This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reported at taxscan.in, from February 4, 2024 to February 9, 2024.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside service tax demand for an extended period as there was proper filing of ST 3 returns and other statutory returns.
A Two-Member Bench comprising R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) and K. Anpazhakan, Member ( Technical ) observed that “Hence, we hold that the confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the confirmed demand for the extended period. However, they are required to pay the Service Tax, if any, for the normal period. Even in the cited case of Cox & Kings relied upon by the appellant, after setting aside the demand in respect of extended period, the demand towards normal period has been confirmed.”
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed customs duty demand as the show cause notice ( SCN ) was issued beyond the normal time limit.
A Two-Member Bench comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “We hence find that the appellant has not acted with dishonest or fraudulent intent and suppression of facts is not involved. This being so, question of invoking the extended time limit or imposing penalty does not arise. We do not go into the merits of the issue, due to a lack of challenge on the said grounds, further the appeal on time bar is answered in favour of the appellant. Since the Show Cause Notice has been issued beyond the normal time-limit, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.”
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed customs duty demand on 32mm TMT bars and observed that the Adjudicating Authority is not an expert.
A Two-Member Bench comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “It is certain that the adjudicating authority/Revenue is not an expert nor does the appellant claim to be an expert. Hence, it was desirable for the Revenue to have got even the 32mm TMT bars analysed by the expert namely, National Metallurgical Laboratory, since the re-classification has been attempted holding that these 20mm, 25mm and 32mm TMT bars are alloys, after entertaining a fundamental doubt.”
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the order rejecting refund as there was compliance of condition in the excise notification by filing RT-12 returns regularly.
A Two-Member Bench comprising R Muralidhar, Judicial Member and K Anpazhakan, Technical Member observed that “Thus, the Appellant could not have filed the refund application till confirmation of the substantial expansion condition by the department. However, we find that the Appellant has filed RT-12 returns regularly wherein they have categorically mentioned the duty paid by them from the account current. We observe the details disclosed in the RT-12 return would be sufficient to fulfil the Clause 2(a) of the Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99.”
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand as there was no actual service of notice of hearing by Commissioner ( Appeals ).
Two-Member Bench of SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The department has also not been able to establish the actual service of notice of hearing by Commissioner ( Appeals ). Since, the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in spite of the fact that Original Authority has allowed the claim of the appellant. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner ( Appeals ) with a direction to decide the matter afresh on merits after giving proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant.”
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the non-imposition of penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as there was no allegation for invocation of extended period.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “Coming to the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, we find that the terms of the Section are very clear that penalty under the Section can only be imposed when duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty.”
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that transport service cannot be considered as “Goods Transport Agency” ( GTA ) service in the absence of a consignment note.
Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) set aside on the ground that the transport services were rendered by the individual truck or transport operators and therefore no consignment note was issued and as a result, the same would not fall within the scope of the definition of “Goods Transport Agency” as given in section 65(50 b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied for procedural inadequacies.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “In view of the above, we find that when the availment of services and admissibility of credit are not questioned at the end of the appellant or the ISD, CENVAT credit cannot be denied; substantive benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied just because there were some procedural infractions.”
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the order of the Commissioner quashing service tax demand under head supply of tangible goods for use ( SOTG ).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member and AK Jyotishi, Technical Member observed that “Having considered the rival contentions and the facts on records, we find that the Show Cause Notice is bereft of basic facts as required and clarified by the Supreme Court in BSNL case. We further find, there is no error in the order of the Commissioner, as there is no dispute on the facts in the impugned Order-in-Original. Further, the Commissioner has rightly followed the Board Circular as aforementioned. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal of Revenue and thus the appeal is dismissed”.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
