debit notes from them - whether the assessee is liable to tax having raised the tax invoices when goods relating to the transaction had physically not moved – HELD – the goods relating to the transaction in question had physically not moved from the selling dealer to the purchasing dealer though tax invoice and credit notes were issued - “return or rejection of goods by the purchaser” would arise only if the go... [Read more]

Odisha VAT Act, 2004 – Sale – Tax invoice – Credit Note - The appellant-assessee issued credit notes in favour of its purchasing dealer against ‘return of goods’ but without receiving corresponding debit notes from them - whether the assessee is liable to tax having raised the tax invoices when goods relating to the transaction had physically not moved – HELD – the goods relating to the transaction in question had physically not moved from the selling dealer to the purchasing dealer though tax invoice and credit notes were issued - “return or rejection of goods by the purchaser” would arise only if the goods have been physically received by it. In other words, if the goods have not actually been received, the question of returning them or rejecting them obviously does not arise - In the case at hand, the title or possession of the goods had not been transferred to the purchasing dealer - Secondly, as regards the time of deemed sale, there must be actual and physical movement of goods as well as receipt of consideration thereof. So, mere issuance of a tax invoice without corresponding transfer of title or possession or receipt of payment cannot amount to deemed sale - The dealer it is not liable to pay tax despite having issued tax invoice and credit notes as only a sale is exigible to tax as per Section 11 and that ‘sale’ means a valid sale within the meaning of Section 2(45) of the said Act - tax cannot be levied on improper adoption of procedure or only on technicality when the fundamental charging section under the statute does not permit so. Therefore, despite the dealer’s apparently improper conduct, there is no way by which a transaction that has not actually matured into sale, be brought under the tax net – the assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page