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 November 12 to November 19, 2022.
M/s Navkar Corporation Limited vs Additional Commissioner – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 364
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that, For procedural lapse benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied as duty payment under invoice, receipt of input has not been disputed.
M/s Lakshya Education Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 619
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has no power to modify the scope of exemption notification issued by the Central Government. The Tribunal observed that “We find that the impugned order passed denying the benefit of exemption notification relying upon the CBEC Circular dated 20.06.2003 cannot be sustained as the CBEC has no power to modify the scope of the exemption notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 issued by the Central Government.”
Desmet Reagent Pvt.Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 618
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi allowed cenvat credit on payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Cess by utilizing Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) scrips. The A Single Bench consisting of Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that there is no disability in availing the credit, where CVD and Cess have been paid by utilizing DEPB scrips.
M/s. Bbazaar Marketing and Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.vs The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 620
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that Incomplete debit note not valid document for availing cenvat credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. A Perusal of the debit note revealed that it does not contain the nature of taxable service per se provided by the other party to the appellant, which is the condition precedent in terms of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CCR, observed the Bench of P Dinesha, Judicial Member.
Sai Charan Tours & Travels vs Commissioner of Customs – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 622
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), set aside the condition of testing in Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (VRDE) on the ground that Vehicle complies stipulations for operation and running on Indian roads. The Tribunal observed that, “As the impugned vehicle has already been registered with the authorities concerned, it would appear that the vehicle complies with all the stipulations for operation and running on Indian roads.”
Principal Commissioner of Customs vs Custodian / Manager – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 621
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench held that the direction to remand matter is unnecessary as there was Payment of entire duty and penalty. C S Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member held that “When the entire duty and penalty has been paid up by the respondent, I do not find grounds to re-examine as to whether the SIIB was the proper officer to issue SCN.”
K L INTERNATIONAL vs C.C. – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 624
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), reduced security for provisional release of dry dates considering perishability. A Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member held that “The goods namely dry dates being edible is obviously in the perishable nature. It has been considered consistently by various forums that in case of perishable goods provisional release of the goods should be allowed expeditiously.
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co Operative Limited vs C.C. – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 623
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), set aside rejection on transaction value in absence of evidence on relation between seller and buyer to influence price of imported goods. The Coram observed that. “it is clear that even if it is assumed that the buyer and seller are related in terms of Rule 2 (2) of valuation Rules, 2007 read with explanation II of said Rule, the price at which the goods were purchased from OMIFCO is the true transaction value and not influenced by their relationship.”
J S Kataria vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 625
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that taxable services provided about the transmission of electricity are exempted under CBIC notification. The CESTAT consisting of Mr Ramesh Nair, member (judicial) and Mr Raju member (technical) observed that all the services provided in relation to the transmission of electricity are exempted under notification no.45/2010-ST therefore the demand is not sustainable on merit.
Lenovo India Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) – CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 628
While granting relief to Lenovo, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs to hard disk drives. Mr C J Mathew, member (technical) and Mr Ajay Sharma, member (judicial) comprising CESTAT bench has observed that “it is the foregoing of revenue and not the principle espoused in the said exemption notification that engenders the contrarian approach on the part of the tax collector and that is not an acceptable argument to unsettle settled law.”
Vihari Jewels vs Commissioner of Customs – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 634
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that Penalty under Customs Act on ‘smuggling’ is not valid when authorities act without indicating illicit trafficking. “Without evincing illicit trafficking, in the form in which it was recovered from customers, from outside the country, even by the stretched framework of preponderance of probability, there is no onus on the appellants to establish that the conjectures entertained by customs authorities are incorrect” the Tribunal said.
SAI POOJA ENTERPRISES vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 632
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), granted service tax exemption to canteen maintained in a factory. The Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “In the present case as evident from documents submitted by the appellant, since the appellant had provided the services of serving foods and maintaining the canteen located in the factories, the benefit of service tax exemption as per the above referred Notification should be available to it.”
M/s. Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 629
A Bench of the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed refund of unutilised CENVAT Credit as inputs were taken on export of services. The Bench consisting of Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, Judicial Member observed that “Input services availed by the Appellant as eligible credits and in view of the fact that Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) permits refund of such unutilised credits of the exporters.”
SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD vs C.C.E – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 633
A Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), directed re adjudication as Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on outward GTA Services was availed. The Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal properly with these documents/ details and facts submitted by the Appellant before him in the impugned order. Therefore, the case needs to be reconsidered by the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh after considering the said documents and vital facts and Board Circulars.”
Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 630
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that Service Tax is not leviable on deposit from customers as security deposit to trading of shares. A Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “We find that the revenue has demanded the Service Tax on the security deposit taken by the appellant from their customer towards operating of the trading account of shares.”
Welspun Syntex Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 626
Renting of immovable property and supply of Tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service, said the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and quashed the order demanding duty. The CESTAT bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, member (judicial) and Mr Raju, member (technical) held that the renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service.
Org Informatics Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 631
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand as the amount was refunded by the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) to the Appellant, Org Informatics Limited and that they have not received the services to that extent. The Bench of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The appellant has not contested the service tax demands on merits. Out of total service tax demand of Rupees fifty-eight lakhs, they disputed only service tax demand of Rupees two lakhs and penalties in this matter.”
Perfect Ready Mix Concrete vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 635
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the demand of service tax under works contract service can’t be charged when the assessee predominantly engages in the manufacture and sale of goods. The CESTAT bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that the appellant being the manufacturer of RMC, paying excise duty not only on the value of the goods but also on the value of service of pumping, laying of concrete and the same is included in the sale value.
Maa Foundry Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 636
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed demand of duty on the ground that there was absence of corroborative evidence on allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods. A Bench consisting of P K Choudhary, Judicial Member held that “I hold that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice, is merely on assumption and presumption, without sufficient material evidence corroborating the said allegations. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order.”
Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner, CGST – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 637
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the outdoor catering services provided to the employees aims at enhancing efficiency and performance cannot be treated as personal, welfare measure or a perquisite and therefore, the same is eligible for cenvat credit. The Bench observed that, “the said service is used by the appellant for its business activity during office hours and not as a personal or welfare measure for its employees nor it’s a perquisite provided by the appellant to its employees.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
