Loading...

More Judgements

2019-VIL-364-CESTAT-BLR-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – EOU unit – rejection of rebate claims filed by the appellant – non-fulfilment of conditions laid down in Notification No.12/2005-ST – HELD - the requisite declaration as required under condition of Notification has been filed on 31/05/2005 and revised on 16/06/2005 on account of some inadvertent error, filing of declaration is a procedural requirement and the delay, if any, in filing the same cannot be used for denying the substantive benefit to the appellant when the appellant is otherwise entitled to the benefit under the said Notification No.12/2005-ST. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has laid i... [Read more]

Service Tax – EOU unit – rejection of rebate claims filed by the appellant – non-fulfilment of conditions laid down in Notification No.12/2005-ST – HELD - the requisite declaration as required under condition of Notification has been filed on 31/05/2005 and revised on 16/06/2005 on account of some inadvertent error, filing of declaration is a procedural requirement and the delay, if any, in filing the same cannot be used for denying the substantive benefit to the appellant when the appellant is otherwise entitled to the benefit under the said Notification No.12/2005-ST. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has laid importance on procedural requirements without appreciating the fact that the input services have been received by the appellant and used for providing output services, which were exported out of India and thus fulfilling the substantive requirement under Export of Service Rule and the Notification - omission and lapses in export invoices cannot come in the way of sanction of rebate in respect of input services if the same have been used for providing output services - the rejection of rebate claims is not sustainable in law and therefore the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant [Read less]

2019-VIL-365-CESTAT-CHE-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The cars manufactured by the appellants are exported to their Overseas Distributors, who are responsible for handling the warranty claims, monitoring of repairs and maintenance services and the establishment and monitoring of a network of Authorized Repairers for Hyundai cars – Department of the view that Overseas Distributors are providing service of warranty repairs on behalf of the appellant and therefore, the activity would fall within the definition of Business Auxiliary Service – Demand invoking extended period – Revenue neutral scen... [Read more]

Service Tax - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The cars manufactured by the appellants are exported to their Overseas Distributors, who are responsible for handling the warranty claims, monitoring of repairs and maintenance services and the establishment and monitoring of a network of Authorized Repairers for Hyundai cars – Department of the view that Overseas Distributors are providing service of warranty repairs on behalf of the appellant and therefore, the activity would fall within the definition of Business Auxiliary Service – Demand invoking extended period – Revenue neutral scenario – HELD - the activity that is sought to be brought within the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ is the handling of warranty claims and monitoring of repair and maintenance services - The entire demand is on the amount paid by the appellant to the Overseas Distributors for the warranty claims. The adjudicating authority is of the opinion that when the Overseas Distributors establish the network of Authorized Repairers for carrying out the warranty claims on behalf of the appellant, the said activity would be customer care service and also provision of service on behalf of the client - though the Overseas Distributors may have carried out the repair and maintenance services and established the network of Authorized Repairers for the benefit of the manufacturer, the Overseas Distributors have not directly carried out any service to the customer. However, when the Overseas Distributor is establishing the network of Authorized Repairers for carrying out the warranty responsibility of the appellant, indeed, this will satisfy ‘customer care services’ provided on behalf of the client contained in sub-Clause (iii) of the definition of BAS, and would be taxable - When a series of audits have been conducted by the Department, the allegation of suppression has to be established by a positive act on the part of the appellant wherein there is cogent evidence to establish an intention to evade payment of Service Tax. Moreover, in the present case, even if the Service Tax is paid as demanded by the Department, the appellant would be eligible to avail credit of the same. Thus, the situation is wholly a revenue neutral one. The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked alleging intention to evade payment of Service Tax when the entire transaction amounts to a revenue neutral situation – on the issue of demand for the period post 01.07.2012, the services of repair and maintenance are actually performed outside India. Section 66A applies only where the service is received in India. In this case, the BAS Service, viz., providing ‘customer care service’ on behalf of the appellant took place outside India. The same therefore cannot be taxable within India and hence, the demand post 01.07.2012, cannot sustain - The appeals are allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-279-TEL  | High Court VAT

Telangana VAT Act, 2005 - Challenge to order of assessment - expiry period of limitation – denial of benefit of composition under Section 4(7)(d) of the Act and - issue of demand notice – HELD - once it is found that the order of rejection of the appeal was served on the Authorized Representative, then it is a matter between the petitioner and the Authorized Representative. The Department was not at fault, as they had complied with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the petitioner could not have kept quiet for four years after the order of the Appellate Authority, to come up with the instant writ petition | issue o... [Read more]

Telangana VAT Act, 2005 - Challenge to order of assessment - expiry period of limitation – denial of benefit of composition under Section 4(7)(d) of the Act and - issue of demand notice – HELD - once it is found that the order of rejection of the appeal was served on the Authorized Representative, then it is a matter between the petitioner and the Authorized Representative. The Department was not at fault, as they had complied with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the petitioner could not have kept quiet for four years after the order of the Appellate Authority, to come up with the instant writ petition | issue on merit - Under Rule 17(4)(b), the dealer should notify the prescribed authority in Form VAT 250, of his intention to avail composition for all works specified in clause (a) undertaken by him. But, the pre-condition is that the notification by the dealer to the prescribed authority should be before the commencement of the execution of the work - The petitioner did not file Form VAT 250 before commencement of the work. Therefore, the petitioner never exercised his option in a manner prescribed by Section 4(7)(d) of the Act and hence, he cannot claim the benefit of composition – The question whether there was suppression and the question whether enlarged period of limitation will apply on account of suppression, are all mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have raised them in the appeal by filing it within time and by complying with the conditions for filing of the appeal in the proper form. Since the petitioner has failed to do so, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed – the writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-281-GUJ  | High Court VAT

CST Act, 1956 – Section 2(d) - Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 - Petitioner seeking to incorporate of High Speed Diesel Oil in the registration certificate under the CST Act, 1956 - Whether upon the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby the definition of goods in the CST Act came to be amended, CST Registrations of dealers other than those dealing in the specified goods would automatically become inactive - Whether a dealer who is registered under the GST Act cannot also be registered under the CST Act, when the CST Act requires a person who deals in or claims usage of the goods specifi... [Read more]

CST Act, 1956 – Section 2(d) - Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 - Petitioner seeking to incorporate of High Speed Diesel Oil in the registration certificate under the CST Act, 1956 - Whether upon the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby the definition of goods in the CST Act came to be amended, CST Registrations of dealers other than those dealing in the specified goods would automatically become inactive - Whether a dealer who is registered under the GST Act cannot also be registered under the CST Act, when the CST Act requires a person who deals in or claims usage of the goods specified thereunder to be registered under that Act for getting the benefit of reduced rate of tax under section 8 thereof – HELD - the GVAT Act provides for automatic deregistration of dealers not dealing with goods denied in section 2(13) thereof, whereas no such provision providing for automatic deregistration of dealers under the CST Act has been made in the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby amendments were made in the Central Sales Tax Act. It is therefore clear that when the legislature wants to provide for automatic cancellation of the registration granted under an enactment, it is expressly provided in such enactment. Since no such provision has been made in the CST Act, no such intention can be read into it and consequently, upon the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby the definition of goods in the CST Act came to be amended, CST registrations of dealers other than those dealing in the specified commodities would not become inactive automatically - the contention of the Department that as the petitioners are dealers who are registered under the GST Act, they cannot be registered under the CST Act, does not merit acceptance. If a dealer is dealing in goods falling within the ambit of the GST Act as well as the CST Act, it is always permissible for him to hold separate registrations under both the Acts in respect of such goods. Therefore, a dealer who is registered under the GST Act can also be registered under the CST Act in respect of commodities which fall within the ambit of the expression “goods” as defined under section 2(d) thereof for getting the benefit of reduced rate of tax under section 8 of the CST Act - the petitions succeed and are accordingly, allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-366-CESTAT-CHE-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - The appellant availed cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by their head office – SCN alleging that the ISD has wrongly distributed the service tax credit by not following the principle of proportionate to the turnover of sales – revenue seeking recovery for credit - HELD - the entire demand is not sustainable on the ground that Rule 7 of CCR 2004 during the relevant period did not prescribe any formula for distribution of cenvat credit by the ISD - no case has been made out by the department for invoking extended period of limitation in as much as mere not indicating the formula adopted f... [Read more]

Central Excise - The appellant availed cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by their head office – SCN alleging that the ISD has wrongly distributed the service tax credit by not following the principle of proportionate to the turnover of sales – revenue seeking recovery for credit - HELD - the entire demand is not sustainable on the ground that Rule 7 of CCR 2004 during the relevant period did not prescribe any formula for distribution of cenvat credit by the ISD - no case has been made out by the department for invoking extended period of limitation in as much as mere not indicating the formula adopted for distribution of cenvat credit does not amount to suppression of facts as there was no obligation upon the assessee to disclose the formula adopted by them – further, the cenvat credit distributed by the ISD cannot be modified by a recipient of the ISD invoices namely appellant. The impugned order is not sustainable on all the three grounds - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-280-BOM-CE  | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Larger Bench – cash refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit - Whether cash refund is permissible in terms of clause (c) to the proviso to section 11B(2) of the CEA, 1944 where an assessee is unable to utilize credit on inputs - Whether by exercising power under Section 11B of the said Act of 1944, a refund of un-utilised amount of Cenvat Credit on account of the closure of manufacturing activities can be granted - Whether what is observed in the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd. can be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the C... [Read more]

Central Excise – Larger Bench – cash refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit - Whether cash refund is permissible in terms of clause (c) to the proviso to section 11B(2) of the CEA, 1944 where an assessee is unable to utilize credit on inputs - Whether by exercising power under Section 11B of the said Act of 1944, a refund of un-utilised amount of Cenvat Credit on account of the closure of manufacturing activities can be granted - Whether what is observed in the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd. can be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India – HELD – in the section 11B of CEA, 1944, the crucial words are that “the refund of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made or any notification issued under this Act”. If the excisable goods are not used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, there is no question of any refund - refund of Cenvat Credit is permissible where any input is used for the final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intermediate products cleared for export. In the scheme of the rules, therefore, what is sought by the assessee is not permissible. Thus, the attempt by the assessee to claim refund of un-utilised Cenvat Credit cannot be upheld. Merely because the inputs were lying un-utilised or were capable of being utilised, but the manufacturing activities came to a standstill on account of closure of the factory would not enable the assessee to claim refund of Cenvat Credit – in the case of Slovak India, when the aggrieved Revenue carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed but the question of law was expressly kept open. It is in these circumstances that we are not in agreement with assessee that the issue or the controversy stands concluded against the Revenue. The question of law was still open to be raised and equally examined by us. There is no question of judicial discipline in such matters - the questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue [Read less]

2019-VIL-32-NAA  | National Anti/Profiteering Authority SGST

GST - National Anti-Profiteering Authority – Applicant’s complain that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction in the price of flat – HELD - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not envisage to take into account the costs incurred on the construction but only requires that the benefit of Input Tax Credit if any extended by the Government should be invariably passed on to the end consumer. The real estate business might be spread over a period of 4-5 years but it is also a fact that the flats are sold in instalments without waiting for completion of the proje... [Read more]

GST - National Anti-Profiteering Authority – Applicant’s complain that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction in the price of flat – HELD - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 does not envisage to take into account the costs incurred on the construction but only requires that the benefit of Input Tax Credit if any extended by the Government should be invariably passed on to the end consumer. The real estate business might be spread over a period of 4-5 years but it is also a fact that the flats are sold in instalments without waiting for completion of the project or the completion certificate. Hence the question of waiting endlessly to pass on the benefit of ITC to the buyer who has already paid the entire instalments is not justified and the provisions of the above section also do not provide that such benefit should be passed on completion of the project - the DGAP has rightly taken into account the estimated reversals on the unsold flats and accordingly arrived at the profiteered amount. Therefore the contention of the Respondent is irrelevant and cannot be accepted – the project has been completed and the completion certificate has also been received, therefore the turnover on the sold flats, the ITC benefit as per returns and the details of unsold flats are all known and available as per the records filed by the Respondent himself. Therefore, the factors to determine the benefit of Input Tax Credit have attained finality and hence the calculation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP is absolutely correct – the Authority orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats commensurate with the benefit of Input Tax Credit received by him – answered in favour of applicant [Read less]

2019-VIL-158-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR – taxability of second hand goods – the liability will be discharged by the applicant on the difference between selling price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017 only in respect of old cars, old jewellery and old watches - (i) Paintings as described by the applicant will be classifiable under Heading 9701 and the applicant must pay GST of 12% on the sale value (ii) Old Cars - Motor Vehicles fall under Heading 8703 of the GST Tariff. All the items under 8703 attract 28% GST except Tariff item 870310 10; Sub-heading 8703 80. However old cars attract a lower rate of ... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR – taxability of second hand goods – the liability will be discharged by the applicant on the difference between selling price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017 only in respect of old cars, old jewellery and old watches - (i) Paintings as described by the applicant will be classifiable under Heading 9701 and the applicant must pay GST of 12% on the sale value (ii) Old Cars - Motor Vehicles fall under Heading 8703 of the GST Tariff. All the items under 8703 attract 28% GST except Tariff item 870310 10; Sub-heading 8703 80. However old cars attract a lower rate of tax as per Notification No. 08/2018 CT (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. As per the said Notification, the lesser rate of tax i.e. 18% is applicable to old cars provided the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. Except submitting that they are dealing in old cars, they have not submitted any other details. It is also seen that the provisions of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules are applicable to them, subject to the conditions of the Notification No. 08/2018 CT (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 being satisfied by them - (iii) Old Jewellery: - Articles of jewellery and parts thereof falls under Heading 7113 of the GST Tariff. The provisions of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules are applicable to them in respect of old jewellery which are purchased by them and then sold by them - (iv) Antique jewellery of age exceeding 100 years: - Antique jewellery of age exceeding 100 years will fall under Tariff item 9706 00 00 and will be liable to tax @ 12% GST. The provisions of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules will not be applicable to them in this case - (v) Old watches: - Wrist watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stop-watches, with case of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal fall under CH 9101 of the GST Tariff and Wrist watches, pocket-watches and other watches, including stop-watches, other than those of Heading 9101 fall under Heading 9102 of the said Tariff. The rate of GST is 18% and the same is applicable even to Old Watches, however with the benefit of the provisions of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules i.e. tax will be paid on the difference between sale price and purchase price considering such watches as second hand goods - (vi) Antique watches of age exceeding 100 years: - Antique watches of age exceeding 100 years will fall under Tariff item 9706 00 00 and will be liable to tax @ 12% GST. The provisions of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules will not be applicable to them in this case - (vii) Collectibles: - In view of the discussions above the question cannot be answered - (viii) Collectibles (Books): - In the subject case the goods, if it is in the form of printed books, newspapers, pictures, etc, will fall under the various sub headings of Chapter 49 of the GST Tariff as the case may be. The Residual Entry mentioned above will only applicable to goods which are not specified in Schedule 1, II, IV, V or VI. The specific details and description of 'collectibles (books)' has not been mentioned by the applicant and in the absence of specifics the question cannot be answered - (ix) Antique Books:- If the antique books are under 100 years of age then they will be classified under the appropriate Heading of the GST Tariff. Antique books of less than 100 years of age, if it is in the form of printed books, newspapers, pictures, etc, will fall under the various sub headings of Chapter 49 of the GST Tariff as the case may be. Antique books exceeding 100 years of age will be covered under Tariff item 9706 00 00 and will be liable to tax @ 12% GST. Since specific details and description of 'collectibles (books)' has not been mentioned by the applicant the question cannot be answered [Read less]

2019-VIL-363-CESTAT-CHE-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - department of the view that the appellants have wrongly availed credit on inputs and input services which are used in the final product namely “Streptokinase” which is exempt from payment of central excise duty – SCN proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit of duty – extended period of limitation – HELD - the department was fully aware that the appellant was classifying the goods under 35079061 - The documents show that the appellants have informed all the details with regard to classification and the rate of duty adopted by them in the letters issued by them to the department - When the d... [Read more]

Central Excise - department of the view that the appellants have wrongly availed credit on inputs and input services which are used in the final product namely “Streptokinase” which is exempt from payment of central excise duty – SCN proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit of duty – extended period of limitation – HELD - the department was fully aware that the appellant was classifying the goods under 35079061 - The documents show that the appellants have informed all the details with regard to classification and the rate of duty adopted by them in the letters issued by them to the department - When the department itself has earlier accepted the classification adopted by the appellant and demanded higher rate of duty @ 8% from the appellant, the allegation that the appellant has wrongly paid duty without availing the exemption and thus intended to avail wrong credit can at no stretch of imagination be accepted - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation [Read less]

2019-VIL-361-CESTAT-BLR-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – 100% EOU unit – Rejection of refund for being time-barred as the date of issue of invoice is more than one year prior to refund claim – assessee in appeal – HELD as per the provisions of Rule 5, it is clear that the time limit, if any has to be counted from the relevant period in which the credit was availed and in the period in which services were received. Therefore, the basis on which the refund is rejected is not correct and not in accordance with law - the refund is claimed within the period of one year from the relevant date when the credit was availed, therefore, the refund is not time-barre... [Read more]

Central Excise – 100% EOU unit – Rejection of refund for being time-barred as the date of issue of invoice is more than one year prior to refund claim – assessee in appeal – HELD as per the provisions of Rule 5, it is clear that the time limit, if any has to be counted from the relevant period in which the credit was availed and in the period in which services were received. Therefore, the basis on which the refund is rejected is not correct and not in accordance with law - the refund is claimed within the period of one year from the relevant date when the credit was availed, therefore, the refund is not time-barred - the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant [Read less]

2019-VIL-155-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

EMMES METALS PRIVATE LTD: 29.12.2018 - GST – Maharashtra AAR - applicability of Notification No. 47/2017 dt. 14.11.2017 in respect of supply of Aluminium Alloys to M/s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) – whether the supply is chargeable at concessional rate of GST 5% or taxable at 18% - HELD - "Aluminum Alloy" having HSN Code No.76012010, supplied by the applicant to GTRE is not eligible for concessional rate of GST and Notification No. 47/2017, IGST (Tax) dt.14.11.2017, is not applicable to the transaction undertaken by the applicant. The subject supply will be liable to be taxed @18%

2019-VIL-157-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR – the applicant is proposing to setup a Investment Vehicle-AIF Fund - Whether GST is applicable on the Advisory & Management Fees received in Indian Currency from Domestic Contributors located in India for the Services rendered by the applicant – HELD - the applicant and the AIF are in taxable territory and the services rendered by the applicant to the AIF are taxable and therefore GST is payable, by application of the provisions of Section 12(12) of the IGST Act, 2017 | Whether GST is applicable on the Advisory & Management Fees received in Foreign Currency from Overseas Contributors located ou... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR – the applicant is proposing to setup a Investment Vehicle-AIF Fund - Whether GST is applicable on the Advisory & Management Fees received in Indian Currency from Domestic Contributors located in India for the Services rendered by the applicant – HELD - the applicant and the AIF are in taxable territory and the services rendered by the applicant to the AIF are taxable and therefore GST is payable, by application of the provisions of Section 12(12) of the IGST Act, 2017 | Whether GST is applicable on the Advisory & Management Fees received in Foreign Currency from Overseas Contributors located outside India for the Services rendered by the applicant – HELD - the Advisory and management Services are provided to the AIF, which is a separate legal entity which makes investment decisions on the advice of the applicant and therefore Section 12(12) of IGST Act, 2017 will apply as both supplier and the recipient of service are located in India - we do not agree with the applicant's contention that the transaction with foreign investors should be determined in terms of Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 because the recipient of service i.e. AIF is not located outside India and the applicant are not providing any services to the Overseas Contributors - The transaction also do not qualify to be an export of service as the condition specified in sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of IGST Act, 2017 that recipient of service should be outside India, is not satisfied, and therefore it is not a zero rated supply [Read less]

2019-VIL-156-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Whether the applicants are eligible to avail Input Tax Credit of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipeline, for delivery of re-gasified LNG front Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) to the National Grid – applicant contention that the tie-in pipeline qualifies as "plant and machinery' as defined under Explanation to Section 17(5) of the CGST Act – HELD - Having found that the FRSU is a 'factory' and that the pipeline to be laid is 'outside the factory' and that the said pipeline does not qualify to be an 'equipment, apparatus or machinery' for the purpose ... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Whether the applicants are eligible to avail Input Tax Credit of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipeline, for delivery of re-gasified LNG front Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) to the National Grid – applicant contention that the tie-in pipeline qualifies as "plant and machinery' as defined under Explanation to Section 17(5) of the CGST Act – HELD - Having found that the FRSU is a 'factory' and that the pipeline to be laid is 'outside the factory' and that the said pipeline does not qualify to be an 'equipment, apparatus or machinery' for the purpose of claiming Input Tax Credit, the restriction on availment of ITC under Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) is applicable in the present case - The applicants are not eligible to avail Input Tax Credit of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipeline, for delivery of re-gasified LNG from FSRU to the National Grid [Read less]

2019-VIL-360-CESTAT-BLR-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Rejection of refund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant had not submitted documents towards proof of reversal of refund claimed amount and declaration of non-carry forward of CENVAT credit to TRAN-1 – HELD – Appellant submitted that no reversal in Service Tax could be made since at the time of filing of the refund claim the Service Tax was abolished and GST was in place and hence no returns for Service Tax could be filed - the appellant had filed NIL TRAN-1 Return under GST and had not carried forward any input credit - rejection of the refund on the ground that th... [Read more]

Service Tax - Rejection of refund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant had not submitted documents towards proof of reversal of refund claimed amount and declaration of non-carry forward of CENVAT credit to TRAN-1 – HELD – Appellant submitted that no reversal in Service Tax could be made since at the time of filing of the refund claim the Service Tax was abolished and GST was in place and hence no returns for Service Tax could be filed - the appellant had filed NIL TRAN-1 Return under GST and had not carried forward any input credit - rejection of the refund on the ground that the appellants have not debited the CENVAT account before filing the refund claim which is in violation of Para 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 is not sustainable in law - Further, as the appellant had filed NIL TRAN-1 Return under GST and had not carried forward the input credit, the appellant is entitled to the refund claim – matter remanded to the original authority with a direction to verify the documents pertaining to reversal of credit in terms of Para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 - The appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]

2019-VIL-362-CESTAT-MUM-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Appellant seeking to quash the penalties imposed on them under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962- mis-declaration of assessable value – HELD - Two elements of the operative portion of the impugned order are novel and, to say the least, bizarre: on the one hand, the evidence lined up by the investigation has been collated to arrive at the conclusion that the imported goods be assessed at ‘nil’ value and that the shipper on record is non-existent and, yet, redemption fine has been determined on value as scrap and penalty imposed on the non-existent entity - Mere application of the Rules for e... [Read more]

Customs - Appellant seeking to quash the penalties imposed on them under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962- mis-declaration of assessable value – HELD - Two elements of the operative portion of the impugned order are novel and, to say the least, bizarre: on the one hand, the evidence lined up by the investigation has been collated to arrive at the conclusion that the imported goods be assessed at ‘nil’ value and that the shipper on record is non-existent and, yet, redemption fine has been determined on value as scrap and penalty imposed on the non-existent entity - Mere application of the Rules for enhancement of value does not carry with it the stigma of mis-declaration - it will be essential for an adjudicating authority to establish that the difference between the assessed value and the declared value arises from circumstances in which there has been an attempt to conceal the real transaction in money. In the absence of such evidence, goods that are burdened with re-valuation, conceived from comparison with other imports, should not be further burdened by confiscation which was intended as a definitive consequence of the committing of an offence - the discharge of onus to establish mis-declaration is only peripheral as a presumed relationship between the exporter and the importer was held to suffice for indulging in re-valuation - in addition to the inexplicability of resort to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the penalties have been imposed under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 with reference to the value adopted for the purposes of redemption of the confiscated goods and that penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 has stemmed from confiscation for alleged mis-declaration of value. It is only logical and rational to expect the equal application of value, assuming that adoption of such value is sanctified by law, for all purposes under the Act; we find here that while the value has been determined as ‘nil’ for assessment of the bills of entry, a different value has been insinuated for redemption with the ostensible justification of the goods being ‘scrap’ in which we find a fundamental contradiction. If the goods are redeemable, for being ‘scrap’, the nature of the ‘scrap’ should have been determined with reference to the heading in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as duty liability should inevitably be discharged even on ‘scrap’. This leap of ‘unreason’ is neither consistent with section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 mandating levy of duty on goods nor with section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 mandating discharge of duty liability on redeemed goods - There can be no offence in re-import of validly exported goods. Though facts have been collated to consider the impugned goods as re-imported, there is no evidence on record of exports having taken place. It would be reasonable to presume that re-import must be evidenced by the factum of export or, in the absence of such, by allegation of wrongful export. In the clear absence of record of export, no credence can be given to this assumption, without invoking the consequence of illicit export, and which has then gone on to attribute responsibility for such to the appellants herein. The penalties must fail on that flimsiness too - Whether on a claim for exemption under notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17 March 2012 or the exemption governing goods of Indian origin, there is no duty implication. The declaration, acceptable or otherwise, in the bill of entry is, therefore, of no consequence. In these circumstances, the scope for imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 does not arise - the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeals [Read less]

2019-VIL-278-MAD-CE  | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Whether the product ‘Eco Bath Wipes’ is classifiable under CETH 34029091 or under CETH 33073090 – petitioner seeking retest of product – HELD – the ld. Central Government Standing Counsel very fairly submits that a retest shall be conducted, but the same has to be by way of an application to the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as contained in paragraph 8.8 of the Basic Excise Manual - Besides paying prescribed fee all other attendant requirements which are necessary for retest shall be adhered to by the writ petitioner - retest has to be done in accordance with the Basic Excise ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Whether the product ‘Eco Bath Wipes’ is classifiable under CETH 34029091 or under CETH 33073090 – petitioner seeking retest of product – HELD – the ld. Central Government Standing Counsel very fairly submits that a retest shall be conducted, but the same has to be by way of an application to the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as contained in paragraph 8.8 of the Basic Excise Manual - Besides paying prescribed fee all other attendant requirements which are necessary for retest shall be adhered to by the writ petitioner - retest has to be done in accordance with the Basic Excise Manual. Thereafter, respondent shall take a decision on the impugned SCN within 30 days from the date of receipt of reply to the show cause notice in accordance with law – writ petition is disposed [Read less]

2019-VIL-277-BOM-ST  | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Revenue in appeal challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it holds that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case – availment of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs utilised for providing exempted services – HELD - The impugned order of Tribunal holds that the respondent was not entitled to avail of input credit to the extent the same have been utilised in providing Life Insurance service under the Traditional Golden Plan as it was in the nature of exempted service – However, the Tribunal found on facts that the respondent had bonafide belief that they ... [Read more]

Service Tax – Revenue in appeal challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it holds that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case – availment of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs utilised for providing exempted services – HELD - The impugned order of Tribunal holds that the respondent was not entitled to avail of input credit to the extent the same have been utilised in providing Life Insurance service under the Traditional Golden Plan as it was in the nature of exempted service – However, the Tribunal found on facts that the respondent had bonafide belief that they are entitled to avail of Cenvat credit even in respect of inputs utilised for providing exempted services - The impugned order places reliance upon the letter addressed by the CST, Mumbai to Joint Secretary of CBEC to the effect that the Life Insurance Companies have all availed Cenvat credit under a bonafide belief that they are entitled to the same. This also supports the view that across the Life Insurance Industry that they are entitled to Cenvat credit in respect of entire Life Insurance business which had been carried out by them - the issue really is one of interpretation and the extended period in such case could not be invoked – the impugned order is sustained and Department appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-276-BOM  | High Court SGST

CGST/MGST Act, 2017 - Appealability of the order passed by Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling – Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - principles of natural justice - HELD - we do not propose to examine the impugned orders Appellate Authority on their substantive merits or de-merits, merely because CGST/MGST Act, 2017 have not provided for any further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority. Any such attempt, would virtually amount to converting these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which are essentially proceedings seeking judicial review, into appellate proceedings - The... [Read more]

CGST/MGST Act, 2017 - Appealability of the order passed by Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling – Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - principles of natural justice - HELD - we do not propose to examine the impugned orders Appellate Authority on their substantive merits or de-merits, merely because CGST/MGST Act, 2017 have not provided for any further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority. Any such attempt, would virtually amount to converting these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which are essentially proceedings seeking judicial review, into appellate proceedings - The circumstance that the CGST/MGST Act, 2017 have provided for no further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority, will have to be respected and the validity or otherwise of the impugned orders will have to be examined by applying the principles of judicial review and not the principles which apply in case of an appeal - merely because no appeal is provided for, against the order of Appellate Authority directing compulsory acquisition by the Government, the supervisory power of the High Court does not get enlarged nor can the High Court exercise an appellate power - Therefore, the Court decline the plea of the petitioner to go into the merits of the impugned orders merely because the Statutes in question have not provided any further appeals in such matters. The challenge in this petition will have to be examined by confining to the principles of judicial review, which will include the issue as to whether there has been a failure of natural justice at the appeal stage [Read less]

2019-VIL-358-CESTAT-ALH-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - For the month of January 2008 appellant had discharged part of their duty liability on 15 February, 2008 by debiting their cenvat account and remaining duty liability were discharged through PLA payments on 26 February, 2008 and 12 March, 2008 - Revenue of the view that till the month of May, 2008 there was default in payment of duty by the appellant and since there was no balance in the cenvat account, there is contravention of provision of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 – SCN for recovery of duty – HELD – there is no one to one co-relation between raw material and finished goods and therefore ... [Read more]

Central Excise - For the month of January 2008 appellant had discharged part of their duty liability on 15 February, 2008 by debiting their cenvat account and remaining duty liability were discharged through PLA payments on 26 February, 2008 and 12 March, 2008 - Revenue of the view that till the month of May, 2008 there was default in payment of duty by the appellant and since there was no balance in the cenvat account, there is contravention of provision of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 – SCN for recovery of duty – HELD – there is no one to one co-relation between raw material and finished goods and therefore to restrict utilization of credit earned up to the last date of duty payment is contrary to the principals of Cenvat Credit Rules and therefore the Hon’ble High Court has held that Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 is ultra vires - after applying the said ruling of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court to the present case the debit of Cenvat account on 15 February, 2008 for payment of Central Excise duty for the month of January, 2008 is in accordance with law. Therefore, the default remained only from 05 March, 2008 to 12 March, 2008. Further, during the period from 05 March, 2008 to 12 March, 2008 there was no payment of central excise duty through debit of cenvat credit. Therefore, in both the appeals there were no grounds to invoke provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules - the impugned orders are not sustainable and set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-275-BOM-CU  | High Court Case CUSTOMS

Customs – Confiscation of cosmetic goods imported through Goa Port - whether term 'cosmetics' as defined under Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could be hit by the restriction contained in Rule 133 read with Rule 43-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – HELD – It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the Respondent are cosmetics and they could not have been imported into India, except through points of entry specified under Rule 43-A. The argument of the Respondent is that the goods, which falls under the description of 'substances not intended for medicinal use', are exempt from the pr... [Read more]

Customs – Confiscation of cosmetic goods imported through Goa Port - whether term 'cosmetics' as defined under Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could be hit by the restriction contained in Rule 133 read with Rule 43-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – HELD – It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the Respondent are cosmetics and they could not have been imported into India, except through points of entry specified under Rule 43-A. The argument of the Respondent is that the goods, which falls under the description of 'substances not intended for medicinal use', are exempt from the provisions of Chapter III of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules made thereunder to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule - It is obvious that any article qualifying as 'cosmetic', within the definition contained in Section 3(aaa), cannot be called 'substance' within the meaning of the definition of 'drug' contained in Clause (b) of Section 3. Any interpretation to the contrary would render the definition of cosmetic, and in particular the restrictions on import contained in the Act and the Rules in respect of cosmetics, completely nugatory - The Respondent's argument that cosmetics imported by it fell under the category of substance, in terms of Schedule D under Rule 43, thus, holds no water - The Tribunal appears to have misdirected itself into considering the issue as to whether the goods imported by the Respondent were medicinal goods or not - Once it is held that the import of goods by the Respondent is contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 133 of the Rules, it is a foregone conclusion that the goods are improperly imported, and are liable for confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The action of the Commissioner in confiscating the goods, accordingly, cannot be faulted - The impugned Order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and Department appeal is allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-273-BOM-ST  | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – GTA service - appellant paid service tax as well as the interest before the issuance of show cause notice - Appellant case that in view of section 73(3) of the Act the revenue could not have issued a show cause cum demand notice under section 73(1) of the Act when the service tax as well as the interest was paid much before the issuance of SCN - bonafide belief of non-liability of service tax – HELD - It is only during the course of EA 2000 audit that the non-payment of service tax on the part of the Appellant was discovered by the revenue - it is not open to the Appellant to take benefit of section 73(3)... [Read more]

Service Tax – GTA service - appellant paid service tax as well as the interest before the issuance of show cause notice - Appellant case that in view of section 73(3) of the Act the revenue could not have issued a show cause cum demand notice under section 73(1) of the Act when the service tax as well as the interest was paid much before the issuance of SCN - bonafide belief of non-liability of service tax – HELD - It is only during the course of EA 2000 audit that the non-payment of service tax on the part of the Appellant was discovered by the revenue - it is not open to the Appellant to take benefit of section 73(3) of the Act as the non-payment of the service tax was on account of suppression with a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. Thus in view of section 73(4) of the Act, the benefit of section 73 (3) of the Act, claimed by the Appellant would not be available - The contention that there was a bonafide belief that the Appellant are not liable to pay the service tax is not supported by any reasonable explanation. The bonafide belief that one is not liable to pay the tax has to be based on some facts on record which led to the belief. It is not the Appellant's case that the belief based on a ruling of the some authority that it not liable to pay service tax on outward transportation. A mere statement to the effect that the Appellant was under a bonafide belief of non liability of paying tax cannot be accepted in the face of clear provision of law - the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable - the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-274-TEL  | High Court SGST

CGST Act, 2017 – Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order directing for payment of interest on the entire amount inclusive of the Input Tax Credit availed and also penalty payable under Section 122(iii) of the CGST Act, failing which, there would be initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST Act – petitioner case that the recovery order has been passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing - efficacious alternative remedy - HELD - The present writ petition is highly misplaced as Section 107 of the Act clearly provides an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach ... [Read more]

CGST Act, 2017 – Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order directing for payment of interest on the entire amount inclusive of the Input Tax Credit availed and also penalty payable under Section 122(iii) of the CGST Act, failing which, there would be initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST Act – petitioner case that the recovery order has been passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing - efficacious alternative remedy - HELD - The present writ petition is highly misplaced as Section 107 of the Act clearly provides an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that generally, a writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, in case the efficacious alternative remedy is available - Even otherwise, the petitioner has approached this Court in order to circumvent the efficacious alternative remedy as in terms of Section 107(6) of the Act, an appeal can be filed provided the appellant makes the statutory deposit before the appellate authority. It is only in order to escape the said liability the petitioner has rushed to this Court - Even if the petitioner is of the opinion that the principles of natural justice have been violated, he is free to raise the said plea before the appellate authority - the Court is not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-272-P&H  | High Court VAT

Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Review application seeking reviewing of Larger Bench Order - whether power of revision under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 can be invoked after 1.4.2003 (the date Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force repealing the 1973 Act) in cases where no revision proceedings were pending under the repealed Act – HELD - There is no dispute on the fact that in both these cases no revisional proceedings were pending on 1.4.2003 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that Section 61 of the 2003 Act saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act i.e. 19... [Read more]

Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Review application seeking reviewing of Larger Bench Order - whether power of revision under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 can be invoked after 1.4.2003 (the date Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 came into force repealing the 1973 Act) in cases where no revision proceedings were pending under the repealed Act – HELD - There is no dispute on the fact that in both these cases no revisional proceedings were pending on 1.4.2003 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that Section 61 of the 2003 Act saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act i.e. 1973 Act - The pin pointed issue decided is that no proceedings under Section 40 of the 1973 Act can be initiated after 1.4.2003 in cases in the absence of pendency of any proceedings - The endeavour in the review applications is to get the matter reheard. The scope in review proceedings is very limited. It is only in cases where there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record – since no error apparent on the face of record is made out, no case is made out for reviewing the order of the Larger Bench - the review applications are dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-356-CESTAT-MUM-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - export of services – Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit – HELD - the Department has consistently held that the services rendered by the Appellant to Qualcomm, USA are in the nature of BAS and recipient of said service since located outside India and the payments are received in foreign exchange, therefore, the services fall under the category of Rule 3(iii) of Export of Services, 2005, accordingly, cash refund of CENVAT Credit accumulated is admissible – in the earlier refund claims and also subsequent refund claims allowing cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CCR 2004, the departm... [Read more]

Service Tax - export of services – Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit – HELD - the Department has consistently held that the services rendered by the Appellant to Qualcomm, USA are in the nature of BAS and recipient of said service since located outside India and the payments are received in foreign exchange, therefore, the services fall under the category of Rule 3(iii) of Export of Services, 2005, accordingly, cash refund of CENVAT Credit accumulated is admissible – in the earlier refund claims and also subsequent refund claims allowing cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CCR 2004, the department has accepted that the service rendered by the Appellant to Qualcomm, USA are export services - no evidence has been placed indicating that on the said issue appeal has been filed against these orders by the Revenue and ultimately it is held to be not an export services by any Appellate forum. Therefore, denial of cash refund of accumulated credit due to export of service for the interregnum period is unsustainable - Similarly, the credit of the input services availed at their Delhi unit which was denied on the ground that no output service is provided from Delhi, has been held to be incorrect and consequently cash refund on this count has been held to be admissible - The credit on the input services viz. Rent a cab service, convention service, club or association service used in rendering output service availed prior to 01.4.2011 held to input service within the definition of ‘input service’, hence, credit is admissible – assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

2019-VIL-357-CESTAT-MUM-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Appellant provided services to overseas recipients in respect of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics standalone services (DMPK) under Contract Research Agreements – Revenue claim that services do not qualify as “Export of Services” in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 r/w Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 – demand of service tax with interest and penalties – HELD - for the services to be treated as export of service post 2012, the service provided needs to be tested in terms of rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with POPS Rules. As per (d) of Rule 6A(1), for service to b... [Read more]

Service Tax - Appellant provided services to overseas recipients in respect of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics standalone services (DMPK) under Contract Research Agreements – Revenue claim that services do not qualify as “Export of Services” in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 r/w Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 – demand of service tax with interest and penalties – HELD - for the services to be treated as export of service post 2012, the service provided needs to be tested in terms of rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with POPS Rules. As per (d) of Rule 6A(1), for service to be export of service, the place of provision of service should be outside India. Appellants have argued relying on the provisions of the POPS Rules and para 5.4.1 of the Education Guide that place of provision of the service in their case is outside India - we are not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that in case of DMPK Standalone Studies, where NCE has been made available to them by the overseas client for undertaking the said studies, the services will be covered by Rule 3 of POPS and hence Export of Services under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - appellant have conducted DMPK Studies in respect of the NCE’s provided to them by the overseas client. Rule 4 do not put any conditions in respect of alteration or alternation of the goods provided by the service recipient. Reading anything beyond what has been provided in the rules/ statue cannot be proper interpretation put to rules - The taxes are to be determined as per the taxing statue and it is for legislator and tax policy makers to determine as to what should be taxed and what should not be taxed - In case something falls within the scheme of taxation the same cannot be exempted till specifically exempted by a proper notification. In the present, the activities under taken by the appellants in terms of DMPK studies squarely fall within the scheme of Rule 4 of POPS Rules, and hence the location of service provider shall be place of provision of service which is in India and hence cannot be treated as export of service in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 – the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed [Read less]

2019-VIL-359-CESTAT-CHD-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - show cause notices to UP based manufacturers to deny cenvat credit availed on goods purchased from J&K based suppliers – SCN to various J&K based manufactures raising demand of duty refunded to them who are availing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 – appellant in appeal against the impugned order denying cenvat credit and levy of penalty – HELD - in this case the sole allegation against the Jammu based manufacturer are based on the investigation conducted by CCE, Merrut, and as per the investigation, it is alleged that farmers from whom the inputs were purchased... [Read more]

Central Excise - show cause notices to UP based manufacturers to deny cenvat credit availed on goods purchased from J&K based suppliers – SCN to various J&K based manufactures raising demand of duty refunded to them who are availing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 – appellant in appeal against the impugned order denying cenvat credit and levy of penalty – HELD - in this case the sole allegation against the Jammu based manufacturer are based on the investigation conducted by CCE, Merrut, and as per the investigation, it is alleged that farmers from whom the inputs were purchased were non-existence. Therefore, commission agents never supplied inputs to the Jammu based manufacturer and the Jammu based manufacturer did not manufacture the goods. Consequently, they have not sold the goods and it was alleged that the Jammu based manufacturer has not manufactured the goods at all – No investigation was conducted at the end of the Jammu based manufacturer and whole case has been based on the investigation conducted at CCE, Merrut-II. Without investigation it cannot be held that the Jammu based manufacturer were not manufacturer during the impugned period. Moreover, the entries of vehicles at the toll barriers also certified that the movements of raw material and finished goods – further, the during the period of investigation itself, the Jammu based manufacturer were allowed to continue their activity by procuring inputs from UP based supplier and selling goods manufacturing to their buyer-appellant. During the course of investigation, itself shows that the allegation is only on the basis of the assumption and presumption, therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants were not manufactured the goods during the impugned period - the allegation against the appellant is not sustainable, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied – assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page