Loading...

More Judgements

2017-VIL-567-CESTAT-CHD-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Pre-deposit – Sponsorship service – Cenvat credit - HELD - assessee is not liable to service tax for sponsorship service - prima facie the applicant has made a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit on that count, therefore, the demand confirmed on account of sponsorship of Mumbai Indian IPL team and sponsorship of M/s.Otago Cricket Association - pre-deposit waiver granted - Sponsorship of IIFA awards – HELD - the services provided by way of sponsorship of the IIFA awards. The sponsorship services were received outside India. The sponsorship services do not have an existence separate from that of the e... [Read more]

Service Tax - Pre-deposit – Sponsorship service – Cenvat credit - HELD - assessee is not liable to service tax for sponsorship service - prima facie the applicant has made a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit on that count, therefore, the demand confirmed on account of sponsorship of Mumbai Indian IPL team and sponsorship of M/s.Otago Cricket Association - pre-deposit waiver granted - Sponsorship of IIFA awards – HELD - the services provided by way of sponsorship of the IIFA awards. The sponsorship services were received outside India. The sponsorship services do not have an existence separate from that of the event and it is actually the organization of the event through which the sponsorship services are rendered. The event of IIFA awards is organized outside India and therefore, when the services itself have been rendered outside India, there is no question of levy of service tax liability thereon - as the services consumed outside India, therefore is no levy of service tax - appellant have made out a case of complete waiver of pre-deposit on this account. [Read less]

2017-VIL-566-CESTAT-CHD-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - waiver of pre-deposit - applicant is manufacturing motor vehicles and setup their unit in India - some of the employees were sent to India by the parent Company for looking after the affairs of the appellant - Revenue view that the employees sent by the parent Company in India is covered under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, therefore, the applicant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism - With regard to Commissioning and Installation of plant and machinery, demand of service tax under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’, on the ground t... [Read more]

Service Tax - waiver of pre-deposit - applicant is manufacturing motor vehicles and setup their unit in India - some of the employees were sent to India by the parent Company for looking after the affairs of the appellant - Revenue view that the employees sent by the parent Company in India is covered under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service, therefore, the applicant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism - With regard to Commissioning and Installation of plant and machinery, demand of service tax under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’, on the ground that the supplier is a part of the Erection, Commissioning and Installation Agency service – HELD - From the facts of the case, it is not coming out that parent Company is a Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency. Prima-facie, the demand of service tax under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service is not sustainable. Accordingly, waiver of pre-deposit on account of demand under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service is granted - The supplier of plant and machinery is not engaged in the activity of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’ of plant and machinery. In fact, the said work has been done by an independent agency and the supplier has only supervised the work - Therefore, prima-facie, the applicant is not liable to pay service tax on the activities of supervision of Erection, Commissioning and Installation of plant and machinery - waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax, interest and penalty are granted [Read less]

2017-VIL-332-MAD-CE  | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – eligibility to Modvat credit on spares, components and accessories of machines, i.e., capital goods falling under Heading 84.74 of the CETA, 1985 - HELD - all parts, components, accessories, which are to be used with capital goods of clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of rule 57Q and classifiable under any Chapter heading are eligible for availment of Modvat credit - Going by the liberal meaning given to Clause (d) in Rule 57Q that the position prior to 23.07.1996 when credit was available for components, spares and accessories irrespective of the classification of specified capital goods, we have no ... [Read more]

Central Excise – eligibility to Modvat credit on spares, components and accessories of machines, i.e., capital goods falling under Heading 84.74 of the CETA, 1985 - HELD - all parts, components, accessories, which are to be used with capital goods of clauses (a) to (c) of Explanation (1) of rule 57Q and classifiable under any Chapter heading are eligible for availment of Modvat credit - Going by the liberal meaning given to Clause (d) in Rule 57Q that the position prior to 23.07.1996 when credit was available for components, spares and accessories irrespective of the classification of specified capital goods, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee - The Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order, which is, contrary to the ratio of the judgment rendered in appellant’s own case – Tribunal order is set aside and assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

2017-VIL-565-CESTAT-DEL-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – The assessee received ore concentrates and used them fully in the manufacture of zinc and lead - Rule 6 (2) of CCR, 2001 – common Cenvated input for both dutiable and exempted final products - quantification of proportionate quantity of input used in exempted goods – HELD - it is contended by the Revenue, that the criteria to find out proportionate quantity of input used in exempted goods should be based on value of exempted goods – there is no legal basis or logical reason for such a proposition. The Revenue drew a parallel from the CAS-4 Standard for costing used for ascertaining cost of producti... [Read more]

Central Excise – The assessee received ore concentrates and used them fully in the manufacture of zinc and lead - Rule 6 (2) of CCR, 2001 – common Cenvated input for both dutiable and exempted final products - quantification of proportionate quantity of input used in exempted goods – HELD - it is contended by the Revenue, that the criteria to find out proportionate quantity of input used in exempted goods should be based on value of exempted goods – there is no legal basis or logical reason for such a proposition. The Revenue drew a parallel from the CAS-4 Standard for costing used for ascertaining cost of production for captive consumption. Reference was made to joint cost etc. - such reference to costing of captive consumption has no relevance to the issue at hand and no legal basis for the assertion made by the Revenue to arrive at the proportion of Cenvat credit to be reversed, should be based on value of exempted products – all the inputs have been put to intended use and it is not the case that some portion of input is not put into use in the manufacture of zinc and lead. This position has been admitted by the Revenue also. If such is the case there can be no input which is solely attributable to the manufacture of small quantity of by-product namely, silver - the necessity of the assessee to reverse the proportionate credit itself appears to be not sustainable. Even so, the assessee did reverse the proportionate credit attributable to the quantum of inputs that could be considered as used in the manufacture of silver. The quantity based proportion calculated by the respondent is now being contested by the Revenue. The plea is that the final product value should form basis of such proportion. As already held, no legal basis for such contention by the Revenue – the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2017-VIL-333-MAD  | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Act 2006 - Section 2(41) – turnover - inclusion of discount in the taxable turnover – section 24 - Assessment of sales shown in accounts at low prices - HELD – A bare reading of the Explanation II(ii) to Section 2(41) would show that the discount cannot be included in the taxable turnover of an assessee - the Assessing Officer has come to a conclusion that the sale price is lesser than the price at which the appellant has purchased the goods by including in the purchase turnover - the very basis of this calculation is flawed. The Assessing Officer was required to compare the unit sale pric... [Read more]

Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Act 2006 - Section 2(41) – turnover - inclusion of discount in the taxable turnover – section 24 - Assessment of sales shown in accounts at low prices - HELD – A bare reading of the Explanation II(ii) to Section 2(41) would show that the discount cannot be included in the taxable turnover of an assessee - the Assessing Officer has come to a conclusion that the sale price is lesser than the price at which the appellant has purchased the goods by including in the purchase turnover - the very basis of this calculation is flawed. The Assessing Officer was required to compare the unit sale price of the goods in issue with the unit purchase price. The inclusion of the opening stock has led to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant has sold the goods at a price lesser than the price at which they had been purchased by him. This apart, the exercise, which is contemplated under Section 24 of the 2006 Act, has not been carried out by the Assessing Officer - the Assessment Order is set aside to the limited extent that it seeks to include the discount in the taxable turnover of the appellant – assessee petition is allowed [Read less]

2017-VIL-331-MAD-CU  | High Court Case CUSTOMS

Customs – Refund of Bank Guarantee furnished in the form of a security towards fulfilment of an obligation - Whether the assessee is entitled to get refund claim filed beyond the limitation period as prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - Whether period of 6 months as envisaged under Section 27 is applicable to the refund amount realised by the Revenue by enforcing Bank Guarantee - term ‘duty’ under Section 27 – HELD – it is clear that in so far as assessee was concerned, it not only fulfilled the export obligation, well within the time frame, provided under the EPCG Scheme, but also furnished all doc... [Read more]

Customs – Refund of Bank Guarantee furnished in the form of a security towards fulfilment of an obligation - Whether the assessee is entitled to get refund claim filed beyond the limitation period as prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - Whether period of 6 months as envisaged under Section 27 is applicable to the refund amount realised by the Revenue by enforcing Bank Guarantee - term ‘duty’ under Section 27 – HELD – it is clear that in so far as assessee was concerned, it not only fulfilled the export obligation, well within the time frame, provided under the EPCG Scheme, but also furnished all documents in that behalf. Therefore, what has to be borne in mind is as to the nature of the amount deposited in whichever form. If the amount deposited is towards security, surely, once the Assessee succeeds, he is entitled to seek restitution. Restitution, in such circumstances, is not covered by Section 27 of the Act - If the Bank Guarantee is furnished, as in this case, in the form of a security towards fulfilment of an obligation, then provisions of Section 27 of the Act will not apply - answered in favour of the Assessee and revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.