This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at taxscan. in, from August 19 to August 25, 2023.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) delivered 3 member’s opinions on the determination of service tax liability which lies on the service receiver who receives any kind of service and is obliged to make the payment.
D.M. Misra (Judicial) observed that the person who was legally entitled to receive a service and, therefore, obliged to make payment, was the receiver of a service, whether or not he made the payment or someone else makes the payment on his behalf. Also held that in the present appeal by examining the issue from all angles, it cannot be said that the Foreign Telecommunication Operator (FTO) was not the service receiver, but the visitors to India who use the service during their visit to India, are the service receiver.
The New Delhi bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT], demanded re-adjudication on an order issued by the commissioner of central excise[CCE] demanding service tax on convention services and sponsorship services of Quality Council of India [QCI], the appellant.
After considering the documents and arguments of both sides the bench consisting of Binu Tamata [judicial member] and Hemambika R. Priya [technical member] decided that they were right to challenge the order and that it was a “non-speaking order”. They further added that the adjudicating authority should have at least appreciated the services rendered by the QCI.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Vodafone Idea by quashing the service tax demand imposed on International inbound roaming charges on the ground of Inclusion of service rendered by the assessee as export of service.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical) quashed the demand for service tax while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) service tax demand confirmed under rule 5 of service tax (determination of value),Rules 2006 is not valid as it is ultra vires of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994.
A two-member bench comprising Mr S K Mohanty, Member (Judicial)and Mr M M Parthiban, Member (Technical) observed that the demand for service tax on reimbursement expenses goes beyond the mandate of Section 67, which is a charging section for levy of service tax. Section 67, both before and after the 01.05.2006 amendment authorises the determination of the value of the taxable service to charge service tax under Section 66 as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him, in a case where the consideration for the service is money. The underlined words i.e. “for such service” are important in the setting of Sections 66 and 67. The charge of service tax under Section 66 is on the value of taxable services. The taxable services are listed in Section 65(105). The service provided by the petitioner falls under clause (zzzt). While allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of CENVAT credit of service tax availed on the employee’s health insurance and group accidental insurance policy on the ground of limitation.
A single-member bench comprising P.K Choudhary (Judicial) held that the impugned order cannot be sustained and quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax demand imposed under the category of Construction of complex services on the ground of the absence of conclusive evidence
A single-member bench comprising Hemambika Priya (Technical) upheld the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand for Customs duty imposed on the export of synthetic fabrics without considering the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC).
The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandoon (Technical) quashed the demand along with penalty and interest while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that steel structures that are part of permanent civil construction and are not designed as goods are not leviable to central excise duty.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority who was directed to furnish the relied upon document to the assessee and also give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee with sufficient chance for adducing any further evidence.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that not only the moisture content but also the other impurities on account of different minerals also had to be taken into account before arriving at the Ferrum Iron (Fe) value of the iron ore.
The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical) quashed the demand along with the penalty and interest while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that any delay in filing an appeal beyond the extended period of thirty days or after expiry of the normal period of sixty days cannot be condoned since the Statute does not permit and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1980 would not apply.
A single-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical) upheld the dismissal of the appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the penalty imposed for non-payment of service tax which falls under the category of erection, commissioning, and installation on the ground of absence of conclusive evidence.
The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesh (Judicial) and Ajit Kumar (Technical) upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee and remanded the matter back to the lower authority to determine the value of the taxable service afresh allowing cum-tax benefit and by not including the value of goods.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the place of provision of the service of transportation of goods by air/sea from a place in India to a place outside India will be a place outside the taxable territory and not liable to service The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesha (Judicial) and Ajit Kumar (Technical) held that the assessee was not covered under the category of intermediary, which by definition excludes a person who provides a service on his account.
The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesha (Judicial) and Ajit Kumar (Technical) held that the assessee was not covered under the category of intermediary, which by definition excludes a person who provides a service on his account.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed for non-payment of service tax on ocean freight charges on the ground of time-barred by limitation.
The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesha (Judicial) and Ajit Kumar (Technical) held that the demand was to be restricted to the normal period only and quashed the penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that to determine service tax liability, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of any finding of willful suppression.
The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesha (Judicial) and Ajit Kumar (Technical) Penalties imposed, which are consequential to evoking of the extended period are quashed.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe rate of interest which is prescribed by Government of India in terms of Notification issued under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act,1944.
A Single Bench of Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member noted that “I am firmly of the view that the request appellant for interest on the refund will have to be considered only in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in the manner as prescribed by the said section.” The Bench relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court has in the case of Northern Plastics, wherein it was held that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal thus noted that the appeal filed by the appellant is to be partly allowed to extent of interest due to them in terms of section 11BB taking the date of filing the application for refund as 06.09.2010.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand on hiring of the buses to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) under ‘Rent a Cab operator Service’ and observed that the entire demand beyond normal period is not sustainable.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We find that there is no dispute that the issue involved interpretation of law regarding taxability of the service of hiring of buses. On this issue various cases have been decided and though finally it was held that the hiring of the buses also falls under ‘rent a cab service’ but considering the bonafide of the assessee the demand is set aside on the ground of time barred.” “Even though the demand on merit was sustainable, but demand for the extended period was set aside. Considering this legal position is the present case since entire demand is beyond normal period the same is not sustainable. Consequently, the penalties are also not sustainable” the Tribunal noted.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that there is no requirement that claims for refund should be filed within 3 months of Tribunal’s order for the refund of pre-deposit.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We find that in various judgments it has been settled that as regard refund of pre-deposit, there is no requirement for filing a refund claim. The department must give the refund suo moto on the basis of Tribunal’s order therefore merely because the appellant have not filed the proper refund claim within 3 months of the Tribunal order, department cannot be absolved from the liability of interest on the refund of pre-deposit.” “There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that appellant is entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund was granted” the Bench concluded.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that the payment of service tax gives the right to claim cenvat credit on input services.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The agreements entered with the broadcasting agencies were not on behalf of WWIL, but on its own behalf by the appellant. Further, perusal of the invoices issued by the broadcasting agencies to the appellant on which the appellant has paid the service tax gives him a right to claim the cenvat credit on input services.” The Tribunal also noted that the appellant has been filing the ST-returns with full disclosure of the cenvat credit amount availed on the services and the department was already aware of the fact about the availment of cenvat credit of tax paid on broadcasting services.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication to decide in the matter of condonation of delay as there was delay in filing appeal by 23 days as the Director of the company was abroad.
A Single Bench of Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “It is settled law for such technicalities right of appeal – to be heard by a Competent Appellate Authority, as statutorily provided should not be withered away. Commissioner (Appeals) in this case by not allowing the application for condonation of delay has denied the opportunity to the appellant to put his case on merits in appeal filed. There is enough reason to justify the delay of twenty three days ideally such delay should have been condoned and appeal heard on merits.” “Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant on grounds of limitation after dismissing his application for condonation of delay. The matter needs to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits in appeal that was filed by the appellant before him” the Tribunal concluded.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed penalty on the Director of the company on the ground that there was no suppression of facts as goods were cleared by appropriate invoice.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We find that in the present case there is a procedural lapse on the part of the company the goods were cleared on payment of duty. The only lapse is that the appellant could not obtain the permission for the quantity cleared in DTA. There is no suppression of facts In the entire case as the goods were cleared by on the appropriate invoice and on payment of duty therefore even though if there is a short payment of duty for which the penalty cannot be imposed on the director of the company. For this reason, we are of the opinion that penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed to the director of the company is not sustainable.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the longer period of limitation not available when the entire information on service tax liability is in the knowledge of the Revenue.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “The appellant has maintained proper books of accounts in the normal course of business. It is pertinent to note that the entire case of the department on merit is that since appellant have availed Cenvat Credit, they violated the condition of abatement notification No. 01/2006-ST. As discussed above the facts that availment of Cenvat Credit and payment of Service Tax on the abated value were declared in the ST-3 return.” “Inasmuch as the entire information was in the knowledge of the Revenue, the longer period of limitation is not available. In view of these facts the show cause notice should have been issued within the normal period of one year as prescribed under Section 73(1), whereas the show cause notice for the period April 2008 to March 2009 was issued on 26.02.2013 i.e. after prescribed limit of one year” the Bench noted.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), set aside order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for not serving Order-in-Original under Section 153 of the Customs Act,1962
A Two-Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “We have to conclude that the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not complied with in these appeals as proof of receipt of these orders by the appellant could not be produced by the Revenue, though entries in the dispatch register evidenced dispatch of the impugned Orders-in-Original.” “As such we set aside the order to remand all these appeals to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for passing appropriate orders on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Thus, these appeals are allowed and disposed of by way of remand” the Tribunal concluded.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that third party inspection charges are not includable in assessable/transaction value of goods and thereby quashed the excise duty demand.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “The appellant is not otherwise involved in the said third party inspection. It is only for the convenience purpose of the customer, the appellant coordinates such third party inspection for which the payment for such third-party inspection is though initially paid by the appellant but subsequently and finally incurred by the customer. Therefore, in this fact, in our considered view, the third party inspection charges cannot be included in the assessable value/ transaction value of the excisable final product i.e. transformers manufactured by the appellant. “The third party inspection charges are not includable in the assessable/transaction value of the goods. Therefore, the demand on this ground confirmed by the Adjudicating authority and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is not sustainable” the Bench concluded.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the demand for extended period not sustainable on no suppression of fact or malafied intention to evade payment of service tax.
Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “since there is no suppuration of fact or malafied intention to evade payment of service tax, demand for the extended period shall not be sustainable also on the ground of limitation. Therefore we set aside the demand not only on merit but also on limitation for the period which is beyond normal period of limitation.”
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the value of free supply items cannot be included in assessable value for the purpose of calculation of service tax.
A Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “Merits apart, we find that the show-cause notice and thus, the impugned order are not sustainable on the question of limitation. It is not disputed that repeated show-cause notices have been issued to the appellants on the very same issue and on the basis of very same objections raised by the Audit. It is not permissible in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nizam Sugars Factory.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that school busses does not fall under the definition of ‘cab’ under Section 65(20) of the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax can be levied from Akshar Travels, the appellant.
a two-member bench consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical member) held that the service provided by Akshar Travels is clearly for school children, therefore service tax cannot be levied. “We do not agree with this contention of the Revenue for the reason that the transportation was used for school children who are studying in the school run by J.K paper Ltd therefore, the bus service was exclusively used for transportation of children and not for the business purpose of J.K Paper Ltd” the Bench noted. The bench noted that the lower authorities had wrongly denied the exclusion of service tax on the ground that the service recipient, J.K Paper Ltd which is a commercial organization and cannot be treated as an educational body.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax is not leviable on arranging and conducting station camps and other programs for educational purposes.
The two-member bench consisting Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical member) after considering the submissions from the revenue stated that the activities provided by the National Edu Venture Institution is nothing but outdoor educational activities and outdoor games and activities are very much part of curriculum of education. The bench further stated that in the present era all educational institution does not have in house facility to provide extra curriculum of education therefore they outsource to get the best possible result in low cost. Outsourcing such activities do not cease to be educational activity. Therefore, the activities carried by the National Edu Venture Institution is related to education and is not leviable for service tax.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) service tax is not demandable on GTA service in absence of over charges other than actual freight charges.
The Two member coram comprising Mr. P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr.M Ajit Kumar, Member (technical) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits. Smt. J. Ragini, Advocate and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Superintendent appeared respectively.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax demand issued for one year period beyond the date of the Show Cause Notice is not valid
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar Member (Technical) observed that in the case of Service Tax liability on the sub-contractor demand for the extended period cannot be sustained in the light of the larger bench judgment in the case of M/s Melange developers Pvt. Ltd. The CESTAT held that the entire demand being issued for an extended period i.e. beyond one year from the date of show cause notice shall not sustain on limitation alone and set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed excise duty exemption to pre laminated bagasse board and observed that no compulsion should be given to opt for notification which has higher duty liability.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “However, we note that there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturing bagasse board which is covered by Sl. No. 82 of Notification No. 6/2006. No evidence and reason have been produced by the department regarding the dispute that as to why the product manufactured by the respondent cannot be called as bagasse board.” “We find that the impugned goods are eligible to get exemption without any condition under these two notifications. The respondent cannot be compelled to opt for a notification which has higher duty liability” the Bench concluded.
In a major relief to M/s. Vedanta Ltd, the appellant, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), confirmed the rebate sanctioned on exported anode slime and that excise duty demand not is not sustainable.
A Two-Member Becnch comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “From the facts narrated above, it can be seen that the Board vide Circular dated 14.07.2015 has clarified that duty is payable on anode slime. Being so, the rebate sanctioned in regard to anode slime exported is legal and proper. The demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.”
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed cenvat credit on sugar cess paid on import of raw sugar and noted that Section 11D of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA), can be invoked only if excise duty is collected.
A Two-Member Bench comprising of Raju, Technical Member and Somesh Arora, Judicial Member observed that “In view of the forgoing and also the fact that Section 11D can be invoked only if duty is collected, but not paid, whereas in the instant case, same was paid from accumulated CENVAT Credit, we find the case of department has no legs to stand. Further, when levy i.e. Sugar Cess in this case has not been done away with, but has only been exempted vide Notification No. S.O. 102 (E), dated, 07.01.2009 by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, party always has the right to avail or not to avail exemption, as per the trite law relied upon by appellants.”
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed the suspension of registration as authorized courier on observing that there is no role of courier service in smuggling gold.
A Two Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “The appellant has cooperated with the investigation so as to bring out the truth. On appreciation of the evidence, we do not find grounds to hold that the appellant had played any role in the incident. In such circumstances, the order of revocation of the license cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside.” “However, as the appellant has not obtained authorization from the importer, we are of the view that the forfeiture of security deposit would be adequate. Forfeiture of Rs.10 lakhs is on the higher side. We hold that forfeiture of Rs.5,00,000/- would be sufficient” the Tribunal noted.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that once the License authority having been satisfied about fulfilment of export obligation, the Customs authorities are bound to accept it.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and Sulekha Beevi CS, Judicial Member relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bhilwara Spinners v. Union of India, wherein it was held that “Once the licencing authority has found that the licencing conditions have been fulfilled, it would not be open to the customs authorities too contend that the imports under the licence are contrary to law and take action against the licence holder.” The Tribunal further observed that “The allegations put forth in the show cause notice is that the respondent had not registered the vehicle as tourist vehicle and also that the foreign exchange earned fully and accounted for the purpose of obtaining Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) was not earned by using the imported car. It is seen that the very same issues had come up for analysis before the Tribunal in the respondent’s own case with regard to the import of Mercedez Benz car under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme.”
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), imposed penalty of Rs 10 lakhs for smuggling gold and observed that a person who causes to make, sign or use any declaration or document liable under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “On investigations, it was revealed that there is no such person in the given address. These are nothing but paper transactions. The imports were made only for the benefit of appellants and their allies. A person who causes to be made, signed or used any declaration or document is also liable under Section 114AA of Customs Act.” The Bench concluded that both appellants are guilty and liable for penalty liable under Section 114AA. On appreciation of facts, we find that penalty of Rs.25 lakhs under Section 114AA is on the higher side and requires to be reduced. The penalty imposed under this section is reduced to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on each of the appellants.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ordered fresh adjudication as there was willingness to pay excise duty as per normal process of debonding at the time of exit from Export Oriented Units (EOU) scheme.
The Tribunal of M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The appellant has showed his willingness to pay the duty as per the normal process of debonding at the time of exit from EOU scheme. Hence, I feel that in the light of the development the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the facts and decide all the issues raised by the appellant regarding depreciation, destruction of obsolete goods etc. and arrive at the duty payable along with interest, afresh.” “I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh the issues relating to the demand for duty and interest only, after considering any written request from the appellant and hearing him in the matter, based on the in-principle exit order given by the D.C. and further developments in the matter if any” the Tribunal noted.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless there is evidence of fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and PV Subba Rao, Technical Member observed that “Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless there is evidence of fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or violation of the provisions of Act or Rules with an intent.” The Bench noted that intentional and wilful suppression of facts cannot be presumed because (a) the appellant was operating under self-assessment or (b) because the appellant did not agree with the audit and claimed that CENVAT credit was admissible; or (c) because the appellant did not seek any clarification from the Revenue; or (d) because the officer did not conduct a detailed scrutiny of the Returns and the availment of CENVAT credit which is alleged to be inadmissible and was discovered only during audit.
In a major relief to M/s. Fourrts (India) Laboratories P. Ltd, the appellant, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that physician samples are to be assessed under Section 4 (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “Similar view was taken in the case of Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd. After considering the facts, and following the above decisions, we are of the considered view that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned orders are set aside.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for exporters found non-existent during subsequent verification.
A Two-Member Bench comprising R Muralidhar, Judicial Member and Rajeev Tandon, Technical Member observed that “The responsibility of the Customs Broker as held by judicial bodies does not require then to maintain vigil and continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that they continue to operate from the address as given in the various KYC documents and in case of change as such get the documents amended. “The Customs Broker has not failed in discharging his responsibilities under Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 Under the circumstances, the Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for the exporters found to not exist during subsequent verification undertaken, by the officers or there has been unrealized IGST, availed of by the untraceable exporters.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
