CESTAT Weekly Round-Up

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 August 20to August 26, 2022.

Bhaskar Steel and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise- 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 453

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata held that an Extended time limit under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act can be invoked, if there is a positive act of assessee to conceal anything from the department. The Tribunal also noted that “Courts have consistently held that the extended time limit can be invoked only if there is a positive act on the part of an assessee to conceal anything from the department. There must be a deliberate attempt to suppress information for invoking the extended period. We, therefore, hold that no ground has been made out to justify invoking the extended time limit.”

M/s. S.K.Kanjilal vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 435

The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata set aside revocation of Customer Broker Licence which was revoked for violation of Regulation 10(d) and 10(e) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulation (CBLR), 2013.The Bench consisting of Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member held that “In any case, other than mere allegations of no advice and no due diligence, as Revenue has not brought on record the role/roles played by the Appellant and that which amounted to connivance etc., since it is the settled position of law that allegations howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof.

REYNOLDS PETRO CHEM LTD vs C.C.E. & S.T - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 422

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad quashed the demand for service tax on failure of adjudicating authority regarding the chief examination of witnesses under Section 9D of the Central Excise Tax Act.Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “In the present matter the Adjudicating Authority had failed to follow the requirement of Section9D of the Act regarding examination in chief of witness, therefore demand of service tax on the basis of statements of persons cannot be sustainable.”

Sconce Global Private Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax- 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 425

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the contract involves services, as well as supply/deemed supply of goods, which can only be classified under the head “works contract services”.The Coram of Mr Justice Dilip Gupta, President, and Mr P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) has held that “the show cause notices demanding service tax under the head “Pandal and Shamiana services” from the appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned orders need to be set aside”.

SPML Infra Limited vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise -2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 429

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set-asides demand of service tax based on expected revenue and expenses and not on actual amounts realized.The Tribunal observed that the impugned order does not point out a single case whereby the amounts realized by the appellant against any of the projects undertaken by the appellant were not reflected in their ST-3 return.In case the revenue realized against the project is not reflected in the service tax returns filed over the period, then only revenue demand can be sustained otherwise the demand needs to be set aside.

M/s Jindal Tubular (India) Limited vs The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise -2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 424

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that an inaccurate description of reimbursement collected under Rule 6(3)(1) and deletes addition u/s 11D.The Coram of Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, President, and Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) by relying on the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Unison Metals Ltd has set aside the demand.

China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd vs C.C.-Ahmedabad - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 418

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad allowed Automatic Refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) to China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd. The Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member, and Raju, Technical Member relied on the judgment in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) CHENNAI vs. SAYONARA EXPORTS and were in the High Court of Madras held that “the appellants would be entitled to an automatic refund of EDD without the filing of an application for a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon’ble High Court held that there is no need to file any refund application and the order for refund can be made suo moto.”

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