![CESTAT Annual Digest 2023 [ Part 21]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CESTAT-Annual-Digest-2023-Part-21.jpg)
This yearly digest analyzes all the CESTAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that the manufacture of excisable goods is excluded from the definition of business auxiliary Services and that Service Taxi s not demandable.
With the appellant submitting before it, that the said activity was undertaken under the provision of Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence that the activity , being clearly of manufacture, cannot be construed as service for charging service tax, a Bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, the Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, the Member (Technical), while setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appelant’s appeal , thus held : “the activity per se, cannot be treated as service itself for the reason that the activities carried out by the appellant is pure of manufacture of excisable goods with the inputs and packaging material supplied by the GCL and the said manufacturing was done on job work basis on behalf of M/s GCL.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently, in an appeal filed before it by USV Private Limited, held that refund is allowable on Pre-GST unutilized Credit of Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC).
Referring to Rule 3. CENVAT credit, a Coram comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) observed:
“From the above Rule, under clause (vi) and (via), the credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess is allowed. Therefore, the appellant is legally entitled to Cenvat of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess. The refund cannot thus be denied.”
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) , has recently in an appeal filed before it, upheld the penalty of 50 lakhs u/s 112(b)(i) on the import of gold bars.
With the Tribunal observing that undisputedly the gold was of a foreign origin, that the same was reasonably believed to be smuggled by the officers and was seized and that the appellant had not discharged his burden to show that it was not smuggled gold, it upheld the absolute confiscation of the disputed gold and the penalty imposed of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) , has recently in a case, upheld the Confiscation of a Mercedes Car which was used for smuggling of Gold bar.A Coram comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, the President , along with P V Subba Rao, the Member (Technical),while upholding the penalty and codification observed: “As per Section 112(b), any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harboring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner, dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, is liable to a penalty.”
The Customs Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) chaired by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Justice C J Mathew (Technical Member), has recently in a case before it, directed to refund the differential Basic Customs Duty (BCD) deposited by the Adani Wilmar.
With the appellant asserting that notwithstanding the fact that the duty rate applicable under Notification No. on 05.03.2018 should have been applied to the imported goods, the Bills of Entry were incorrectly reassessed at a higher rate of duty @ 54%, under Notification dated 01.03.2018, the Tribunal observed that the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice in its press release, had clarified that the Gazette Notification of Government of India, will henceforth be only e-published as they are uploaded.
“The Commissioner (Appeals), was not justified in holding that the duty would be payable on the imported goods at the rates specified in that notification. The exemption notification was digitally signed for e- publication, and it only became effective on the date it was published in the Official Gazette. Additionally, the appellant will receive a refund of the difference duty amount she deposited along with the applicable interest rate.”, the Bench noted
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has observed that no service tax can be levied for ‘Business Auxiliary Services’, on consideration towards commission on sub- contracts.
With the Counsel for the appellant vehemently contending that the appellant was not in any way rendering Business Auxiliary Services for promoting or marketing the services provided by the sub-contractor, and that the proposal of payment of service tax on the said ground and confirmation thereof, therefore need to be set aside, the Bench comprising PV Subba Rao, the Technical Member and Dr Rachna Gupta, the Judicial Member, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s Dwaraka Constructions v. Commr. Of Customs & Central Excise observed: “The appellant only was deducing said amount of commission for himself and was making payment to the subcontractor in whose favour the execution of work was outsourced by the appellant. Hence, we hold that no service tax can be charged from the appellant under the head ‘Business Auxiliary Services’.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has in its recent ruling, held that the interest on refund is allowable when authority fails to refund on service tax sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the application.
With the Coram comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, the Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, the Member (Technical) observing that “if the refund is not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing, the appellant is entitled to the interest on the refund sanctioned.”, allowing the appeal while setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal held: “the appellant is thus, legally entitled to the interest on refund “.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has confirmed the service tax demand for providing taxable or commercial coaching services, against Vikas Educational Institutions Ltd (VEIL), the respondent.
With the Counsel for the appellant (Revenue), contending that the Commissioner has apparently failed to appreciate the fact that both VEIL & Vikas Educational Society (VES) are one and the same and that they have merely forged bills in order to evade the payment of duty, the Bench comprising PV Subba Rao, the Technical Member and Dr Rachna Gupta, the Judicial Member observed : “The demand of service tax for providing taxable/commercial coaching services against VEIL has wrongly been dropped by the Commissioner.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 100% Cenvat Credit can be taken on Input Service under the head of Management or Business Consultancy Service.
The appellant having raised the question as to whether 100% credit of service tax paid by Indian Hotel Co. Ltd. (IHCL), under Management or Business Consultancy Services is admissible, given specific coverage of the said
services, a Coram comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that the appellant have correctly taken 100% credit in respect of such input service.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench, has recently in an appeal filed before it, observed that freight charged for delivering cement to buyers’ premises , is not to be included in the assessing value for the payment of central excise duty.
The appellants being the manufacturers of cements and clinkers, who were also availing the facility of CENVAT Credit scheme for the purpose of payment of central excise duty on their finished goods during the period from April 2016 to June 2017, the present appeal has been filed to assail the order vide which the demand of differential duty was confirmed, on the basis of inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for payment of the central excise duty.
Hearing the contentions of either sides and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries, the CESTAT Bench observed: ““Following the said ‘ratio decidendi’, we hold that the value of freight charged by the appellant for delivering the cement to their buyers’ premises is not to be included while assessing the value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty. Appellant has rightly excluded the same. The differential duty confirmed by the order under challenge is therefore wrong.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that Mixing of Thermol and Mixed Oil doesn’t change the nature of the product and that it attracts 32 % of Excise Duty which need to be considered elaborately by the adjudicating authority.
The aforesaid observation was made when Shah Petroleums, the appellant via their appeal raised the question as to whether Super Mix Oil (first final product), is classifiable under CET 27101990, as claimed by the appellant or under CET 27101190 as claimed by the department, and also as to whether Super C-9 Plus (second final product) is classifiable under CET 27079900 as claimed by the appellant or under CET 27101190 as claimed by the department.
With the Coram comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, the Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, the Member (Technical) observing that “the classification will come into the picture only once the manufacturing was established.”, and that “ It was evident that the department itself contended that by the entire process of mixing thermol and mixed oil and any other product and thermol and C-9 Plus, there is no change in the product”, the Tribunal found that once a case was made out against the partnership firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner of such firm , thus setting aside the impugned order while allowing the appellant’s appeal.
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has recently observed that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of value of imported goods is appropriate for imports violating Exim Policy Provisions.
With M.P.Toppo, the Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue submitting that the redemption fine and personal penalty merits are to be increased in the view of the fact that the respondent is a frequent importer of worn , who used garments in violation of ITC Regulations, he added that a high amount of redemption fine and penalty will act as a deterrent for such imports by unscrupulous persons.
The Tribunal of consisting of PK Choudhary, the Judicial Member observed: “Redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of imports violating Exim Policy Provisions. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision.”
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Ramesh Nair, the Judicial Member and Raju, the Technical Member, has recently in an appeal, allowed Customs Duty Exemption to Boron Ore.
The Coram noted that, from the perusal of the finding of the adjudicating authority, the test report of the product showed the goods to be ‘Boron Ore’, and that the same was obtained after the removal of impurities. However, the adjudicating authority had relied upon Wikipedia and Website for the meaning of ‘Ore’.
“In our considered view, when the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website and Wikipedia. Whether the goods will remain as Ore after removal of impurities has been considered in various judgments cited by the appellants” the Tribunal opined.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has recently in an appeal, deleted personal penalty and ruled that malafide intention of the employee cannot be attributed to the employer.
With the appellant, Sanofi India Limited, submitting that the appellant had reversed the entire credit of common input services used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods, and therefore that the demand of 10% of the value of the exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) will not sustain, the Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed : “As regard, the personal penalty, firstly the appellant company has reversed the credit accordingly, the demand is not prima facie sustainable.
Consequently, since the issue relates to the interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, malafide intention of the present employee with the appellant cannot be attributed.”
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has recently in an appeal filed by Ms. J. Lakshmi and M/s. Southern Clearing & Forwarding Agencies Pvt. Ltd., ruled that, there can be no penalty on the Customs Broker for abatement, if due diligence was taken while verifying KYC of the Importer based on the records submitted.
With the Counsel for the appellant contending that the appellant, who was a Customs Broker, did not have any knowledge as to the nature of the goods inside the container, and that the documents were filed on the basis of the information / document given by the importer, he added that when the KYC documents are proper, the penalty imposed on the appellant under sec. 112(a) alleging that appellant has abetted misdeclaration of goods, cannot sustain.
Hearing the contentions of the appellant, the Tribunal of Sulekha Beevi CS, the Judicial Member observed: “After appreciating the facts, evidence and following the principle laid down in the above two decisions, I am of the view that the penalty imposed on the appellants alleging abetment, that they have rendered the goods liable for confiscation, is totally unwarranted. The penalty imposed on the appellants require to be set aside.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise add Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has recently in an appeal, granted refund and observed that notification allowing refund for Custom House Agency (CHA) Services is not “Service Specific”.
The lower authorities, in the present case having denied the refund of service tax in terms of the notification No. 17/09-ST ,on the ground that the refund is admissible on CHA Service, whereas the appellant, Laviosa Trimex Industries Pvt Ltd, had received various other services which were other than CHA services, the Coram comprising Ramesh Nair, the Judicial Member and Raju, the Technical Member, observed : “Even if any other service provided by CHA, the refund claim is admissible as per the Notification No. 17/09-ST which allow the refund in respect of services provided by CHA that means even if any service which even does not fall under the CHA Service but the same is provided by CHA, the same will be admissible for refund. In the Notification, it is not service specific but it is a service provider specific, hence any service provided by CHA, the refund is admissible.”
“Accordingly, we are of the view that the ground taken by the lower authorities for denying the refund is absolutely against the statutory provision under the Notification No. 17/09-ST, therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund” the Tribunal noted.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has in the appeal of Riyaz Rafiq Padela and Mangaldas K. Patel, upheld the penalty on fraudulent availment of Excise Rebate.
Expressing their opinion that “fraud vitiates everything”, the Coram comprising Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) observed : “From the facts as stated in the impugned order we are very clear in our mind that the appellants had conspired and perpetuated the alleged fraud by filing these rebate claims to defraud the exchequer of the amount claimed by them as rebate without payment of any central excise duty and without exporting any goods.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) , has recently while quashing a time barred Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) , observed that substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
The aforesaid observation was made by the tribunal in the appeal of ,M/s. S.L. Polypack Private Limited, wherein quashing the SCN ,the Tribunal of PK Choudhary, the Judicial Member observed that “The substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds and accordingly the impugned orders cannot be sustained.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), has observed that Cenvat Credit on Inputs cannot be denied because the Final Product attracts ‘Nil’ Rate of Excise Duty.
The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Gujarat Sulphur Limited, wherein a Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, the Judicial Member and Raju, the Technical Member of the Ahmedabad ITAT observed that the appellant had received the duty paid inputs, thereafter processed the same and cleared after processing on payment of duty on the transaction value and , was permitted in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2000, and therefore that the transaction in the present case is squarely covered by the Rule 16 of Rules. Thus,the Tribunal concluded that the cenvat credit on the input received by the appellant for the manufacture of Sulphur Powder, cannot be denied.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has in an appeal filed by Jindal Photo,allowed re credit on the ground that Cenvat Credit cannot be reversed when Dutiable Goods became Exempted at the Interim Stage.
With J. Surti, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitting that though the appellant had reversed 5% immediately after the notification No. 33/2011-CE dated 25.06.2011 exempted the product namely ‘Colour Positive Unexposed Cinematographic Film’ ,they had mistakenly reversed 5% of the value of exempted clearances made on 27.06.2011 in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
“The Circular relied upon by the Authorized Representative shall not be applicable in the facts of the present case as the appellant were required to reverse the cenvat credit in terms of Rule 11(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Circular applicable only in a case where the assessee availed option of Rule 6(3)(i) at the time when the appellant are manufacturing both the category of goods i.e. dutiable and exempted.” the Tribunal observed.
With the appellant McKinsey & Co., engaged in providing Management Consultant’s services, filing an appeal before it, the Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), has held that the Taxing statutes should be interpreted strictly.
The facts of the case being that the appellant had paid excess service tax during the period June, 2012 for the
period April to June, 2012 and later on after more than two years adjusted the said excess payment for the period April to June, 2014 by disclosing it in their ST-3 return, the appellant was asked to pay the amount along
With the Tribunal observing that “A perusal of the Rule 6(4A) would make it clear that the word used is succeeding month or quarter as the case may be”, the single Bench of Ajay Sharma Member (Judicial Member)
,held that the Taxing Statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed, and that it could not imply anything which was not expressed nor can it merge provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiencies.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), has ruled that anti-dumping duty cannot be Demanded on Propylene Glycol from USA Imported after 08.10.2009.
With the Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, the Judicial Member and Raju, the Technical Member relying on the appellants own case wherein it was held that no antidumping duty can be levied in view of Notification No.
105/2004- Cus. which was extended vide Notification No. 117/2009-Cus. during the period after 8-9-2009, the Coram held “Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable.”
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently in an appeal filed by Bharat Hotels, ruled that demand can be made under Undertaking only when Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) finds that the use of aircraft not in accordance with permit granted.
With the department claiming that the appellant had used the aircraft for charter purposes only for fifty hours, out of the total 244.9 flown hours and, therefore, that the appellant had violated Condition No. 104 of the exemption notification,
the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, the President and PV Subba Rao, the Technical Member observed that “ A demand can be made under the Undertaking only when DGCA finds that the use of the aircraft is not in accordance with the permit granted by the DGCA. In the present case, DGCA has not initiated any proceedings against the appellant and in fact has renewed the permit from time to time.”
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has in the case of Applied Solar Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd,found that there is no intention to evade service tax payment on treating advance amount as security deposit.
“There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard, as indeed the appellant did try to evade payment of service tax by treating the amount as a security deposit when in fact it was clearly an advance, which fact was very specifically mentioned in the Agreement. The intention to evade payment of service tax by suppression of material facts is writ large,” the coram comprising of Justice Dilip Gupta, the President and PV Subba Rao, the Technical Member added.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that no Service Tax on Lindstorm Services India for Leasing of Work-wear.
Relying upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench wherein it was observed that in terms of agreement, work- wear rented out always remains with the exclusive possession of their clients and nobody else can use those work wear at the same time and hence effective control to lie, with the user / clients, the Ahmedabad Bench observed : “ The appellant, therefore, does not have control over the use of the work-wear.Thus the activity is not in the nature of “service” under the Finance Act, in both during the period prior to negative list regime and thereafter as held in the impugned order”.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench ,consisting of Ramesh Nair, the Judicial Member and Raju, the Technical Member, has held that Chartered Financial Analysis of India (ICFAI) is not liable to pay Service Tax under Commercial Training or Coaching Service.
The Bench relying upon the appellant’s own branch of Vadodara, reported in 20182018 (8) TMI 556 – CESTAT observed that the provision authorises no grant retrospective exemption or to alter the scope of an extant exemption retrospectively. “Vocational Training Institute as defined by Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9- 2004 contains no such restrictive definition which requires affiliation to National Council for Vocational Training or the requirement of offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961, by an Industrial Training Institute or an Industrial Training Centre,” it noted, thus drawing the conclusion that “the issue is no longer res-integra.”
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT), has held that there is no restriction under the Cenvat Rule on not using prime quality material in the manufacture of a final product and hence that CENVAT credit cannot be denied.
A Coram comprising of Shri P K Choudhary, Member(Judicial) observed that there is no restriction in the CENVAT Credit Rules that the Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products.
“As long as there is no dispute regarding the receipt and consumption of the inputs, duty paid character thereof, the benefit of the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the Appellant. ” allowing the assessee’s appeal ,
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) , has invalidated the demand of duty on scrap from maintenance of plant & machinery, when corroborative evidence to prove that the Cenvat credit was not taken on goods.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal held that “without any single evidence of taking credit in the SCN, the SCN is bald and the proceedings flowing from the said SCN liable to be quashed on this threshold point itself.”
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that the penalty under section 114A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ,is imposable only for the person who is liable to pay duty or interest under section 28 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
With the Tribunal holding that the imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 114A of the Income Tax Act to be without the authority of law , and thereby allowing the appellant’s appeal , a Coram comprising of Mr Ajay Sharma, the Member (Judicial), observed that “ the appellant is not the importer but is alleged to be the claimant of the goods and the penalty under Section 114A is liable to be imposed on the person liable to pay duty or interest as determined under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that the balance of credit does not lapse under rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it applies only on absolute Exemption notification.
Setting aside the impugned order while allowing the assessee’s appeal the Tribunal’s coram, comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, the Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, the Member (Technical) observed: “ the notification No.
30/2004-CE is admittedly a conditional one. In terms of the strict provision of Rule 11(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the bar of lapsing of credit is applicable only when the assessee avails the absolute exemption notification. And as the exemption notification No. 30/2004-CE, is a conditional one, the bar of lapsing of credit shall not apply.”
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has held that service tax cannot be levied on the notice pay recovery as the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has clarified its view on the same.
A bench of Member (Judicial), Mr. Ramesh Nair, and Member (Technical), Mr. Raju observed that the CBIC has issued a circular No.178/10/2022-GST dated 3rd August 2022 in which it has stated its stand on the issue of taxability of various transactions claimed to be “liquidated damages”.
As a relief to Dabur India, the Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) deletes the disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Advertisement and sales promotion service.
It was observed that “once the availment and distribution of credit by the ISD is held to be proper, there is no question of denying the same credit at the hands of the recipient units on the same grounds and for the same period.”
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench quashed suspension of revocation of Customs Broker Licence of Customs House Agent (CHA) as there was no alleged violation of provisions of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, (CBLR) 2018.
“We hold that the appellant has not committed any alleged violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018”, the Bench further declared.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand on the ground that demand based on audit without further investigation is invalid.
The Bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member and Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, Judicial Member observed that the demand based on audit without any further investigation it liable to be set aside on this count alone.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reduces redemption fines when an assessee wrongly claimed benefit under MEIS without being aware of the foreign origin of goods.
A Coram of Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) observed that it was the responsibility of the appellant to understand the eligibility and the conditions before claiming the export benefits.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that benefit of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 can’t be denied when the assessee discharged the entire service tax along with interest.
It was held that the appellant discharged the entire service tax along with interest soon after the same was pointed out and in this circumstance, the benefit of Section 73(3) should not have been denied.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
