This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from June 25 to June 30, 2022.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai bench held that services provided from overseas are not chargeable to GST under the reverse charge mechanism.It was observed that the Appellant has paid service tax on a reverse charge basis when services have been received from the non-resident service provider in India under the taxable service category of business auxiliary service. for which payment has been made by the Appellant to the non-resident service providers. Further, the services provided by the overseas service provider to the overseas site offices of the appellant cannot be said to be received in India when the same is provided outside India, used outside India and paid outside India and the tax demandis not sustainable. Judicial member Mr Ramesh Nair and Technical Member Mr Raju set aside the impugned orderand allowed the appeals filed by the Appellants with consequential relief.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT),Mumbai bench held that doctrine of unjust enrichment can’t apply to the payment of duty by way of pre-deposit.It was observed that no authority would show that any amount being shown as expenditure would automatically get credited to the income side as if it is realised from a third party/person.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the reimbursement of office expenses, being no service element involved, cannot be subjected to service tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.It was observed that the appellants have relied upon some cases to argue that the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable when any tax is paid under mistaken notion of law and any such amount paid should be treated as a deposit.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that, the Amount of TCS (Tax Collected at Source) is not additional consideration flowing from buyer to appellant and hence not chargeable as Excise Duty. The Tribunal observedthat the amount of TCS cannot be considered as additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the appellant accordingly, the same is not includable in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty and held the impugned order is not sustainable.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that affixing chairs in stadiums is not chargeable to tax as an activity, not of commercial nature.The bench consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta, President, and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The activity undertaken in a stadium, which belongs to Government and is used for non-commercial activities, would not be covered under the definition of CCIS as held by Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above, it is apparent that the activity of affixing chairs in a stadium would be covered under the description of service covered under commercial or industrial construction service, but not chargeable to tax for the reason that the structure for which the said activity has been undertaken is not of commercial nature.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad grants interim relief to Suzuki Motors on the ground of classification of parts and accessories of motor vehicles under the Customs Tariff Act.Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member, and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The issue to be decided is whether the Controlled Assembly CVT imported by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 9032 and other items imported are classifiable under CTH 7318 as declared by the appellant or under CTH 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 as assessed by the Customs. In view of the provisions, it is clear that for the classification of goods under chapter heading 8708 i.e., parts and accessories of Motor Vehicles above conditions require to be satisfied.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Ahmedabad bench presided by Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) has held that no adjustment of demand from sanctioned claim during the pendency of demand case before Tribunal.The Tribunal observed that from the Board Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX regarding recovery of dues when the appeal is pending, it is clear that against the adjudged dues, the appellant, for filing an appeal, is required to pay only 7.5% or 10%. On payment of such amount, the entire remaining amount stand stayed,and out of the remaining amount no recovery can be made.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the penalty of the Chairman/Managing Director since he failed to ensure proper accounting of finished goods.
The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has reduced floor limits of bond and bank guarantee prescribed for allowing the provisional release of confiscated goods.The Tribunal observed that circular no. 35/2017 of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBIC) banning the exercise of such authority for certain categories of imports and establishing the floor limits of bond and bank guarantee to be prescribed for allowing provisional release.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi bench held that no penalty arises on a confiscated gold bar in the presence of cogent evidence.The Tribunal observed that the appellantexplained the licit possession of the two gold bars, as received by way of succession under the will of his father. The Tribunal modified the impugned order by upholding the order of confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of duty and redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/-,Penalty under Section 112(a) is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the Confiscation u/s 111(l) and penalty. The appeal was allowed in part.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), of Chennai Bench, held that refund of cess credit balance can’t be denied for non-utilisation due to change in legislation.Judicial Member, Ms SulekhaBeevi C.S. observed that a mere change of legislation could not deny the valuable right and set aside the impugned order. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member, and Raju, Technical Member held that classification of Products only on the basis of Nomenclature under Customs Tariff Act is baseless.CESTAT held that “The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered this statutory provision of central excise tariff act, they have also not considered the chemical characteristics of the product therefore, the classification decided only on the basis of nomenclature that too picking up words from the full nomenclature of the name of the product is absolutely baseless and cannot be sustained.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
