This annual round-up analytically summarizes all the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Orders of the CESTAT Benches of India reported at Taxscan.in during 2024.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) sets aside service tax demand against CIPLA on manufacturing & exporting of pharmaceutical products. It was found that the respondent-assessee is a holder of a letter of approval issued by the Development Commissioner for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products within the Special Economic Zone, Pithampur, Indore.
The two-member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed the amount claimed by way of refund claims has been paid under the reverse charge mechanism, for which they have furnished the certificate from the Chartered Accountant, bank statement, party-wise statements, and details of payment made to the service, provided that the service tax has been paid by them. The CESTAT held that services rendered by the appellant are fully exempted from service tax in terms of the provisions of the SEZ Act and the provisions thereof cannot be imposed on the respondent to deny the refund.
In a ruling related to Oriental Insurance Company, the Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has quashed the service tax demand on insurance auxiliary services and short accounts of insurance premium income. It was observed that the CENVAT credit of the group health insurance policy for the employees cannot be denied to the assessee.
The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has held that the appellant had correctly discharged service tax on “business support services” and, therefore, once the service tax stands paid on the transaction, it is not open to the department to seek its recovery again. The appellant states that they discharge service tax under “business support services” as the bank had provided space to the appellant along with ancillary facilities such as chairs and desks, and these infrastructural support services provided by the bank are covered under “business support services.” The service is not liable to tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
In the recent case, the Delhi bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), upheld a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant for attempting to export Triethanolamine without proper authorization and set aside the revocation of the appellant’s license and the forfeiture of the security deposit.
A coram of Justice Dilip Gupta ( President ) and P. V. Subba Roa ( Technical Member ) on considering the facts and circumstances of the case contended that the penalty for violation be upheld and to overturn the license revocation and security deposit forfeiture.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has quashed the denial of Central VAT Credit, alleging ineligibility at the manufacturer’s end without disputing credit availed by the Input Service Distributor ( ISD ) duly registered with the Central Excise Department.
It was observed that, “On perusal of the impugned order, other than alleging that these services are not used directly or indirectly or in relation to manufacture of final products, there is no specific finding to deny the credit. As correctly argued by the Ld. Counsel for appellant, the Cost Centres which are registered as input service distributors have to file periodical returns declaring the credit availed by them. These ISDs are subject to verification and audit by the jurisdictional authorities. There has been no dispute raised against these Cost Centres ( ISDs ) alleging that they have availed ineligible credit.” The tribunal bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) and Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) thus set aside the impugned order of denial of Cenvat Credit availed using invoices raised by the ISD – Cost Centres.
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that SBI Cards And Payment Service Ltd is not entitled to refund of Krishi Kalyan Cess ( KKC ).
The department contended that the refund has to be processed as per the existing law, and the existing law in this case was Chapter V of the Finance Act. As per the Larger Bench, refund of only that element of Cenvat is admissible to be refunded in cash as per the provisions of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 and which was permissible to be refunded under the existing law. There is no provision in the existing law to refund the Krishi Kalyan Cess in cash. The two member bench of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) held that the assessee is eligible for a cash refund of cesses lying as Cenvat credit balance as of 30.06.2017 in their accounts. While dismissing the appeals of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the appellants are not entitled to the refund of the KKC.
The CESTAT ( Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ) decided that using discounts across different car models is not allowed, based on Tata Motors Ltd ruling. They sided with the revenue on this issue but granted the appeal because the excise demand from the department was time barred.
The two member bench of D M Mishra and R. Bhagya Devi noted that the key issue was whether discounts for small/mid-segment cars could be applied to luxury models with higher duty rates or whether cross model utilisation of incentives/discounts are admissible
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled in favor of Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd., freeing the company from service tax on sales via “Take-Away” and “Home Delivery.”
The CESTAT bench of Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial) and Hemambika R.Priya, Member (Technical) thus held that, “Since the facts of the present case are absolutely identical and give rise to the issue of taxability of sale of food items through “Take Away” or “Home Delivery”, the activity is clearly of sale of food and does not involve any service element and, therefore, following the ratio of the judgements referred above, the activity of sale of food items by “Take Away” or “Home Delivery” by the appellant is not liable to service tax.” Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in New Delhi has ruled in favour of Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, quashing substantial service tax demands and penalties imposed on the company.
Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Hemambika R Priya, Member (Technical) held that Make My Trip qualified as a tour operator and, therefore, on the service of booking of accommodation of service, Make My Trip was entitled for the benefit of abatement, citing the earlier decision.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that the construction of a Formula 1 race track does not qualify for service tax exemption under the category of public roads. The decision upholds the service tax liability of Rs. 2.24 crore for Paramount Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta ( Judicial Member ) and Mrs. Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) noted that the race track, while technically a road, does not grant the public a right of access, which is a critical element for qualifying as a public road under the exemption notification.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has quashed a demand order issued by the revenue department for service tax on construction services provided to educational institutions.
The bench, comprising Sulekha Beevi.C.S ( Judicial Member ) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao ( Technical Member ), held in favour of the appellant. The tribunal referred to the Board’s Circular No.80/10/2004-ST, which clarified that such constructions are not taxable. In the said circular, the board has clarified that when constructions for the use of organizations or institutions established solely for educational, religious, or charitable purposes are provided, they cannot be considered as construction services of commercial nature.
The tribunal also relied on several previous decisions of the CESTAT and High Courts, which held that the primary use of the building determines its taxability. The tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax of the department on construction services for educational institutions was unsustainable and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has ruled that works contract services provided before July 1, 2012, are liable to service tax, when not used for commercial or industrial purposes. This decision was made in the service tax appeal filed by ETA Engineering Private Limited against the Commissioner of Central Excise-Delhi-I, bringing clarity to the classification and taxability of such services under the Finance Act, 1994.
The two-member bench comprising Mr. Raju (Technical Member) and Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) confirmed that the services provided by ETA Engineering, which included designing, supplying, erection, testing, and commissioning of the entire HVAC system, fell under the definition of “works contract service” as per Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. This classification encompasses contracts involving the transfer of property in goods, which are subject to VAT, and services related to installation and commissioning of plant, machinery, or equipment.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed the service tax refund appeal filed by M/s. ASK Engineers Company. The decision stressed the requirements for proving non-commercial use of construction projects to qualify for service tax exemptions.
The two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) noted that the appellant could not present evidence to prove the non-commercial nature of the construction activities. The bench stated that for an exemption under the notification, the appellant must substantiate the non-commercial use of the projects. The appellant failed to provide convincing evidence to this effect. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), thereby dismissing the appeal. This ruling highlights the importance of concrete evidence when claiming tax exemptions based on the non-commercial nature of activities. It indicated that mere assertions without substantial proof will not suffice in tax refund claims. In result, the appeal filed by M/s. ASK Engineers Company was dismissed on the finding that the construction projects were not proven to be non-commercial.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the right of a construction company to avail the composition scheme under service tax even without filing a mandatory declaration. The tribunal quashed a demand order issued by the revenue department seeking service tax on the entire value of a Works Contract.
The tribunal, comprising Sulekha Beevi.C.S (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member), relied on various decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court’s ruling in GE T & D India Ltd., which held that the requirement to file a declaration was only procedural in nature and the benefit of the composition scheme could not be denied on such grounds. The tribunal set aside the demand order and concluded that the demand for service tax on the entire value of the Works Contract was unsustainable.
The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that EPS-ECU is essentially a part of an automobile specifically designed to be a part of power steering and not an instrument. The Tribunal classified the EPS-ECU and its sub-assembly under CTI 8708 94 00.
It was observed that any importer can self-assess goods by filing the Bill of Entry, and until the Bill of Entry is filed, the departmental officer cannot assess or take any action on it with respect to assessment.
While questioning as to how the departmental officers could have insisted that the goods should be classified in a particular heading in the Bill of Entry even before it was filed, the Bench explained that if the proper officer does not agree with the self-assessment by the importer, he can re-assess the duty and provide a speaking order.
It was found that EPS-ECU is a microprocessor with certain other parts which receives information from the speed and torque sensors and processes it and issues instructions to regulate the assistance provided by the power steering to the driver, and therefore, EPS-ECU does not merit classification under CTI 9032 90 00.
The CESTAT therefore dismissed Assessee’s appeal and concluded that EPS-ECU and its sub-assembly deserve to be classified and were correctly classified under CTI 8708 94 00.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has determined that the transfer of wagons to Indian Railways by Bagadiya Brothers Pvt Ltd constitutes a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Indian Constitution, rather than a taxable service. As a result, no service tax is applicable to the transaction.
The two-member bench comprising Mr. Raju (Technical Member) and Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) concluded that Bagadiya Brothers had transferred both possession and effective control of the wagons to Indian Railways, fulfilling the criteria for a deemed sale.
The CESTAT ruling stressed that the transfer of wagons to Indian Railways by Bagadiya Brothers Pvt Ltd is a deemed sale, exempting it from service tax. As such, the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue finding no merit in the same. The decision highlighted the importance of analyzing the substance of transactions and distinguishing between deemed sales and taxable services.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), New Delhi has determined that volume discounts received by M/s Divine Autotech Private Limited for purchasing large quantities of paints do not qualify as taxable services but are trade discounts. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the service tax demand on these amounts.
The CESTAT ruled that volume discounts are indeed trade discounts and not payments for services rendered. The tribunal emphasized that trade discounts given for bulk purchases are part of standard commercial practice and do not constitute taxable services under the Finance Act.
The decision reflects a clear understanding of the nature of volume discounts and their role in business transactions. The CESTAT clarified that trade discounts received for bulk purchases cannot be subjected to service tax. The ruling is particularly significant for businesses across various sectors that receive similar discounts from suppliers and manufacturers, ensuring that they are not unfairly taxed on commercial incentives aimed at promoting bulk purchasing.
The ruling stressed the importance of distinguishing between trade discounts and payments for services in service tax matters. It also highlights the tribunal’s role in protecting businesses from undue tax burdens on transactions that do not fall within the scope of taxable services.
In its detailed order, CESTAT also addressed other aspects of the service tax demand on Divine Autotech, remanding certain issues back to the Commissioner for further examination. However, the bench was unequivocal in its decision to quash the service tax demand on volume discounts, providing a significant relief to the appellant.
In result, the two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Mr. P. V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) set aside the demand for service tax on these volume discounts.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in a ruling in favor of Bank of India ( BOI ) has held that refund of service tax paid on commission charges for granting credit facility is Allowable subject to verification.
The two member bench of Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant bank has satisfied all the conditions for treating the service as an export of service, but there is a need to verify whether the service tax paid has been recovered or not from M/s. Aban Singapore Pte. Ltd. to be eligible for refund.
The tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for refund of service tax paid on the commission charges in respect of granting credit facility to M/s. Aban Singapore Pte. Ltd., subject to conducting verification whether the appellant has recovered the service tax paid from M/s. Aban Singapore Pte. Ltd. or not.
While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal remands the matter back for the limited purpose of verifying whether the service tax was collected by the appellant.
In a recent case, the Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that trading in securities is not a service and sets aside the service tax demand on the same.
The two member bench of Sulekha Beevi.C.S. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) have observed that by making an investment, the appellant does not do any activity for another for consideration. The specific exclusion from the definition of ‘service’ is given to transactions involving ‘transfer of title in goods or immovable property by the way of sale’. Since trading in securities involves transfer of title in goods, the activity of ‘trading in securities’ cannot therefore be said to be a service.
While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT held that the authorities below have grossly erred in demanding the tax on the ‘investment’ made by treating it as ‘service’ although exempted and set aside the order.
Rajaram Ramanan appeared for the appellant and S. Subramaniam appeared for the respondent.
The two member bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Delhi, upheld the penalty of ₹50,000 for non-compliance with the CBLR regulations while also addressing the abatement of illegal exports.
The bench, comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), found the current case distinguishable from the previous one. The earlier allegations concerned only a violation of Regulation 10(n), whereas the present case included multiple violations of various regulations, warranting a broader consideration.
Ultimately, the bench observed that the appellant failed to comply with CBLR, 2018, and abetted illegal exports. The misconduct deemed the appellant unfit to conduct Customs Broker business, justifying the actions taken. Consequently, the bench affirmed the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.
In a significant case,the Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the promotion and marketing services provided by the Australian company to foreign educational universities and institutions do not fall under the category of “intermediary services,” and allowed the benefit of the export of services.
The department contended that the assessee was providing services directly to the third parties located outside India, and as per the terms of the master services subcontracting agreement, various services were to be provided by the petitioner.
The court found that Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 issued by CBIC envisages that in respect of intermediary services, there should be a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies, i.e., main supply and ancillary supply. It clarified that a person involved in supply of main supply on a principal-to-principal basis to another person cannot be considered a supplier of intermediary service.
The appellants render the service of helping the students get admission to Australian universities, and the appellants are rendering the same main service as M/s OCA. Whereas M/s OCA gets the remuneration from the universities on the fees paid by the students, the appellants get their remuneration.
While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellants to M/s OCA during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015 do not fall under the category of “intermediary services,” and thus, the appellants are eligible for the benefit of export of services.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the show cause notice issued demanding service Tax on sale of fruits as the assessee, fruit sellers who are not engaged in any service tax-leviable activity.
The two member bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that the show cause notice did not establish that the appellant was providing any service.
While allowing the appeal,the Tribunal held that the department did not have any jurisdiction to issue any show cause notice demanding service tax from the appellant.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that Composite Contracts are not taxable under ‘Erection Commissioning and Installation Service’.
The Two member bench of Binu Tamta, (Judicial ) and Hembika R Priya ( Technical) held that the taxable category “Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services” could only cover pure service contracts within its fold and remanded the case for recalculation of the demand by giving the benefit of abatement to the appellant.
The CESTAT partially allowed the appeal, and also by way of remand for calculating the demand under Works Contract Service by extending the benefit of abatement under the relevant notification. Further upheld the invocation of extended period and hold the appellant liable for penalty under Section 78, which will be based on the reworked quantum of duty.
In a recent case before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Bangalore, the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd filed an appeal against an impugned order passed by Commissioner of Customs, charges for supervision of installation and field efficiency test paid to overseas suppliers were excluded from the value of post- importation charges.
The two-member bench of Dr. D.M. Misra and R. Bhagya Devi observed that the issue in the appeal regarding the question ‘whether the value of ‘Supervision of Installation’ and ‘Field Efficiency Test’ should be included in the value of the project import for levy of customs duty.
The revenue had claimed that the charges paid to overseas supplier of goods is a condition of sale, hence included in the value of the goods, but the bench is of the opinion that it cannot be called as a condition of sale of the goods.
Therefore the charges paid are not to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods as post-importation charges, the tribunal held.
Hence, the impugned order was upheld and revenue appeal was dismissed.
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the Montanide ISA 206 VG is not classifiable as a vaccine for veterinary medicines and the classification by the Department under CTH 30023000 was incorrect and legally untenable, thereby deleting the imposed penalty on Bharat Biotech under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The two-member bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) heard both side’s arguments. The tribunal noted that the imported goods are adjuvants which are substances used to enhance the immune response in vaccines. The tribunal observed that the department’s classification of the adjuvants as vaccines under CTH 30023000 was incorrect and legally not tenable. The tribunal ruled imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act is also not sustainable.
The tribunal allowed the appellant’s appeal and set aside the impugned order.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the transaction for leasing power-generating equipment qualifies as a deemed sale and is therefore exempted from service tax.
The two-member bench, consisting of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), referenced a similar case Quippo Energy Pvt. Ltd. where it was determined that leasing power-generating equipment constituted a deemed sale, and thus, service tax could not be levied. Additionally, the tribunal cited the UFO Moviez India Ltd. case, reaffirming that leasing transactions for equipment are not subject to service tax.
The tribunal ultimately aligned with the precedent established in prior cases, concluding that the appellants’ leasing activities do not attract service tax.
In a recent case, the Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax for the activity undertaken by them for laying down the pipelines for government/government undertakings for supply of water from Kerala Water Authority ( KWA ) for Thiruvananthapuram city region for the period 1st June, 2007 to 31st October, 2012.
The two member bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that the construction of canals/pipelines/conduits to support irrigation, water supply, or sewerage disposal, when provided to government/government undertakings, would be for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes, even when executed under turnkey/EPC contractual mode, and would fall within the ambit of clause (b), Explanation (ii) of Section 65(105)(zzzza), and would consequently not be exigible to service tax.
While allowing the appeal, The CESTAT held that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. As the service rendered by them is not a taxable service, therefore, the service recipient refused to pay service tax to the appellant. The appellant has borne the service tax by themselves and has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. The refund claims filed by the appellant are not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that marketing and promotion activities conducted by Film Production Companies ( FPCs ) are not subject to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service ( BAS ).
The Tribunal, comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) found that the activities undertaken by the appellant under the agreements with the FPCs did not qualify as taxable services under BAS. The Tribunal noted that the agreements allowed for certain expenses to be adjusted from the revenues and did not constitute a provision of service. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2021, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.
The two member bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Mumbai has ruled that the incentive commission received by air travel agents from Global Distribution System /Central Reservation System ( GDS/CRS ) companies and airlines is not liable to Service Tax.
The bench, comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), found that the Air Travel Agents were using the portals of CRS service providers for booking air tickets. They noted that the passengers were unaware of the specific CRS used by the appellants for ticket bookings and that there was no direct interaction between the passengers and the CRS. Further concluded that the activities of the appellants could not be classified as BAS, as there was no direct connection between the CRS, the appellants, and the customers.
The bench also observed that the receipt of incentives or commissions by the air travel agent did not alter the nature of services rendered, and therefore, could not be subjected to service tax under BAS. They ruled that since the appellants were already paying service tax under Rule 6(7) for air travel agent services, the department could not take a contrary stand to impose tax liability under BAS. CESTAT found that the issue was covered by the ruling of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kafila Hospitality & Travels Pvt. Ltd., which held that incentives and commissions were not subject to service tax. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, with consequential relief as per law.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty under Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on employees of Customs House Agent (CHA) on charge of wrong availability of drawback by the exporter.
The two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the appellants are neither the exporter of the goods nor the CHA. The entire case of overvaluation is attributed to exporters and CHA. As far as the allegation of fraudulent claim of duty drawback by overvaluing the goods, the beneficiaries are the exporter. All three appellants have no locus standi to either claim the drawback or receive the drawback.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that no service tax is payable on the activity of clinical trials on the drugs supplied by the foreign service recipient.
The two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of clinical trials on the drugs supplied by the foreign service recipient to the appellant amounts to export of service.
The Bench held that the activity of clinical trial on the drugs supplied by the foreign service recipient to the appellant amounts to export of service, hence, same is not liable to service tax. Further set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal. Vipul Khandar appeared on behalf of the appellant and Rajesh R. Kurup appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that the Rajasthan Housing Board is entitled to CENVAT credit in relation to transitional issues concerning the payment of service tax.
The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had completely disregarded the Circular cited by the appellant. While the tribunal acknowledged that the issue appeared to be covered by the Circular, it determined that a more thorough examination of the relevant invoices was necessary. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh review of the issue in light of the Circular.
In a ruling in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd, the Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Excise Duty is not payable on manufacturing goods produced in the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) unit.
The two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that since the SEZ unit has been excluded from the levy of the duty of excise, the same exclusion shall apply in respect of the levy of SAED and AED. Since there is no specific mention of the SEZ unit in Sections 147 and 112 of the Finance Act, 2002 and 2018, respectively, and SEZ is excluded from the levy of duty. The tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for payment of SAED, and AED is an SEZ unit. The duties paid are refundable to the respondent along with interest, in accordance with the law.
The Division Bench of the South Zonal Bench, Chennai, of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) was faced with a unusual scenario wherein the Judicial Member and Technical Member held contradicting opinions in two appeals pertaining to the capacity of the Appellant to avail CENVAT credit.
The High Court of Madras proceeded to set aside the difference of opinion between both members and referred the case back to the Division bench of CESTAT. Taking into account the guidelines provided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Division Bench of CESTAT proceeded to set aside the Impugned Orders passed by the Respondent Commissioner while confirming that the order passed by the Judicial Member supersedes that of the Technical Member.
In a significant ruling , the Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that ‘Kopiko (cappuccino and espresso varieties)’ contains more than 74% sugar and glucose and is classifiable under heading 1704 which defines sugar confectionery.
The two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the product ‘Kopiko’ is described in heading 1704 and the description given in 2101 is more general for the reason that the sugar confectionery is a specific product, whereas the preparations with the basis of extracts, essences, concentrates, or coffee are a more general description that may apply to many products, whereas the sugar confectionery is the description that is for only one product. It was viewed that the description under 1704 is more specific, and the description given in 2101 is more general. The tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and held Kopiko is correctly classifiable under 1704 9090 and not under 2101 1200.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax ( CESTAT ) has held that service Tax is not payable on revenue sharing arrangements between exhibitors and distributors of films.
The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and C. J. Mathew (Technical Member) has observed that the theatre owner screens or exhibits a movie that has been provided by the distributor. Such an exhibition is not a support or assistance activity but is an activity of its own accord. The activity cannot fall under ‘Business Support Service’.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the customs duty exemption is allowable on import of flood lights installed in the stadium for all matches, including the conduct of one-day international matches. It was found that the ad hoc exemption order does not make any distinction between the fact that the World Cup international match is for non-commercial purposes and the conduct of one-day international matches is for commercial purposes.
The two member bench of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the ad hoc exemption order was issued with certain conditions. The second condition of the order states that the goods shall not be used for commercial purposes. In the present case, the appellant has used the flood light during the conduct of three one-day matches in 1996, 1997, and 1998. The tribunal has held that the department has erroneously assumed that the conduct of one-day international matches is for commercial purposes. The bench viewed that the ad hoc exemption order does not make any distinction between the fact that the World Cup international match is for non-commercial purposes and the conduct of one-day international matches is for commercial purposes. The entire Show Cause Notice has been issued on assumptions and presumptions, which are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
