Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Clim of refund by the recipient of services – excess service tax was paid by the service provider – The fact that the assessee ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

M/s. La Freight Lift Pvt. Ltd. Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal – Customs – MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC – Suspension of operation of Customs Broker License, under Regulation 19(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 – Forfeiture of security – Earlier hearing of petition – Held that:- it would be suffice to direct the first respondent Tribunal to consider the application for stay at an early date and pass appropriate orders – Tribunal is directed to take up the application for stay first and pass appropriate orders – Decided in favour of assessee. – 2014 (7) TMI 890 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – W.P.No.18911 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 – - Dated:- 17-7-2014 – M. Sathyanarayanan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Vijay For the Respondents : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, SCGSC for R2 ORDER By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition it is averred that the petitioner was served with an order of suspension, dated 17.04.2014, by the second respondent, suspending the operation of Customs Broker License, under Regulation 19(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'CBLR, 2013' in short) and thereafter, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and the representative of the petitioner has also attended the personal hearing and submitted a written submission. The second respondent, vide Order-in-Original, dated 20.05.2014, has ordered for the continuation of suspension, in exercise of powers under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR, 2013. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice, under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013, read with Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the license granted to them shall not be revoked and the security deposit should not be forfeited or penalty should not be imposed. The second respondent has also nominated an Inquiry Officer, by a communication dated 03.06.2014. The petitioner, aggrieved by the finding………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Central Excise – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Waiver of pre-deposit – For a hardship to be undue it must be shown that the particular burden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the n………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

M/s. Quest Life Services (P) Ltd. Versus The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal – Central Excise – MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC – Waiver of pre-deposit – SEZ unit – Clearance of goods to DTA units without following the prescribed procedure – duty was confirmed holding that the material, which was cleared are not books within the meaning of Customs Tariff Heading 49.01, and that it will fall under 49.11 and not exempt from duty – notification No.21/2002 – Held that:- there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant that the goods are not liable to duty in terms of the exemption in Notification No.21/2002 Customs. The above fact, in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Gujarat Prestorp Electronics Ltd.s case [2005 (8) TMI 657 - Supreme Court of India], was not considered by the Tribunal for deciding the prima facie case. Undue hardship to such person and safeguard the interests of the Revenue – Held that:- It has become an unfortunate trend to casually dispose of stay applications by referring to decisions in Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, [1984 (1) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court] and CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court] cases without analysing factual scenario involved in a particular case. For a hardship to be undue it must be shown that the particular burden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it. – The word undue adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant. We find much force in the plea of the appellant regarding undue hardship and financial difficulty in pursuing the appeal on payment of the pre-deposit as ordered by the Tribunal. The same, therefore, requires to be modified considering the prima facie case of the appellant. – appellant is granted waiver of the entire amount ordered to be paid as pre-deposit by the Tribunal. – stay granted – decided in favor of assessee. – 2014 (7) TMI 883 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – C.M.A. NO. 3297 OF 2013 AND M.P. NO. 1 OF 2013 – - Dated:- 11-7-2014 – R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M. A. Kalam For the Respondent : Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, ACGSC JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, wherein direction was given to the appellant for pre-deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal. 2. The question that arises for consideration is Whether the Tribunal was justified in ordering pre-deposit of duty overlooking the decision of the Supreme Court in 2005 (186) ELT 532 (SC) . 3. The Revenue demanded customs duty amounting to ₹ 24,48,632/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Two only) and ₹ 25,43,198/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Eight only) for two periods, viz., 2004-2006 and 2006-2007 together with penalty under Section 114 (A) of the Customs Act. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant unit is situated in the Special Economic Zone, part of the Export Processing Zone. The appellant company is engaged in the business of contract research on behalf of Pharmaceutical companies. During the period in question, the department, on verification, found that the appellant unit had cleared goods to the Domestic Tariff Area (for brevity, the DTA ) and those clearances were done without following the procedure laid down under Rule 48 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, and in violation of Section 30 of the Special Economic Zone Act. A show cause notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act was issued and the matter was adjudicated and a demand for duty was ordered together with penalty. An appeal was filed challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.6.06. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide his order dated 13.9.06, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remanded the matter back for de novo consideration. The Deputy Commissioner, on remand, took up the matter for reconsideration and, thereafter, on 16.11.06, confirmed the demand under Section 28 holding that the material, which was cleared are not books within the meaning of Customs Tariff Heading 49.01, and that it will fall under 49.11 and not exempt from duty and, consequently, imposed the penalty under Section 114 (A), against which an appeal was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 26.2.07, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in C.C. (General), New Delhi Vs – Gujarat Prestorp Electronics Ltd. (2005 (186) ELT 532 (SC))should be considered for the purpose of deciding the case. It was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals), at the time of taking up the appeal for hearing on merits, has clearly held that there was a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Original Authority, viz., the Deputy Commissioner on 20.9.07, confirming the duty and penalty as demanded in the show cause notice. 5. As against the said order, an appeal was filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 29.6.09 against which an appeal was filed on 22.10.09 to the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, by order dated 11.12.12, passed in Misc. Order No.895,896 of 2012 passed impugned order No.828-829 of 2012. The Tribunal, while holding that there was no prima facie case in favour of the assessee, was of the view that there is a dispute on classification of goods under Customs Tariff Heading 49 and came to the conclusion that for the grant of benefit under Notification No.21/2002 Customs, the appellant should have filed Bill of Entry at the time of clearance of the goods to the DTA and the same has not happened and, therefore, the department was justified in issuing show cause notice by invoking the provisio to Section 28 of the Customs Act on the ground of suppression. The Tribunal, while considering the prima facie case, held as follows :- 5. Prima facie, we have not found a good case for the appellant in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case. They have pleaded financial hardships and have also produced copies of balance sheets and profit and loss account for the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. The latest documents indicate a loss of ₹ 25 Lakhs. However, these documents also indicate considerable cash flow to the tune of ₹ 3.8 Crores for the year ending 31st March, 2011. 6. Nevertheless, for the ends of justice, we are considering the plea of hardships also in the context of determining the amount to be predeposited by the appellant. 7. We direct the appellant to predeposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) towards total demand of duty of over ₹ 50 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance to the DR/AR on 30.1.2013. DR/AR to report to the Bench on 6.2.2013. Subject to the due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellant and the balance amount of duty. Application Nos.C/MISC/367/09 & C/MISC/369/09 will be listed along with appeals for hearing. As against the above order passed by the Tribunal, writ petition was filed and the same was dismissed with liberty to file appeal by an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, this appeal has been preferred challenging the above order of the Tribunal ordering pre-deposit. 6. To canvass the plea that no duty is payable as claimed by the department in respect of the goods in clearance, reliance is placed on notification No.21/2002 Customs, dated 1.3.02, wherein it is stated that for goods falling under chapter heading or sub-heading 49, viz., printed books (including covers for printed books) and printed manuals, in bound form or in loose leaf form with binder, executed on paper or any other material including transparencies, the rate of duty is 'Nil'. However, to buttress this argument that the goods are not subject to any duty and the interpretation sought for by the department is prima facie not maintainable, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Prestorp Electronics Ltd.'s case (supra), where the very same chapter heading 49 was considered by the Supreme Court, and taking note of the exemption notifications issued from time to time in relation to chapter heading 49, held that Heading 49.01 deals with printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, whether or not in single sheets, whereas Heading 49.11 deals with other printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs. The Supreme Court clearly held that specific or basic heading 49.01 should be the criteria for determining the nature of goods. For better clarity, it is useful to refer to the following paragraphs of the abovesaid judgment, which are as hereunder:- 50. In our opinion, the counsel is right in submitting that when the expression book is not defined in the Act, natural and ordinary meaning of the said expression must be kept in view. According to him, nowhere it is provided that all the nine characteristics or ingredients as highlighted by the learned Attorney General in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and referred to by this Court in paragraph 10 must be considered essential or sine qua non. He, therefore, submitted that a wrong test was applied by this Court in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and Scientific Engineering House Ltd. was erroneously distinguished. The proper way on the part of the Court was to consider the test laid down in Scientific Engineering House Ltd. and to come to a conclusion whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Drawings, Designs and Plans in the case on hand could be said to be book . By not doing so, a clear error of law had been committed and the decision deserves to be overruled. 51. It was also submitted that so far as factual aspect is concerned, CEGAT was right in holding that Drawings, Designs and Plans imported by the assessee were covered by Tariff Heading 49.01 and were also entitled to exemption under notifications No. 107/93- Cus and 38/94-Cus. Alternatively, it was submitted that if this Court is of the view that CEGAT has not entered into the said question in view of the Larger Bench decision, the matter may be remitted to CEGAT directing it to consider the case afresh by applying correct test and to take an appropriate decision. 52. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that Elecon Engineers Ltd. and Scientific Engineering Housing Ltd. were rendered in different context. The basic issue was whether books were covered by the entry plant under the Income Tax Act. Those decisions, therefore, have no relevance to the issue in question since the entries are Supreme Today With All High Courts Page 18 of 20 different. It was also submitted that since the article in question was to be used by the assessee and was prepared according to his requirement, it had no utility to others. Hence, it cannot be said to be a book in general sense. It was argued that this Court has considered the factual position in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. and held that the article was not a book. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to hold otherwise in the present case. 53. In our opinion, all these questions have to be considered and decided by the CEGAT in the fact-situation of the case in hand. As already noted by us, some of the tests applied in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. were not relevant and appropriate. The CEGAT will now consider the ratio in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment and decide the issue raised in the instant case. 54. The matter could be looked at from another angle also. As noted earlier, HSN has dealt with the point and as per Explanatory Note, it would fall under Chapter Heading 49.01. If it is so, it would not be covered by sub-heading 4911.99. 55. In this connection, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (1995) 3 SCC 454 : (1995) 77 ELT 23 (SC). The Court, in that case, considered the question whether plywood was classifiable under sub-heading 4408.90 or sub-he………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Central Excise – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Refund of duty paid by the supplier of goods – locus standi – petitioner (GPL) being buyer of the gas has filed instead of filing refun………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Central Excise – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – It is appropriate that interest at the rate of 8% be granted to the petitioner on the refund sanctioned by the au………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Customs – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Classification – import of Lighting fitting Compact Recessed Down light – goods imported neither being sea………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

VAT and Sales Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Challenge to the clarification of the first respondent in Reference – powers to issue a circular or clarification ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Rejection of application u/s 12AA – Dissolution clause not included in Trust deed – DIT(E) has not recorded any adverse com………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Once the assessee claims that the actual market value of the land or building is less than stamp duty valuation adopted by the aut………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Transfer pricing adjustment – – both the Assessee as well as TPO failed to discharge their respective onus and dut………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 25-7-2014 – Depreciation on property – income earned may be assessable to tax under the head ‘property income’ b………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Versus Thangavel & Sons (P) Ltd. – Service Tax – CESTAT CHENNAI – Tri – Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of service tax – cenvat credit by the respondents earned on the inputs received for manufacture of excisable goods towards payment of service tax for Business Auxiliary Service – Held that:- the respondents are not only a manufacturer of excisable goods but also the provider of output services and both the activities are carried out in the same premises. Respondents are eligible for availment of input credit, they can utilize the cenvat credit available with them either for payment of excise duty on the final products or for payment of service tax on the output services as stipulated in the sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR 2004. The restrictions on utilization of cenvat credit stipulated in the CCR relates only for specific type of duties i.e. education cess on excisable goods or payment of educational cess on output services. There is no restriction for utilization of common input credit availed on the inputs and also on input services for payment of excise duty or service tax – there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that utilization of input cenvat credit availed by the respondents for payment of service tax on the output service of Business Auxiliary Services rendered by them – Decided against Revenue. – 2014 (7) TMI 895 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Appeal No.ST/358/2009 – FINAL ORDER No.40406/2014 – Dated:- 18-7-2014 – Shri R. Periasami, J. For the Appellant : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate JUDGEMENT 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 05.03.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of Synthetic Filament Yarn which attracts duty of excise and is also exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.30/2004, subject to non-availment of cenvat credit. The respondent also is registered with service tax authorities for rendering commission agents service which is taxable under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS). They were availing the benefit of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, input services and discharging appropriate duty of excise on the final products manufactured by them. From 1.6.2006, they had opted to avail the benefit of exemption under the above notification and they are liable to reverse cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. They have reversed the credit attributable to the inputs lying in stock, contained in work in progress and finished goods as on 31.3.2006. Even after the reversal of credit, they had the balance of credit in their cenvat credit account. The respondents have utilized the Cenvat credit for payment of service tax liability on their output services rendered by them from the same premises. A show cause notice dated 02.01.2008 was issued for disallowing cenvat credit alleged to have been lapsed and wrongly availed by respondent. 3. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 20,44,436 + ₹ 58,789/- along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and he allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authoritys order. Hence Revenue filed the present appeal against the impugned order only on the limited grounds that the lower appellate authority erred in allowing credit availed on inputs received for the manufacture of excisable goods, for payment of service tax on the services rendered towards BAS for as the said inputs were not used for providing the output service. 4. Ld. A.R reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the manufacture of excisable goods and providing of Business Auxiliary Service are entirely different even though both activities are carried out in the same premises. The service rendered by the respondents as a commission agent under BAS has nothing to do with the manufacturing activity carried out by them. He relies on the definition of inputs defined in CCR 2004 and stated that definition of input credit availed on the manufacture of excisable goods are not for providing output service and the said inputs credit cannot be utilized for payment of service tax towards output service. He relies on Rule 2(k)and Rule 3(3) which prohibits utilization of cenvat credit availed on goods for payment of service tax for output services. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and submits that the appellate authority has rightly allowed the appeal. He submits that there is no allegation by the department on the admissibility of cenvat credit and once the admissibility of credit is not under dispute, there is no bar on utilization of credit for payment of service tax on output services. He also submits that as per Rule 3(4) of CCR, cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty of excise on any final product or payment of service tax on output services. He relies on the following case law:- (i) CCE Coimbatore Vs Lakshmi Technology & Engineering Indus. Ltd. – 2011 (23) S.T.R. 265 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) S.S Engieers Vs CCE Pune 2013-TIOL-1512- CESTAT-MUM. He submits that they are eligible to utilize the credit availed on the inputs for manufacture of excisable goods towards payment of service tax on output service as there is no one to one correlation. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and gone through the records. The main contention of the Revenue is only on the utilization of cenvat credit by the respondents earned on the inputs received for manufacture of excisable goods towards payment of service tax for "Business Auxiliary Service", Prima facie there is no dispute on the admissibility of Cenvat credit availed on the inputs. 7. There is no dispute on the fact that the respondent is a manufacture of excisable goods Synthetic Filament Yarn and duly registered with the Central Excise Department. The respondents also registered with the service tax authorities as "commission agent", which is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Services and discharging service tax on the output service. Therefore, the respondents are not only a manufacturer of excisable goods but also the provider of output services and both the activities are carried out in the same premises. 8. Apparently there is no dispute on admissibility of the cenvat credit availed by the respondents as the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has decided in favour of respondents, which is not contested in the appeal by Revenue. Once it is held that the respondents are eligible for availmen………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

CCE, PANCHKULA Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD – Service Tax – CESTAT NEW DELHI – Tri – Cenvat credit – Rent-a-cab service – Revenue contends that rented cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of providing output service – Held that:- Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the cabs in respect of which credit has been taken were used for providing output service which would clearly make the impugned credit admissible. In the grounds of appeal submitted by the Department they have merely stated that the impugned cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of maintenance etc. but have not given any evidence to that effect. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that Revenue had not given any evidence contrary to the submissions of the appellants – no infirmity in the impugned order – Decided against Revenue. – 2014 (7) TMI 894 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Service Tax Appeal No.52778 of 2014 – Final Order No. 52867/ 2014 – Dated:- 18-7-2014 – R K Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Devender Singh, Jt. CDR For the Respondent : Shri Vineet K Singh, Adv. PER : R K Singh This appeal is preferred by the Department against Order-in-Appeal No. 664/SVS/PKL/2013 dated 13.12.2013 in terms of which the appellate authority allowed cenvat credit of the service tax paid on rent-a-cab service during the period October, 2009 to September, 2010. 2. Learned Jt. CDR points out that on similar issue for a different period an earlier appeal No. ST/688/2009-CU (DB) against order-in-appeal No.25/ST/PKL/2009 dated 04.06.2009 is pending before the Division Bench of this very Tribunal and therefore, this appeal should be linked with that. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the issue may not be identical and therefore this appeal should be decided. 3. Essentially the Revenues appeal is on the ground that the rented cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of providing output service. 4. I have gone through the facts of the case. I find that in the order-in-appeal the appellate authority has categorically stated as under: I observe that the appellant had submitted before the original authority and during appeal proceedings that they are providing output services and the vehicles hired by them are used for maintenance/ installation, repair a………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Jul 252014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Versus CCE Vadodara – Service Tax – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – Tri – Demand of service tax – Transportation of effluent through pipeline or conduit – Whether appellant is liable to payment of Service Tax on the services of transportation of effluent through pipeline or conduit to M/s Heavy Water Project (HWP) on some consideration under Section 65(105)(zzz) – Held that:- As per definition of ‘goods’ given in Section 65 (50) of the Finance Act, 1994 the meaning of ‘goods’ for the purpose of Service Tax law has to be as assigned in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act 1930. As per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Sales of Goods Act 1930 the goods has to be a category of ‘movable property’. Movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the effluent discharge facility is for disposal of a waste which is not being purchased by any person but is only being disposed of by utilizing the services of the appellant. As the relevant facilities/services of transportation provided by appellant are not the ‘goods’ as defined in Section 2(7) of the Sales of Goods Act 1930, the same cannot be considered as a service provided for transportation of goods as per Section 65 (105)(zzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 2(7) of Sales of Goods Act 1930 – Decided in favour of assessee. – 2014 (7) TMI 893 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI – Appeal No.ST/10643/2013-DB – Order No. A/11409/2014 – Dated:- 22-7-2014 – MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Willingdon Christian, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri G.P. Thomas, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: H.K. Thakur 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd Vadodara, against OIA No.SRP/500/VDR-I/2013, dt.27.02.2013. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether appellant is liable to payment of Service Tax on the services of transportation of effluent through pipeline or conduit to M/s Heavy Water Project (HWP) on some consideration under Section 65(105)(zzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Shri W. Christian (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that first appellate authority has wrongly held that the term goods has not been defined under the Finance Act, 1994 or the Service Tax Rules. Ld.Advocate made the Bench go through Section 65(50) of the Finance Act, 1994 to drive home the point that goods for the purpose of Service Tax law has been assigned the meaning as per Section 2(7) of the Sales of Goods Act 1930 where goods have been defined. It is the case of the appellant that effluent waste is not a movable property and is a hazardous waste which cannot be considered as a movable property as per the definition of goods given in Section 2(7) of the Sales of Goods Act 1930 and cannot be treated as goods. He relied upon the following case-laws in support of his arguments:- i) Neuland Lab. Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad [2010 (20) STR 802 (Tri-Bang)] ii) South India Viscose Ltd Vs CCE Coimbatore [1997 (22) RLT 135 (CEGAT)] iii) Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (WVG) Co.Ltd Vs CCE Indore [1985 (21) ELT 832 (Tribunal) iv) Tata Consultancy Services Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [2004 (178) ELT 22 (SC)] 2.1 It was also the case………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..