Latest Updates: Uttarakhand: Withdrawal of rebate on the tax payable on sale of Diesel Oil | Tripura: Reduction in rate of tax on ATF | Rajasthan: Amendment in Schedule | Haryana: Increase in rate of tax on Diesel + Haryana Value Added Tax (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 | Service Tax: Instructions regarding procedure of service tax refund/exemption to SEZ | Maharashtra Circular: CST Act - Grant of exemption from filing returns - Withdrawal of concession | Assam: Amendment in VAT Schedule | Uttar Pradesh: Amendment in Schedule II, Part C |

Recent Updates

2014-VIL-322-CESTAT-CHE-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 28.11.2014

M/s ATC LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-III: 24.10.2014 - Central Excise - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture Cigarettes of length 69mm - The Finance Bill, 2012 proposed to enhance the rate of duty the said item - The Finance Bill, 2012 came into effect from 17.3.2012 and received assent of the President of India on 28.5.2012 - Dispute relates to demand of duty for the period from 17.3.2012 to 27.5.2012 – HELD - Issue is no more res integra in view of the Board’s Circular F. No. 345/01/2013-TRU dated 11.2.2014 in respect of effective date of levy of excise duty on cigarettes at the enhanced rate vide Finance Act, 2012. The Board has clarified that the amendment in the Finance Act, 2012, shall be ... [Read more]

M/s ATC LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-III: 24.10.2014 - Central Excise - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture Cigarettes of length 69mm - The Finance Bill, 2012 proposed to enhance the rate of duty the said item - The Finance Bill, 2012 came into effect from 17.3.2012 and received assent of the President of India on 28.5.2012 - Dispute relates to demand of duty for the period from 17.3.2012 to 27.5.2012 – HELD - Issue is no more res integra in view of the Board’s Circular F. No. 345/01/2013-TRU dated 11.2.2014 in respect of effective date of levy of excise duty on cigarettes at the enhanced rate vide Finance Act, 2012. The Board has clarified that the amendment in the Finance Act, 2012, shall be applicable from the date of enactment of the said Finance Act i.e. on 28.5.2012 and not from 17.3.2012 - In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Finance Act, 2012 shall be applicable only from 28.5.2012 - Impugned order set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-323-CESTAT-CHE-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 28.11.2014

EUROTHERM DELL INDIA LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-III: 17.11.2014 - Central Excise – Modvat Credit – Penalty - After sales service of defective components – Assessee rectified the same by using the modvat availed components, without reversing the modvat credit - Whether penalty is imposable under Rule 57(I)(4) of CER for the period 23.07.1996 to 28.09.1996 – HELD - The Revenue has clearly brought out in the show cause notice and in the adjudication order, the contraventions, suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, as the respondents have cleared the modvatable inputs to their customers as warranty replacement without reversing the modvat credit taken on them and without following a... [Read more]

EUROTHERM DELL INDIA LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-III: 17.11.2014 - Central Excise – Modvat Credit – Penalty - After sales service of defective components – Assessee rectified the same by using the modvat availed components, without reversing the modvat credit - Whether penalty is imposable under Rule 57(I)(4) of CER for the period 23.07.1996 to 28.09.1996 – HELD - The Revenue has clearly brought out in the show cause notice and in the adjudication order, the contraventions, suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, as the respondents have cleared the modvatable inputs to their customers as warranty replacement without reversing the modvat credit taken on them and without following any procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. Once the contravention of Rule and suppression of facts have been proved for invoking penal provisions stipulated under Section 11AC read with Rule 57(I) (4) of CER, the imposition of penalty becomes mandatory on the part of adjudicating authority - Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed to the extent of imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority [Read less]

2014-VIL-369-AP|VAT |High Court Cases | 28.11.2014

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs M/s ITC BHADRACHALAM PAPER BOARDS DIVISION: 20.11.2014 - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Section 6A - Agreement between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent-company for grant of long term leases of forest land for making bamboo available, for the consumption of the respondent, at their paper mills – Sale - Goods - 'Moveable property' or 'immovable property' - The Revisional Authority classified the subject leases into two categories; the first category of leases where the respondent-company had extracted bamboo, and had transported it for consumption in their mills; and the second category of leases where the forest department had ex... [Read more]

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs M/s ITC BHADRACHALAM PAPER BOARDS DIVISION: 20.11.2014 - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Section 6A - Agreement between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent-company for grant of long term leases of forest land for making bamboo available, for the consumption of the respondent, at their paper mills – Sale - Goods - 'Moveable property' or 'immovable property' - The Revisional Authority classified the subject leases into two categories; the first category of leases where the respondent-company had extracted bamboo, and had transported it for consumption in their mills; and the second category of leases where the forest department had extracted bamboo, cut them to sizes, made them into bundles, and had collected extracting charges, and the selling price on such goods, from the respondent-company. The second category of transactions were brought to tax under Section 6-A of the Act – HELD - In the departmentally extracted coupes, bamboos were felled and removed by the forest officials, in the other parts of the allotted coupes, these activities were undertaken by the respondent-company themselves. Except for the additional conditions, which were applicable specifically to departmentally extracted bamboos, all the other terms and conditions of the agreement were common, including those which required the respondent-company to maintain the coupes allotted to them in the forest areas in accordance with the prescriptions of the working plan in force, and to carry out Silviculture operations. While sixty thousand tonnes of bamboo was "allocated" each year, these bamboos were not in a ready and deliverable state when the contract was entered into. The "bamboos" were not removable even after they were cut unless they were weighed and permits were granted. Severance of bamboo, even in the departmentally extracted coupes, was not under the contract of sale, but was prior thereto. The bamboos, liable to be cut each year, were not in a "deliverable state" on the date of the agreement. The various clauses in the contract show that there is no "sale", on the contract date, of bamboos as the goods were not in a deliverable state. As the bamboo cannot be cut or removed except as provided therein, the contract is not an agreement to sell bamboos standing in the contract areas, with an accessory licence to enter upon such areas for the purpose of felling and removing the bamboos. Nor is it only in respect of a particular felling season. It embraces not only bamboos which are in existence on the date of the contract, but also bamboos which are to grow and come into existence thereafter. There is, therefore, no "sale" within the purview of Section 2(n) the APGST Act [Read less]

2014-VIL-324-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 28.11.2014

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD Vs CCE & S.T., CHANDIGARH: 12.11.2014 - Service Tax – Refund – Allowance of the credit paid on GTA service which was availed by the respondent under Reverse Charge Mechanism – HELD - Conditions 2 (a) of the said notification No. 17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the assessee were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim... [Read more]

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD Vs CCE & S.T., CHANDIGARH: 12.11.2014 - Service Tax – Refund – Allowance of the credit paid on GTA service which was availed by the respondent under Reverse Charge Mechanism – HELD - Conditions 2 (a) of the said notification No. 17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the assessee were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim exemption for specified services in view of the condition 2 (a) of the said Notification – Appeal dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-325-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 28.11.2014

GENERAL MANAGER, CONSUMER MOBILITY, BSNL LTD Vs CCE & ST, CHANDIGARH-I: 24.10.2014 - Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - Admissibility of cenvat credit on pre-fabricated buildings/ shelters/ pandals which were used by them for housing/storage of generating sets and other components/spares at their transmission sites – HELD - While the appeals admittedly fail on merit, I find that the grounds for invoking the extended period and mandatory penalty are clearly unsustainable and inadequate. The period involved in this case is 10.09.2004 to March, 2006. Show cause notice was issued on 29.04.2010. Therefore, entire demand is barred by limitation – Appeal is allowed and impugned demand, interest and pena... [Read more]

GENERAL MANAGER, CONSUMER MOBILITY, BSNL LTD Vs CCE & ST, CHANDIGARH-I: 24.10.2014 - Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - Admissibility of cenvat credit on pre-fabricated buildings/ shelters/ pandals which were used by them for housing/storage of generating sets and other components/spares at their transmission sites – HELD - While the appeals admittedly fail on merit, I find that the grounds for invoking the extended period and mandatory penalty are clearly unsustainable and inadequate. The period involved in this case is 10.09.2004 to March, 2006. Show cause notice was issued on 29.04.2010. Therefore, entire demand is barred by limitation – Appeal is allowed and impugned demand, interest and penalty set aside [Read less]

2014-VIL-320-CESTAT-DEL-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 27.11.2014

M/s SHREE BABA EXPORTS Vs CCE, MEERUT-II: 10.11.2014 - Central Excise - Cenvat Credit Rules - Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 – Exempted final product – Reversal of credit – HELD - Since in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final product, if out of the same cenvat credit availed inputs, more than one final product are manufactured and out of those final products, one final product has become fully exempt from duty, the cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty on the other final products, which are dutiable and as such, the manufacturer’s right to utilize the cenvat credit for payment of duty on the final ... [Read more]

M/s SHREE BABA EXPORTS Vs CCE, MEERUT-II: 10.11.2014 - Central Excise - Cenvat Credit Rules - Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 – Exempted final product – Reversal of credit – HELD - Since in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final product, if out of the same cenvat credit availed inputs, more than one final product are manufactured and out of those final products, one final product has become fully exempt from duty, the cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty on the other final products, which are dutiable and as such, the manufacturer’s right to utilize the cenvat credit for payment of duty on the final products which are still dutiable cannot be taken away just because out of several final products, one final product has become exempt from duty. We, therefore, hold that the Revenue’s interpretation of Rule 11(3) is not correct - While the provisions of sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule 11 are not applicable, the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule would be applicable, if during the period of dispute, the appellant were clearing their finished products for home consumption. However, the provisions of either sub-rule (1) or of sub-rule (2) read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 would not be applicable, if the appellant were exporting their finished products out of India under bond or under Letter of Undertaking. However, the Appellant have not produced any evidence in support of their plea that during the period of dispute, the finished products were being exported under bond/LUT. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after ascertaining as to whether during the period of dispute, the appellant were exporting their final products and keeping in view our observations in this order – Assessee appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-321-CESTAT-AHM-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 27.11.2014

M/s SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS: 10.11.2014 - Service Tax – GTA Service – Demand - Time barred - Whether show cause notice issued on 18.5.2005 is within the period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994 wherein demand has been issued for the period December 1997 to May 1998 as per the retrospective amendment – HELD - It is observed that High Court of Gujarat has held that no short levy can be demanded from the assessee in that case even after the retrospective amendment was brought into operation by the Revenue as per amendments carried out in Section 68(1) and Section 73 and addition of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 - In the present case of t... [Read more]

M/s SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS: 10.11.2014 - Service Tax – GTA Service – Demand - Time barred - Whether show cause notice issued on 18.5.2005 is within the period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994 wherein demand has been issued for the period December 1997 to May 1998 as per the retrospective amendment – HELD - It is observed that High Court of Gujarat has held that no short levy can be demanded from the assessee in that case even after the retrospective amendment was brought into operation by the Revenue as per amendments carried out in Section 68(1) and Section 73 and addition of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 - In the present case of the appellant the show cause notice has been issued on 18.5.2005 which is beyond the period of one year - The issue is already been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs Eimco Elecon Ltd - Following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court the appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-368-MAD|VAT |High Court Cases | 27.11.2014

M/s WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD Vs THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER: 19.11.2014 - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act – Detention of goods of the ground Consignee is an unregistered dealer – Consignee has applied for TNVAT registration – HELD - The petitioner has clearly explained in its reply stating that consignee has applied for TNVAT registration and a copy of the acknowledgment has been annexed. However, this has not been verified by the Authority till date and straight away, the impugned compounding notice has been issued. The other ground for detention is that the goods will be released only after collecting tax and penalty. This observation made in the detention notice is contrary to the Circ... [Read more]

M/s WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD Vs THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER: 19.11.2014 - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act – Detention of goods of the ground Consignee is an unregistered dealer – Consignee has applied for TNVAT registration – HELD - The petitioner has clearly explained in its reply stating that consignee has applied for TNVAT registration and a copy of the acknowledgment has been annexed. However, this has not been verified by the Authority till date and straight away, the impugned compounding notice has been issued. The other ground for detention is that the goods will be released only after collecting tax and penalty. This observation made in the detention notice is contrary to the Circular issued by the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 17.07.2014 – Demand illegal - Consequently, the compounding notice demanding tax and compounding fee is held to be bad in law and the same is quashed - It is open to the first respondent to verify the statement made by the petitioner stating that the Consignee has applied for registration and if the same is correct, then the consignment shall be released – Appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-367-AP-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 27.11.2014

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM-I: 13.11.2014 - CESTAT – Deposit as a pre-condition for fresh adjudication - Security before adjudication - Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to put a condition of depositing for adjudicating the matter afresh by the Commissioner of Central Excise – HELD - Tribunal does not have any inherent power like Civil Court to pass appropriate order for the ends of justice. The Tribunal is a creature of a Statute with specific powers mentioned in the Statute itself. From the grounds of the appeal and the Statute, we do not find any provision for depositing Rs. 5crores for adjudication and the same is wi... [Read more]

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM-I: 13.11.2014 - CESTAT – Deposit as a pre-condition for fresh adjudication - Security before adjudication - Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to put a condition of depositing for adjudicating the matter afresh by the Commissioner of Central Excise – HELD - Tribunal does not have any inherent power like Civil Court to pass appropriate order for the ends of justice. The Tribunal is a creature of a Statute with specific powers mentioned in the Statute itself. From the grounds of the appeal and the Statute, we do not find any provision for depositing Rs. 5crores for adjudication and the same is without jurisdiction - We accordingly direct the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter without any deposit – Appeal allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-318-CESTAT-AHM-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 26.11.2014

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD Vs CCE, RAJKOT: 14.11.2014 - Central Excise - CENVAT credit on Installation and Erection services at customer’s premises – Place of Removal - HELD – The process of erection and commissioning at the buyers premises is incidental to the manufacture of the machine and therefore the erection and commissioning services provided also can be said to be in relation to the manufacture, since the process in this case is complete only after the erection and commissioning takes place. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate, Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of... [Read more]

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD Vs CCE, RAJKOT: 14.11.2014 - Central Excise - CENVAT credit on Installation and Erection services at customer’s premises – Place of Removal - HELD – The process of erection and commissioning at the buyers premises is incidental to the manufacture of the machine and therefore the erection and commissioning services provided also can be said to be in relation to the manufacture, since the process in this case is complete only after the erection and commissioning takes place. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate, Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyers premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted - Cenvat credit on Input Services is also admissible if the same are availed beyond the place of removal provided such services are availed in relation to manufacture. On merits case goes in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue – Assessee appeal allowed on merits as well as on time bar [Read less]

2014-VIL-365-BOM|VAT |High Court Cases | 26.11.2014

M/s SUBROS LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX: 18.11.2014 - Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Reference to High Court - Dispute as to whether sale of auto air conditioners and its parts which are exclusively adopted for using motor vehicles said to be covered by Schedule Entries C-II-148 or C-II-102(2) or C-II-104 – Rate of tax – HELD - Tribunal should not have refused to forward these questions for answering by this Court. The Tribunal's refusal to do so is not warranted and cannot be sustained. The Application is therefore, allowed and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal is directed to forward the questions for opinion and answer by this Court – Assessee application allowed

2014-VIL-364-P&H-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 26.11.2014

M/s DHILLON OIL AND FATS PVT LTD Vs CCE, LUDHIANA: 09.10.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Penalty under Section 11AC - Failure to pay duty – HELD - Penalty may only be imposed, if failure to deposit duty is occasioned by wilful misstatement, fraud and collusion etc. i.e. mens rea. Thus, before an Adjudicating Authority proceeds to levy penalty it is required to record a finding, in terms of Section 11 AC(1) (a) of the Act - A perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Authority reveals that it has treated levy of penalty as an automatic consequence of failure to pay duty, thereby rendering its order illegal, insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority and the T... [Read more]

M/s DHILLON OIL AND FATS PVT LTD Vs CCE, LUDHIANA: 09.10.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Penalty under Section 11AC - Failure to pay duty – HELD - Penalty may only be imposed, if failure to deposit duty is occasioned by wilful misstatement, fraud and collusion etc. i.e. mens rea. Thus, before an Adjudicating Authority proceeds to levy penalty it is required to record a finding, in terms of Section 11 AC(1) (a) of the Act - A perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Authority reveals that it has treated levy of penalty as an automatic consequence of failure to pay duty, thereby rendering its order illegal, insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal failed to discern this error - The appeal is, consequently, partly allowed, order passed by the Tribunal, affirming the order of penalty is set aside and the appeal is restored to the CESTAT on the limited question of the legality of penalty, imposed by the Assessing Authority [Read less]

2014-VIL-366-KAR|VAT |High Court Cases | 26.11.2014

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs M/s TOSHIBA EMBEDDED SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT LTD: 09.10.2014 - Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Non-application of exemption notification – Liability of purchaser - HELD - The assessee purchased furniture from the seller who is a dealer in furniture. The exemption notification relied upon is in respect of sale of raw materials, component parts and packing materials by the registered dealer to 100% EOU. It has no application to the sale or purchase of furniture. The seller acting on the said notification which has no application, had granted exemption of tax to the assessee. He is at fault and primary liability to pay tax is on the seller only. If the case falls under Sectio... [Read more]

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs M/s TOSHIBA EMBEDDED SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT LTD: 09.10.2014 - Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 – Non-application of exemption notification – Liability of purchaser - HELD - The assessee purchased furniture from the seller who is a dealer in furniture. The exemption notification relied upon is in respect of sale of raw materials, component parts and packing materials by the registered dealer to 100% EOU. It has no application to the sale or purchase of furniture. The seller acting on the said notification which has no application, had granted exemption of tax to the assessee. He is at fault and primary liability to pay tax is on the seller only. If the case falls under Section 8-A(5)(a) of the Act, the liability could be foisted on the purchaser-assessee. In the instant case, as the notification on which, reliance was placed is not applicable to the furniture, the assessee has not contravened any restrictions or conditions stipulated in the said notification. Because the said notification is not applicable at all - Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tax is to be collected by the seller - Since Section 8-A(5)(a) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case, no liability could be foisted on the assessee – Revenue appeal dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-317-CESTAT-DEL-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 26.11.2014

M/s MAWANA SUGARS LTD Vs CCE & ST, LTU, DELHI: 27.10.2014 - Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - Activities relating to business – Input Service - Cleaning of the yard within the factory - As per the provisions of the factories act provision of Section 11 of the Factories Act it is the responsibility of a manufacturer to keep the factory premises neat and clean, therefore, the cleaning of the factory has to be treated as activity in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the Cenvat credit in respect of this activity would be admissible - Weighment of sugar cane and its unloading at the factory - This activity has to be treated as activity in relation to manufacture of sugar ... [Read more]

M/s MAWANA SUGARS LTD Vs CCE & ST, LTU, DELHI: 27.10.2014 - Service Tax – Cenvat Credit - Activities relating to business – Input Service - Cleaning of the yard within the factory - As per the provisions of the factories act provision of Section 11 of the Factories Act it is the responsibility of a manufacturer to keep the factory premises neat and clean, therefore, the cleaning of the factory has to be treated as activity in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the Cenvat credit in respect of this activity would be admissible - Weighment of sugar cane and its unloading at the factory - This activity has to be treated as activity in relation to manufacture of sugar and molasses. Therefore, I hold that Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of this activity also and the same has been wrongly denied - Activities of sugar cane area survey and sugar cane development – This has to be seen on the basis as to whether these activities have nexus with the business of manufacture of sugar - While these activities may not have nexus with manufacture of sugar, these activities certainly have nexus with the business of manufacture of sugar, as the supply of good quality sugar cane with good sugar recovery is a must for the business of manufacture of sugar. Therefore, Cenvat credit in respect of these activities would be admissible [Read less]

2014-VIL-316-CESTAT-CHE-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 26.11.2014

KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI: 24.11.2014 - Service Tax – Assessee paid central excise duty on the parts of lifts at the time of clearance from their factory - Erection, commissioning and installation at their customer's premises - Service tax on a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value on erection, commissioning and installation. According to Revenue, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 33% of the contract value as per Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 01.03.2006 – HELD - Appellant had not produced the documents in support of their contention of sale of goods. It is seen that the appellant had arrived at a notional percentage of 15% of ... [Read more]

KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI: 24.11.2014 - Service Tax – Assessee paid central excise duty on the parts of lifts at the time of clearance from their factory - Erection, commissioning and installation at their customer's premises - Service tax on a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value on erection, commissioning and installation. According to Revenue, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 33% of the contract value as per Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 01.03.2006 – HELD - Appellant had not produced the documents in support of their contention of sale of goods. It is seen that the appellant had arrived at a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value. The Tribunal already decided in assessee’s own case that this issue would be required to be examined by the adjudicating authority in detail - Impugned order set aside and the matter remanded [Read less]

2014-VIL-319-CESTAT-MUM-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 26.11.2014

GROUP M MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD, LINTAS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE/SERVICE TAX THANE-I/MUMBAI-II: 27.08.2014 - Service Tax - Levy of service tax on discount received by advertising agency from the print/broadcast media in respect of advertisements placed by the said agencies on behalf of customers – HELD - Tribunal in the case of Grey Worldwide [2014-VIL-179-CESTAT-MUM-ST] has already held that the service tax demands on these receipts are not sustainable, in the present case also, the same ratio has to be applied - Accordingly, demand is set aside and allow the appeals filed by assessee. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected

2014-VIL-314-CESTAT-DEL-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |CESTAT Cases | 25.11.2014

AMCO INDIA LTD Vs CCE, JAIPUR: 20.10.2014 - Cenvat Credit Rules – Rule 16 - Maintenance of separate records of inputs received as return after sale and the same treated as inputs – HELD - Revenue on one hand, is contending that no records were being maintained by the assessee after receipt of the returned goods, so as to show the further process taken by them and on the other hand, they are contending that 80% of the receipt material was cleared as scrap. The said submission of the Revenue is based upon the statement of the employee, without verifying as to whether the waste and scrap so cleared by the appellant emerged during the course of remanufacture or the not. The provision of Rule 16 ... [Read more]

AMCO INDIA LTD Vs CCE, JAIPUR: 20.10.2014 - Cenvat Credit Rules – Rule 16 - Maintenance of separate records of inputs received as return after sale and the same treated as inputs – HELD - Revenue on one hand, is contending that no records were being maintained by the assessee after receipt of the returned goods, so as to show the further process taken by them and on the other hand, they are contending that 80% of the receipt material was cleared as scrap. The said submission of the Revenue is based upon the statement of the employee, without verifying as to whether the waste and scrap so cleared by the appellant emerged during the course of remanufacture or the not. The provision of Rule 16 does not require maintenance of any records. The returned goods have to be treated as inputs and the assessee having shown the issuance of the said inputs from their RG-I; had deemed to have manufactured their final product. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of revenue’s stand, no justification for setting aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeal is accordingly rejected [Read less]

2014-VIL-363-ALH|VAT |High Court Cases | 25.11.2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs S/s ROTOMACK FINANCE PVT LTD: 21.11.2014 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Transfer of goods – Lease rental -Contract for transfer of right to use machines – Import of machine from outside the State and contract for transfer of right to use machines was executed at Kanpur - Exemption from tax on the lease rent/rent under Section 3F of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Whether transaction in question of dealer is taxable under Section 3F or the dealer is entitled to exemption under Section 3F(2)(B)(1) of Act, 1956 – HELD - In respect to inter-State trade or commerce the situs of sale or purchase is wholly immaterial. The State legislature cannot by law, treat sa... [Read more]

THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs S/s ROTOMACK FINANCE PVT LTD: 21.11.2014 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Transfer of goods – Lease rental -Contract for transfer of right to use machines – Import of machine from outside the State and contract for transfer of right to use machines was executed at Kanpur - Exemption from tax on the lease rent/rent under Section 3F of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Whether transaction in question of dealer is taxable under Section 3F or the dealer is entitled to exemption under Section 3F(2)(B)(1) of Act, 1956 – HELD - In respect to inter-State trade or commerce the situs of sale or purchase is wholly immaterial. The State legislature cannot by law, treat sales outside the State and sales in the course of import as 'sales' within the State by fixing the situs of sales within its State in the definition of 'sale' as it is within the exclusive domain of Parliament to fix the location of sale by creating legal fiction or otherwise. The situs of sale can only be fixed by the appropriate legislature – The Tribunal has considered the question whether there was any inside sale or not, in the light of relevant facts as noticed above and applying the dictum laid down and discussed, it has found that no transfer of right to use the goods had taken place inside the State of U.P. and on the contrary, it has taken place outside U.P., which view, I find myself in entire agreement. Ld. Counsel could not point out any manifest, legal or otherwise error in the view taken by the Tribunal, so as to persuade the Court to take a different view. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order – Revenue appeal dismissed [Read less]

2014-VIL-361-MAD-CE|CENTRAL EXCISE |High Court Cases | 25.11.2014

M/s SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs THE REVISION AUTHORITY: 07.11.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 – Appeal before wrong forum – Period of limitation – Revisional Authority – HELD – While computing limitation, the starting point of limitation should have been the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioner. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that should not be the date, but the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal, since the petitioner was represented by counsel before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal returned the papers to the petitioner for being presented before the proper forum. The appeal... [Read more]

M/s SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs THE REVISION AUTHORITY: 07.11.2014 - Central Excise Act, 1944 – Appeal before wrong forum – Period of limitation – Revisional Authority – HELD – While computing limitation, the starting point of limitation should have been the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the petitioner. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that should not be the date, but the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal, since the petitioner was represented by counsel before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that the Tribunal returned the papers to the petitioner for being presented before the proper forum. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable and not on merits. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner is intimated with the order along with original papers, the petitioner cannot approach the revisional authority. Therefore, in the petitioner’s case, the period of limitation should commence to run from the date of which the petitioner received the certified copy of the order passed by the Tribunal along with papers. If such date is taken, the delay has to be computed from 24.03.2011 and the petitioner preferred the revision petition on 08.07.2011 i.e., after the period of three months and 14 days from the date on which the order passed by the Tribunal had been communicated to them along with return of papers for presenting before the proper forum. Admittedly, in terms of Sub-Section (2) to Section 35EE of the Act, the revision could be filed within a period of 3 months and the condonable period is further period of 3 months. The petitioner’s revision was filed within 3 months and 14 days, therefore, the delay of 14 days being not an inordinate delay, the revisional authority could have considered the petitioner's plea and entertained the revision and considered the claim on merits - The order passed by the revisional authority stating that the revision petition is beyond the condonable period in terms of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act is incorrect - In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside [Read less]

2014-VIL-362-KER|VAT |High Court Cases | 25.11.2014

M/s MADRAS CEMENTS LTD Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT): 11.11.2014 - Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Legality of the validation clause introduced through the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2003, to the extent it validates the collection, of amounts towards additional sales tax under Section 5D, by a registered dealer during the period from 01.04.2003 to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2003 – Retrospective effect - HELD - Provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2003, contained not only the validation clause but also a provision that provided for the omission of the proviso to Section 5D - The omission of this proviso eff... [Read more]

M/s MADRAS CEMENTS LTD Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT): 11.11.2014 - Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Legality of the validation clause introduced through the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2003, to the extent it validates the collection, of amounts towards additional sales tax under Section 5D, by a registered dealer during the period from 01.04.2003 to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2003 – Retrospective effect - HELD - Provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2003, contained not only the validation clause but also a provision that provided for the omission of the proviso to Section 5D - The omission of this proviso effectively resulted in the levy of additional sales tax, as contemplated under Section 5D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, continuing to be in force for the period during which the Act was applicable. No doubt, the petitioner has a case that the amendment introduced through the Amendment Act of 2003 did not contemplate a retrospective operation, and therefore, there was no obligation on the petitioner to pay additional sales tax during the interim period between 1st April 2003 and the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act. This contention is one that is available to the petitioner to agitate before the appellate authorities under the Act since it is essentially a question relating to applicability of the provisions of the Act to a particular factual situation. I do not propose to make any observation in that regard in this writ petition - The challenge in the writ petition, against the legal and constitutional validity of the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 2003, fails – Matter demanded [Read less]

2014-VIL-360-MAD-ST|SERVICE TAX |High Court Cases | 25.11.2014

M/s ARTEMIS HR SERVICES CBE (P) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax – Pre-deposit – Financial hardship – Appellant had admitted that service tax has been collected and not paid over to the credit of the Government - HELD - In this case except stating that certain amount is due from the bank investments from USA, the appellant has not chosen to file any document in support of his submission. The mere statement or affidavit without any supporting document will be no avail – Pre-deposit confirmed - However, taking note of the plea of the appellant seeking further time for making payment, we are inclined to grant extension of time – Appeal par... [Read more]

M/s ARTEMIS HR SERVICES CBE (P) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX: 14.11.2014 - Service Tax – Pre-deposit – Financial hardship – Appellant had admitted that service tax has been collected and not paid over to the credit of the Government - HELD - In this case except stating that certain amount is due from the bank investments from USA, the appellant has not chosen to file any document in support of his submission. The mere statement or affidavit without any supporting document will be no avail – Pre-deposit confirmed - However, taking note of the plea of the appellant seeking further time for making payment, we are inclined to grant extension of time – Appeal partly allowed [Read less]

2014-VIL-315-CESTAT-AHM-ST|SERVICE TAX |CESTAT Cases | 25.11.2014

M/s MOSAIC INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., RAJKOT: 24.11.2014 - Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Export of Services Rules, 2005 – Distribution fee - Services provided to their principal abroad as distributors and commission agents – HELD - Commission Sales Agreement and Non-exclusive Distributor Agreement, pertaining to Distribution Fee/Agency Fee, have to be considered as export of services and no service tax is leviable on such export of services - Service tax on receipts regarding saving in Ocean Freight – HELD - There is no service involved as the goods, for which facilities of appellant are availed, belong to the appellant. Learned advocate of the appe... [Read more]

M/s MOSAIC INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., RAJKOT: 24.11.2014 - Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Export of Services Rules, 2005 – Distribution fee - Services provided to their principal abroad as distributors and commission agents – HELD - Commission Sales Agreement and Non-exclusive Distributor Agreement, pertaining to Distribution Fee/Agency Fee, have to be considered as export of services and no service tax is leviable on such export of services - Service tax on receipts regarding saving in Ocean Freight – HELD - There is no service involved as the goods, for which facilities of appellant are availed, belong to the appellant. Learned advocate of the appellant explained with the help of the documents available on record that ownership of the goods, for which such ocean freight based incomes are received, belongs to the appellant. In our opinion for charging service tax there has to be a service provider and a service recipient. One cannot be held to be a service provider to one’s own self - appeal of the appellant with respect to service tax on amount received from the principal on saving in ocean freight is required to be allowed - Service tax on Cargo Handling, Customs Clearance, Port Services and Transportation as composite services - Appellant argued that these were separate services provided by the appellant under different contracts and have to be treated as separate services. It is observed from the case records that it is not a case where an earlier composite contract, without distinction of different services and amounts payable for each service, was later artificially divided for each services - There is no evidence that the contract were artificially splited to avoid service tax. As the services are separate and service recipient in future could avail the services of a service provider from a service provider other than the appellant, therefore, it cannot be held that all the independent and separate contracts represent a common composite contract - Appeal of the appellant to be allowed [Read less]