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 October 8 to October 14, 2022. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
M/s. Sree Rajendra Textiles vs The Commissioner of Customs -2022 TAXSACN (CESTAT) 519
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench rejected claim for refund and held that sleeping over rights for nearly ten years, cannot take shelter under law. A Single Bench consisting of P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “It was nearly after ten years that the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. was passed, which the appellant is trying to take advantage of by claiming that its application for refund is within one year from the date of the above judgement. This is clearly an afterthought, which cannot be accepted, since the scope of Section 27 ibid. is limited to the claimant who pursues by means of litigation before higher authorities and hence, any third person cannot derive any benefit out of the same.”
Singapore Airlines vs Commissioner of Service Tax – I – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 521
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench rejects tax claim of 5 Crores ordered as ‘deemed provider’ of ‘online information data base access or retrieval service’ thereby granting relief to Singapore Airlines. The Bench consisting of C J Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member), relied on the judgment in re Korean Air and observed that “Considering the several decisions in which the Tribunal has consistently taken the stand that the provisions of such service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994.”
M/s Techno Power Enterprises Private Limited vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 523
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has, recently, in an appeal filed before it by an appellant, held that a limitation period will not be applicable to the refund claim of mistakenly paid service tax. “It is observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has disputed the claim of refund on the ground that the appellant failed to produce reliable evidence to support the refund claim. In this regard, it is found that no dispute was ever raised in the Show Cause Notice as well as in the Order-in-Original with regard to the documentary evidence for payment of service tax by the assessee. Therefore, the finding made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly travelled beyond the scope of allegations in the Show Cause Notice since not in dispute. Therefore, the said observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be legally sustained.”
M/s. PepsiCo (I) Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CE & ST, Raigad – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 522
The Customs, Excise& Service Tax AppellateTribunal, (CESTAT), Mumbai, Regional Bench, has recently while deciding upon an appeal filed before it by an appellant, held that excise duty is not demandable on the broken bottles of beverages. “Observations made by the Commissioner (Appeal) in para 8 of the impugned order cannot be sustained for this simple reason. However, we also note that substantial compliance with the circular of 2010 has been made by the appellant by reversing the CENVAT Credit on the inputs used in respect of the finished goods contained in the breakages. Thus, in our view, taking note of the reversal made, the impugned order cannot be sustained”, the bench added, allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned orders.
M/s Manikgarh Cement vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 524
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that cenvat credit is available on welding electrodes and D.A gas. “As could be noticed from para 24 of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority had observed that welding electrodes and D.A. gas were used in the cement manufacturing plant of the appellant for the purpose of repair and maintenance of its plant and machinery. This being the observation of the adjudicating authority, there is no denial of the fact that the plant and machinery which were being used for manufacturing of final product, were being kept usable with conditional periodic repair and maintenance, in which these two components were being used.”
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise vs Vodafone Idea Limited – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 516
As a relief to Vodafone Idea Limited, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to avail CENVAT credit on the debit notes issued by M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd to them in which charges for electricity, diesel and rent had been adjusted by the terms of ‘infrastructure provision agreement’ between them and the provider. While dismissing the appeal of revenue, the Tribunal observed that the competent authority has not been able to draw a distinction between diesel as goods and any duties paid thereon being ineligible for availing of credit and a charge raised upon the recipient of the service as the value of the service on which tax liability under Finance Act, 1994 has been duly discharged.
Reliance Industries Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise – 2022 TAXSACN (CESTAT) 520
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench approves eligibility for refund of amount reversed in CENVAT credit account under rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) between April 2010 and March 2011 thereby granting relief to Reliance Industries Limited. The Bench consisting of C J Mathew, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member observed that “the principle stands established that rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is inoperable ab initio in such clearances. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.”
SHRI VIPUL JOSHI vs C.C.-AHMEDABAD – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 518
The Customs, Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of Ahmedabad bench held that the penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act,1962 is not sustained in the absence of possession of smuggled gold bars by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and set aside the penalty.
M/s Zubair Hashmi Trading vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) -2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 512
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has recently, while deciding an appeal filed before it by an appellant, held that the Goods Declaration GD-1 (Transhipment Permit) is a sufficient document to establish the origin of the goods imported. “While the appellant got a copy of the Transit Certificate endorsed by the Pakistan Customs and produced later, we do not find it at all necessary. Indian Customs cannot insist that the importer has to get a document issued by the Afghanistan Government also signed/ endorsed by the Pakistan Customs and there is no such requirement in the exemption notification.”, the bench added.
M/s. Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST & CE, Belapur – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 528
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Mumbai, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that invoices of GMIPL are valid documents for taking CENVAT credit. “Further, while passing the order dated 30.9.2013, the adjudicating authority has caused verification of the transactions undertaken by the appellant in respect of broadcasting services and advertising agency services. After verifying that the appellant had availed both the services and has also borne the incidence of Service Tax, he came to the conclusion that the appellant is rightly eligible for the benefit of the CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on broadcasting service. The same ratio shall apply for the previous period also”, continuing its observation the bench added.
Apex International vs Commissioner of Customs – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 525
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside redemption fine and penalty imposed after reduction, on confirmation of confiscation, albeit after reduction in appellate proceedings attendant upon confirmation of confiscation ordered under section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. A Singe Bench consisting of CJ Mathew, Technical Member held that “It would appear that the sole issue for determination is the scope for invoking the detriment of confiscation under section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 with attendant penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. In effect, the decisions of the Tribunal in re Global Boards Ltd and re Maruti Udyog Ltd, cited by the Learned Counsel, pertaining to law on invoking of section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 in circumstances of the imports having been regularised, must be followed. “
Om Sai Fabricators vs Commissioner of CE & ST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 527
The Mumbai Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty under section 77 is sustained when the assessee failed to register and to file ST-3 returns within the prescribed time. In Dharamendra Textile, it was observed that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
