CESTAT Weekly Round Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reported at taxscan.in, from April 06, 2024 to April 12, 2024 Supply of Manpower Services to Educational Institutions are exempted from Service Tax: CESTAT Commissioner of Central Excise vs M J SOLANKI CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 398 The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the supply of manpower service to educational institutions is exempted from service tax. The Tribunal held that the respondent is eligible for exemption from payment of Service Tax for the supply of manpower to educational institutions under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) held that the respondent is eligible for exemption from payment of Service Tax for supply of manpower to above mentioned educational institutions under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. No service Tax Leviable on Work done in Capacity of Subcontractor: CESTAT Tejal Construction vs C.C.E. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 399 The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that service tax is not leviable on work done in the capacity of subcontractor. It was argued that the majority of demand has been confirmed for the work done under the capacity of a sub-contractor since the same would be tantamount to double taxation, therefore no demand can be sustained. A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr C L Mahar, Member ( Technical ) found that the appellant has submitted that for computation of demand service category-wise demand was not given in the adjudication order. The Tribunal viewed that at least before 01.07.2012, the correct classification of services is are must to demand the service tax. Therefore, the adjudication order is lacking with regard to the service-wise bifurcation of the demand which needs to be done. Freight Amount not Includible in Assessable Value of Goods for Charging Excise Duty: CESTAT Panama Petrochem Ltd vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Daman CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 400 The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the freight amount is not includible in the assessable value of goods for charging excise duty. A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “We find that freight/insurance have been charged separately and received separately. We also take notice that the buyers of the goods Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. have issued purchase order specifying the price for the goods separately and also specifying the transportation cost for the supply of goods. Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices.” Adjudicating Authority not under Whims of to Allow or Reject Request for Cross-Examination u/s 9D of Central Excise Act: CESTAT Shri Abbasbhai Teherali Bharmal vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 401 The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to act under whims of to allow or reject request for cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “Mainly the case is based on statements of various persons. The appellant have requested for cross-examination of the witnesses, which has been rejected by the Adjudicating authority. In the Adjudication process, the conducting the examination-inchief and thereafter offering the witness to appellant for cross-examination is mandatory under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. Cenvat Credit not Available in Absence of Declaration of Duty in Invoice issued to Buyer: CESTAT remands Matter for Adjudication Anwitha Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 402 The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit was not available in the absence of a Declaration of Duty in the invoice issued to the buyer and remanded the matter to consider the Chartered Accountant’s certificate dated 06/06/2014 apart from the other documents already submitted by the Appellant at the time of filing the refund claim adjudication. A single bench of Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) found that the Board vide instruction circular issued from F.No. 275/34/2006- CX.8A, dated 25-7-2008 has stated that Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeals filed before him under Section under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, shall, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. He can direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness to enable him to dispose of the appeal. In the circumstances, it was not proper of him to have rejected the appeal without examining it on its merits and after issuing a proper speaking order. No service Tax liability Arise u/s 66A on Company operating as Agency to Carry Out Business Trading: CESTAT Kiran Gems Pvt Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-i CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 403 The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax liability arises under section 66 A of the Finance Act, 1994 on a company operating as an agency to carry out under the purview of Section 66A of the Finance Act,1994 when a permanent establishment of the foreign service provider exists in India the recipient of service in India cannot be made liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that a branch office is covered under the scope of permanent establishment. Since Sarin India is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sarin Israel carrying out and coordinating essential trading activities it would be safe to say that Sarin India is in itself a branch office of the Israel company. Denial of Claim of 4 % SAD Refund alleging Trivial Procedural Requirement: CESTAT allows Refund HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT LTD vs C.C. AHMEDABAD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 404 In a recent judgement, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the denial of the Claim of 4 % Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) refund alleging trivial procedural requirement is invalid and allowed the refund. The Tribunal viewed that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007 – Customs should not be denied to the Appellant thereby the Appellant is entitled to refund the claim. A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) viewed that the benefits under Notification No.102/2007 – Customs should not be denied to the Appellant thereby the Appellant is entitled to refund claim. Relief to Hindalco, Credit of steel Used to Support Capital Goods is Eligible for Cenvat Credit: CESTAT HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs C.C.E.-BHARUCH CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 405 In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd, the Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the credit of steel used to support capital goods is eligible for cenvat credit. A two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) observed that the Cenvat credit has been denied on iron and steel items used in the fabrication of supporting structures for capital goods is eligible. The Appellants have availed Cenvat credit on H.R. M.S. & S.S. plates used in the fabrication of supporting structures of capital goods. Services under CRCS were brought under WCS from 01.07.2010, No Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST vs Hi-Rise Projects CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 406 The Hyderabad bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no Services tax exemption was allowable on the Construction of Residential Complex Services (CRCS) for the period before 01.07.2010. The CRCS were brought under WCS from 01.07.2010. A two-member bench of Mr Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr A K Jyotishi, Member (Technical) observed that once the service is rightly covered under WCS post 01.06.2007, the next question is whether they will be entitled to exemption under Circular No.151/2/2012-ST dt.10.02.2012. Transfer of Balance Cenvat Credit on Account of Britco Foods Company to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd is allowable on confirmation of merger: CESTAT Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise Thane – I CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 407 The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the transfer of balance cenvat credit on account of Britco Foods Company to Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd is allowable on confirmation of the merger. A two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) held that the department should have allowed the transfer of Modvat/ Cenvat credit lying in RG23A and RG23C accounts of M/s. Britco Foods Company Limited to M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Limited on receipt of the letter of the merger of two companies. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

CESTAT Weekly Round Up

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics