CESTAT Annual Digest 2024: Indirect Tax Cases [Part 5]

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.

Duty Exemption Allowable on Concrete Mix Used for On-Site Construction: CESTAT- Commissioner of Central Tax, GST & Service Tax, Noida vs M/s Arora Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 276

The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that duty exemption is allowable on concrete mix used for on-site construction. The Excise Circular of 23.05.1997 also clarified so and extended the benefit of exemption to the concrete mix, produced at the site of construction.

A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) observed that the dispute is with regards to the determination of the nature of the goods manufactured at the site of construction, “whether they are concrete mix or ready-made concrete mix” this purely a question of fact. The Circular of 23.05.1997 also clarified so, and extended the benefit of exemption to the concrete mix, produced at the site of construction.

Scrips Utilised for Debiting Duty in availing Exemption Notification cannot be considered as Exempted Goods: CESTAT- M/s. Scania Commercial Vehicles India P Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 27

The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that scrips utilised for debiting duty in availing exemption notification cannot be considered as exempted goods.

A two-member bench comprising Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) held that “in the clearance of 131 Nos. of tipper trucks, the scrips utilised for debiting the duty in availing exemption Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 as amended vide Notification No.15/2013-CE dated 18.04.2013, would not be considered as exempted goods; hence, Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be attracted.”

Contract for Doing Particular Job will not Fall under Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service: CESTAT- Fitweld Enterprise vs C.S.T.-Service Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 278

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that a contract for doing a particular job will not fall under manpower recruitment or supply agency service.

two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) found that there is no dispute that there is no contract between the appellant and the recipient of service for the supply of several manpower and the charges are not based on wages of their manpower deputed.

No Penalty imposable on Assessee without Corroborative Evidence proving Involvement in invalid Importation of BMW M5 Car: CESTAT- Rakesh Aggarwal vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 280

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that no penalty is imposable on the assessee without corroborative evidence proving involvement in the invalid importation of the BMW M5 Car.

A single member bench of Shri K Anpazhakan, Member( Technical ) observed that the BMW M5 car was imported in the name of Mrs Sadhana Aggarwal. She has already filed an application before the Settlement Commission regarding the duty involved and settled the issue wherein she has been imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- by the Settlement Commission for the commission of the offence.

Composite Contract of Mining Service cannot be Vivisected to Demand Service Tax: CESTAT sets aside Service Tax Demand- Shri Sanjay Kumar Binani vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 279

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that a composite contract of mining service cannot be vivised to demand service tax and sets aside Service Tax Demand

A two-member bench comprising Shri R Muralidhar, Member( Judicial ) and Shri Rajeev Tandon, Member( Technical ) held that the Department’s case of breaking of Mining Service into several services is not legal, still, he has gone ahead and held that they are liable to pay Service Tax before 06.06.2007 under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Services’.

Revocation of Customs Broker Licence for more than 4 Years due to Facilitating Fraudulent Import and Export: CESTAT sets aside Revocation of License- Souparnika Shipping Services vs Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 282

The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker licence for more than 4 years due to facilitating fraudulent import and export. The Tribunal viewed that the revocation of the Customs Brokers License is too harsh a punishment which is bound to affect the livelihood of the Customs Broker and his employees.

A two-member bench of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) viewed that “revocation of Customs Brokers License is too harsh a punishment which is bound to affect the livelihood of the Customs Broker and his employees and by taking into consideration that the Customs Broker License was suspended on 15.07.2019 and thus more than four years elapsed since, thus, the revocation is set aside.”

Finger Print Readers having individual Functions cannot fall under CTH of Computer Accessories: CESTAT- The Commissioner of Customs vs M/s. Snom Technology India Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 283

The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) has held that fingerprint readers having individual functions cannot fall under Customs Tariff Heading ( CTH ) of computer accessories.

A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) held that “the product in question merits classification under CTH 8543 instead of CTH 8471 as claimed by the respondent.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Delayed refund of Service Tax: CESTAT directs to pay interest @ 12% Indore Treasure Market City Pvt Ltd vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 281

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed to pay interest @ 12 % on the delayed refund of Service Tax. The Tribunal observed that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the amount of refund sanctioned at the rate of 12% to be calculated from the date of payment till the date of disbursement.

A two-member bench comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Member( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member( Technical ) held that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the amount of refund sanctioned at the rate of 12% to be calculated from the date of payment till the date of disbursement.

Web Cameras are not Digital Cameras: CESTAT sets aside Customs Demand against Xiaomi Technology- Xiaomi Technology India Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 289

The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) has viewed that Web Cameras are not Digital Cameras and set aside the demand against Xiaomi Technology India Ltd.

A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) And Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that as per Chapter Note 5(C) and 5(D), the items are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8471 as long as they satisfy the conditions laid therein and there is no dispute that these conditions have not been satisfied, the item has been excluded from Chapter 8471 only on the ground that Chapter Note 5(D) excludes television camera, digital cameras and video camera recorders.

Charges Paid for Services Rendered by FTOs Cannot be Taxed under Head Business Auxiliary Service: CESTAT sets aside Demand Against Vodafone Essar Ltd M/s Vodafone Essar East Ltd. vs Commissioner of Service Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 291

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that charges paid for service rendered by FTOs cannot be taxed under head business auxiliary service and set aside the demand of service tax. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant made the payment of roaming charges to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad and the service is rightly classifiable under ‘Telecommunication Service’.

A two-member bench comprising of Mr R Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) and Mr K Anpazhakan Member (Technical) observed that the payment of roaming charges was made by the Appellant to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad. It was viewed that the services are appropriately classifiable as ‘Telecommunication Service’. During the relevant period, only telecommunication services provided by a ‘Telegraph Authority’ to a person were taxable

Relief to Suguna Poultry Farm: CESTAT upholds Refund Claim of Import Duties u/s 26A of Customs Act Commissioner of Customs vs Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 295

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the refund claim of import duties under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 thereby granting relief to M/s. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.

A Two-Judge Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “On perusal of records and also considering the submissions made by both sides, we note that the main grievance put forward in the grounds of appeal filed by the department is that the respondent is not eligible for refund filed under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is to be noted that the department does not deny the claim of the respondent for eligibility of drawback.

Race Promotion Contract between Formula One World Championship and Jaypee Sports not Franchise Agreement: CESTAT quashes Service Tax Demand M/s Jaypee Sports International Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 293

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and noted that the Race Promotion Contract between Formula One World Championship and Jaypee Sports is not a franchise agreement.

A Two-Member Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “franchise means an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is involved. The sine-qua-non for Franchise Service is therefore grant of representational right to sell or manufacture goods, or to provide service or to undertake any process identified with the franchisor.”

Relief to VISAKA Industries: CESTAT dismisses charges of violation pertaining to use of fly ash in manufacture of Asbestos Cement Sheets Visaka Industries Limited vs The Commissioner of GST CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 294

A two member bench of Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has held that the allegation of bogus quantity against assessee is factually wrong. The bench held that the allegation that assessee has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 of Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash was factually wrong. The bench dismissed the impugned order initiated against the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Rudra Beewi C.S ( Member, Judicial ) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao ( Member, Technical ) held that “the appellant has been able to successfully establish that the alleged bogus quantity of fly ash was actually received in their factory and used in the manufacture of final product. In such circumstances, the allegation that appellant has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 dt. 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash is without any factual basis. The impugned order was set aside.

Non-Inclusion of Costs of Transportation in assessable value is No ground to Deny CENVAT Credit: CESTAT- APAR Industries Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 305

A two member bench of CESTAT Ahmedabad ( Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ) has held that non-inclusion of costs of transportation in assessable value is no ground to deny CENVAT credit

The bench comprising Ramesh Nair ( Member, Judicial ) and Raju ( Member, Technical ) held that it cannot be said that the assessee had a mala fide intention to evade the excise duty by taking the wrong credit. The bench observed that there was no suppression of fact or misstatement on the part of the assessee and further held that non-inclusion of costs of transportation in assessable value is no ground to deny CENVAT credit.

No suppression of fact to Evade payment of service tax: CESTAT upholds Service Tax Exemption of Manpower Supply to Hospitals- Commissioner of Central Excise vs D G NAKRANI CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 309

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has allowed the exemption of service tax for manpower supply to hospitals, emphasizing the importance of not suppressing facts to evade tax payments.

The coram of Ramesh Nair ( Judicial member ) and Raju ( Technical member ) observed that whether the respondent was entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification or not depends on the interpretation of the exemption notification and on the contrary, to a very large extent, their interpretation is found correct. Thus, it is evident that there was not even an iota of evidence to even suggest that there was any willful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the Respondent. Consequently, extended period was not invokable in this case

Royalty is not payable in Instances of Trading of imported Finished Goods and on Goods repacked in India: CESTAT- CHEM REND CHEMICALS CO. PVT. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 304

A two member bench of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. The bench observed that royalty is payable only for use of technology to produce the products in India. The tribunal observed that royalty cannot be added to the finished goods imported by the appellant for trading purposes.

Calculation of basic Customs Duty on MRP of Goods Contrary to Proviso of Section 3 (1) of CETA: CESTAT sets aside Calculation of Assessable Value- Contacare Ophthalmics and Diagnostics vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-i CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 303

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the calculation of assessable value as the calculation of Basic Customs Duty on MRP of the goods was contrary to Proviso of Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ( CETA ).

A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “It would be evident from the calculation appearing on the Appeal that the Principal Commissioner has wrongly calculated the Basic customs duty on the MRP of the goods, which is contrary to the provisions of Proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act. As per Proviso to said Section 3 (1), Excise duty on goods manufactured by a 100% EOU and brought to any place in India shall be an amount equal to aggregate of customs duties leviable on like goods when imported into India and the value of such goods shall be as per the Customs Act 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act 1975.”

Sufficient Compliance of CCR complete on Reversal of Cenvat Credit on Common Input Services: CESTAT- M/s SMS Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 302

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that sufficient compliance of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ( CCR ) is complete on reversal of cenvat credit on common input services.

A Two-Member Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty, Member ( Judicial ) and M.M. Parthiban, Member ( Technical ) observed that “In view of the above facts of the case and the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the appellants had incorrectly availed and utilised CENVAT credit, inasmuch as the appellants had not taken Cenvat credit in respect of exempt projects/services and had also reversed the Cenvat credit in respect of common input services, duly informing the department with complete details. Further, in view of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it could be concluded that the reversal of Cenvat credit in respect of common input services by the appellants is sufficient for compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.”

Cenvat Credit allowable of Service tax for Financial Services provided by Bank: CESTAT- M/s. Wendt India Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 301

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit allowable service tax for financial services provided by the bank.

A division bench comprising Mrs Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) found that the disallowance of credit is without any basis. While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.

Responsibility Cast on CB under Regulation 10(n) of CBLR stands Fulfilled when Verification of Address is Complete: CESTAT- WORLD LINE CARGO MOVERS vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 300

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that the responsibility cast on customs broker ( CB ) under Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 ( CBLR ) stands fulfilled when verification of address is complete.

A Two-Member Bench of Binu Tamta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that “We find that both the GSTIN as well as the IEC indicates the address of the client. This in itself is independent data to verify the correctness of the identity/address of the client. We also note that there is nothing on record to show that either of these documents were fake or forged. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete as discussed above, the responsibility cast on the appellant under Regulation 10(n) stands fulfilled.”

CESTAT quashes Excise Duty demand against Pepsico on Scrap-Veg-Refuse from Manufacture of Exempted Goods- M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-I CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 299

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the excise duty demand against Pepsico on scrap-veg-refuse from manufacture of exempted goods.

A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The Appellant No.1 effectively does not take any process to extract the potato starch from the potatoes except for extraction of water for reuse. The Appellant No.1 has also placed the literature explaining the process of potato starch extraction explained by the International Institute of Starch, Denmark and also filed an affidavit of their Associate Director of Research & Development Division clarifying the difference between ‘potato starch’ and ‘scrap-veg-refuse’.”

Fraudulent IGST Refund, Responsibility of Customs Broker Fulfills once Verification of Address Done: CESTAT sets aside Order Revoking Customs Broker Licence- FRIENDS CARGO SERVICES vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 298

The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the order of revoking the customs broker license against the allegation of fraudulent Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) Refund. It was observed that the responsibility of the customs broker was fulfilled once the verification of the address was done.

A two-member bench comprising Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member(Technical) observed that under Regulation 10(n) the Customs Broker is required to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents data or information so long as they are reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises

Mere Non-Traceability of an Exporter by itself does not Amount to Violation of Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR: CESTAT sets aside Penalty

The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that mere non-traceability of an exporter by itself does not amount to a violation of regulation 10 (n) of Custom Brokers under Regulation ( CBLR ), 2018.- WORLD LINE CARGO MOVERS vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (Airport & General) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 29

A division bench comprising of Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member ( Technical ) viewed that Regulation 10(n) of CBLR cannot be read to mean the latter as it would imply treating the Customs Broker as one who is competent and responsible to oversee and ensure the correctness of the actions by the Government officers. It would also mean that actions by the Customs Broker under the CBLR prevail over the actions by officers under the Foreign Trade ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1992 ( under which the IEC is issued by DGFT ) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ( or state GST Act ) ( under which the GSTIN is issued by the GST officers ).

Redemption Fine imposed cannot exceed Market Value of Product: CESTAT sets aside Redemption Fine imposed on Jute Bags- M/s. Vinayaga Traders vs Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) CITATION:   2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 296

In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the redemption fine imposed on jute bags. Further, observed that the redemption fine imposed cannot exceed the market value of the product.

The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Insofar as penalty is concerned, the action of the appellant in shooting the letter dated 26.02.2014 before the adjudicating authority itself is an indication, which prompted the adjudicating authority to pass the Order-in-Original assuming that the import, primarily, was improper. Since the Revenue has accepted the reduced penalty amount by the first appellate authority’s order, the same is sustained.

No Service Tax leviable on “Incentives”, distinct from “Commission”: CESTAT- Wig Air Freight Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, New Delhi CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 353

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that no service tax can be imposed on “incentives”.

The tribunal bench of Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and P.V. Subba Rao ( Technical Member ) explained that “commission” directly correlates with the service provided by the appellant, specifically the booking of airline space. On the other hand, “incentive” represents the profit earned from charging clients more than the negotiated price with airlines, indicating a trading activity rather than a service.

Levy under Finance Act will apply to Goods manufactured or Produced in India other than Goods produced in SEZ: CESTAT rules in favour of Reliance Industries- RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD vs C.C.E & ST–CGST & CE -RAJKOT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 352

In a ruling in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Levy under the Finance Act will apply to goods manufactured or produced in India other than goods produced in Special Economic Zone ( SEZ ).

A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju Member ( Technical ) viewed that the appellant was completely justified in contending that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 about levy and collection of Central Excise duty, to the extent they are not inconsistent, apply equally to the provisions of the Finance Act and accordingly the levy under the Finance Act will apply to goods manufactured or produced in India, other than the goods produced or manufactured in SEZ.

Goods kept in Factory not liable to Confiscation in absence of evidence to show attempt to remove Clandestinely without Payment: CESTAT Parot Power Pvt Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 349

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that goods kept in a factory are not liable for confiscation in the absence of evidence to show an attempt to remove clandestinely without payment.

A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju Member (Technical) observed that the goods were lying within the appellant’s factory. There was no evidence on record to show that there was any attempt to remove those goods clandestinely without payment of duty.

CHA Not required to advise on Assessment aspect to Clients unless Solicited: CESTAT set aside Penalty u/s 117 of Customs Act- LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD vs Commissioner of CUSTOMS-Kandla Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 350

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the Customs House Agent ( CHA ) is not required to advise on assessment aspect to clients unless solicited and set aside Penalty under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. There is nothing on record to show that he has been subjected to action under Customs Broker License Rules, ( CBLR ) 2018.

The two-member bench comprising Mr Raju, Member (Technical) and Mr Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial) observed that CHA is not required to advise on assessment aspects to its clients unless solicited. Again there is nothing on record to show that he has been subjected to action under C.B.L.R, 2018.

CESTAT Re adjudication on Service Tax leviability of Work undertaken for BECL under Construction of Complex Service- Vinay Construction Co vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 351

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed the re-adjudication on Service Tax leviability of work undertaken for BECL under Construction of Complex Service. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the facts/ terms of the contract.

A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the levy of service tax under the construction must be based on the terms of the contract. However, the adjudicating authority has not properly examined the facts/ terms of the contract and he has not seen the light of the judgements given subsequently on the identical issue.

MRP-Based Assessment not Applicable to Packaged Drinking water: CESTAT- M/s.Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 348

The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT )has held that Maximum Retail Price ( MRP ) based assessment is not applicable to Packaged Drinking Water. The MRP-based assessment as per the above notifications applies only to mineral water and aerated water falling under Tariff Heading 22011010 or 22011020. The appellant does not manufacture mineral water.

The two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) and Sulekha Beevi Cs, Member ( Judicial ) held that the invocation of the extended period cannot be sustained. The CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed on the Executive Director of the appellant company is not warranted.

No Service Tax payable for renting a vehicle to UPSRTC as 60% of Abetment on assessable value allowable as per Exemption Notification: CESTATMYR Logistics & Travel Service vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 346

The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that abatement of 60% of assessable value is allowable as per Exemption Notification. The Tribunal held that there is no need to pay Service Tax for renting vehicles to Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( UPSRTC ).

A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that “the impugned order to the extent of confirmation of the demand and imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Act of Rs.200 for every day during which the party continued to fail to get itself registered under Section 69 of the Act read with provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules ibid, starting with the first day of such failure after the due date, till the date of actual compliance and penalty of Rs.1,40,911/- under Section 78 of the Act are set aside. “

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates