This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at taxscan.in, from March 6th to 12th, 2023.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has recently in an appeal filed before it, allowed Service Tax Refund Claim to Deloitte Global Financial Advisory India Pvt Ltd, the appellant.
The original authority having disallowed the refund to the extent of ₹ 15 lakhs,
the Tribunal consisting of CJ Mathew, the Technical Member held:
“It is seen from the impugned order that no such notice was issued to the appellant herein. The preliminary objections to the refund limited itself to a few objections that appear to have been responded to and none of those have proposed that the said amount of credit was to be recovered. In the absence of this critical requirement to comply with principles of natural justice, the denial of credit is without authority of law and impugned order is set aside.”
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has held that service tax does not apply to the service of advertising.
With M/s Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, challenging the order dated 1st of December 2016, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar, by which the demand of service tax of Rs. 4,58,38,070/- had been confirmed with interest and penalty, it was so argued by appellant that by virtue of the amendment of clause (g) of section 66D of the Finance Act, the sale of slots in an advertisement in print media did not attract service tax liability and also that the appellant had discharged its service tax liability on the expenses for non-print media advertisements.
Hearing the contentions, the two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, the President, along with Hemambika M. Priya, the Technical Member, while setting aside the impugned order, observed:
“The services of advertisement in respect of print media are exempted in terms of the negative list of services under section 66D(g) of the Finance Act. Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the service of advertisement in print- media”
With the appellant M/s. Perundurai Common Effluent Treatment Plant, filing an appeal before it, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has quashed service tax demand, holding that the activity of treating effluents discharged from member units is exempt from the levy of Service Tax.
The appellant having submitted that the demand for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014 is covered by Notification No. 08/2017-S. T, dated 20.02.2017, issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Finance Act, 1994, the Two Member Bench comprising Sulekha Beevi C.S, the Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, the Technical Member observed:
“Since the activity is exempt from the levy of Service Tax as per the above Notification, we have no hesitation to hold that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.”
As a major setback to M/s. East West Seeds India Pvt Ltd, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), has rejected the service tax refund claim of the appellant.
The appeal being directed against the Order of the Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Nasik, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Aurangabad Rural Division, rejecting the refund claim for the refund of service tax filed by the appellant under the provisions of Sub-Section 9(b) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017, it was so contented by the appellant that when the excess payment of service tax is not in dispute, the appellant is very much eligible for refund of excess service tax under section 11B of the central excise act, 1944.
With the appellant further submitting that the government cannot retain any amount without any authority of law by virtue of article 265 of the constitution of India which bars the collection of any tax without the authority of law, the Tribunal consisting of Sanjiv Srivastava, the Technical Member noted that admittedly no revised return as provided for in terms of Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or under provisions of the Section 142 (9) of the CGST Act had been filed by the appellant.
Thus, rejecting the appellant’s claim the Bench observed:
“I do not find any merits in the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the refund application can be considered without revision of the return of the self-assessment made by them while filing the ST-3 return. It is worth noting the provisions in Service tax law provide for the revision of the return by the assessee himself.”
With WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd, the appellant, having challenged the rejection of the refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credits for non-compliance of conditions enumerated in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT), dated 14.03.2006 and Notification No. 27/2012CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012, read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, has allowed the refund of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax based on secondary evidence submitted under section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Hearing the contentions of the appellant and thereby allowing the appellant’s claim, the coram comprising of Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, the Member (Technical) and Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, the Member (Judicial) observed:
“The attested copies of the invoices could have been considered as proof of production of document evidencing payment of duty, against which the creditor claimed. It was worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
