|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 18020 Records
-
2023 (12) TMI 1079
Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - clearance of tyre making machines (old and used) including used Chinese origin tyre curing presses under EPCG scheme - applicability of N/N. 01/2010 dated 08.01.2010 - HELD THAT:- At the outset it has to be stated that the respondent-company has gone into liquidation as per the order of the NCLT, Bangalore Bench dated 30.12.2019. Further, in the present case, the goods imported are “used and second-hand machines”. The Chartered Engineer has reported that the goods are used and second-hand. There is no dispute on the fact that the goods are used and second-hand machines.
The Tribunal in the case of Trinity Exporters [2019 (2) TMI 1370 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had an occasion to analyse the issue as to whether ADD is leviable on import of used and second-hand machines. The issue was answered in favour of the importer and against the Department.
Taking note of the fact that the respondent-company has gone into liquidation and also following the decision in the case of Trinity Exporters, there are no merit in the appeal filed by the Department - the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1078
Classification of the imported goods - Frequency Converter (variable speed drive) and its parts - to be classified under Chapter Heading 9032 89 90 or under Chapter Heading 8504 4010? - HELD THAT:- The classification of the said goods has already been decided by this Tribunal’s order in M/S. ABB LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) , BANGALORE [2023 (11) TMI 20 - CESTAT BANGALORE] which has fairly been admitted by both sides. Accordingly, following the above decision for the earlier appeals, it is held that the goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8504 as against the classification under Chapter Heading 9032 claimed by the appellant.
The Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue referring to the impugned order submits that the goods are presented in the form of plugs and sockets which are rightly classifiable under 8536 in terms of Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. As seen above at para 4, this Tribunal has classified the frequency converter under Chapter Heading 8504 as against 9032 as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the question of classifying the plugs and sockets as parts of frequency converter under chapter heading 9032 does not arise. Since the fact that plugs and sockets are general in nature and having cleared them for retail sale and having not being produced any evidence to prove that these items can only be used in frequency converter, the classification by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Chapter Heading 8536 69 10/90 is to be upheld. Moreover, Chapter 8536 includes lamp holders, plugs and sockets and therefore, as per the Interpretative Rules when there is a specific description, the item has to be classified accordingly.
The only contention of the appellant is that the item to be classified under Chapter Heading 9032 as parts of frequency converter, since 9032 is ruled-out, the classification under 8536 as per Rule 3(a) of the General Interpretative Rules is upheld. As per Note 2(a), parts which are included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or 85 or in all cases are to be classified in their respective headings. Since, frequency converter is already classified under Chapter 8504, based on Section 2(a) of Section XVI the goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8536 69 10/90.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1077
Confiscation of imported goods - import of aircrafts/helicopters - whether non-scheduled (passenger) services permit would qualify as non charter services permit also? - whether the appellant would qualify for providing charter service? - HELD THAT:- These issues were decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S VRL LOGISTICS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD [2022 (8) TMI 720 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (LB)] where it was held that It is, therefore, clear that an operator providing non-scheduled (passenger) services can always provide such services either on individual seat basis or by chartering the entire aircraft and such a restriction is not contained either in Condition No. 104 or Aircraft Rules or the Civil Aviation Requirements - The Larger Bench also held that remunerative flights qualify as a air transport services and would be covered under the exemption.
Whether the appellant had violated Condition No. 104 of the notification merely because on one occasion one aircraft had been used without remuneration? - HELD THAT:- In reply to the show cause notice the appellant had pointed out that in regard to the aircraft VT-RAN which was imported on 13.11.2007, the first flight was undertaken on 25.01.2008 and the second flight was undertaken on 27.01.2008. The second flight was for crew familiarization and it had two pilots and Mr. Sunil Godhwani and Mrs. Dhillon, who as prospective users were travelling on the flight only for experiencing the aircraft. The flight was also from Delhi-Raipur-Bagdogra-Delhi with no stoppage time at the airports. Thus, it cannot be urged by the department that Condition No. 104 of the notification had been violated merely because one particular flight was undertaken without any remuneration - the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner confiscating the imported aircrafts/helicopters with an option to the appellant to redeem the same after payment of redemption fine and also confirming the demand of customs duty with interest and penalty cannot be sustained. The appellant would, therefore, be entitled to refund of the redemption fine paid by the appellant in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner.
Whether the appellant would be entitled to interest on the redemption fine amount deposited by the appellant, which is now liable to be refunded? - HELD THAT:- The issue, therefore, stands settled against the appellant in the aforesaid decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in Advance Mechanical Works [2004 (12) TMI 107 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal had placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Orient Enterprises [1998 (3) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that no interest would be payable on redemption fine, while refunding the same in pursuance of an order of a higher judicial forum - The appellant would, therefore, not be entitled to any interest on the refund of the redemption fine.
The bank guarantees, however, furnished by the appellant are liable to be discharged as the order passed by the Commissioner has to be set aside.
The order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner is set aside with a direction to the department to refund the redemption fine deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of service of a copy of this order - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1076
Maintainability of section 7 application - initiation of CIRP - inter corporate deposit of Rs.7 Crores is captured in an unstamped document with the title of “confirmation and undertaking” @ interest of 1% per month - Financial Creditor/R2 had made an investment of a sum of rupees seven crores in the project developed by the CD/ R1 or it is a loan?
Reliance upon unstamped document in deciding CIRP - HELD THAT:- Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that there is a financial debt, there is a default basis other documents and no reliance whatsoever nature has been placed on the confirmation and undertaking dated 29.09.2015. Since Adjudicating Authority has not relied upon that and have come to a conclusion that there is a debt and default and demand notice which is not disputed and accordingly concluded that sufficient reasons exists for Section 7 CIRP proceedings. The plea of the Appellant, to claim that the unstamped agreement/instrument in question cannot be admitted into evidence under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as a defense, cannot render the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) non-maintainable, when there exists other material on record to prove existence of default in payment of debt - there are no fault in the orders of the Adjudicating Authority.
Financial Creditor made an investment or gave a loan - HELD THAT:- There is a contradiction to the nature of amount payable to the Financial Creditor which is admitted in the audited financial statements placed by the Corporate Debtor, being shown as unsecured loan, and which has also been noted by the Adjudicating Authority. Furthermore, R1 himself has admitted that it has serviced the interest in accordance with the terms of the confirmation and undertaking till June 2017. National E Governance Services Limited (NeSL) Report dated 24.06.2020, also reflects this as a loan wherein the Date of Default is reflected as 23.12.2015 and the total outstanding is of Rs.4,80,80,000/- - Adjudicating authority has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a loan and allowed Section 7 proceedings under IBC.
Adjudicating Authority has come to a conclusion that there is a financial debt and there is a default on the basis of other documents, and no reliance whatsoever nature has been placed on the confirmation and undertaking dated 29.09.2015. Since Adjudicating Authority has not relied upon the “confirmation and undertaking” and has come to a conclusion that there is a debt and default and demand notice, which is not disputed and accordingly concluded that sufficient reasons exists for CIRP proceedings under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 - non-stamping of document does not render the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) application filed to be non-maintainable when there exists other material on record to prove existence of default in the payment of debt.
There are no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 proceedings of the IBC against the CD/ M/s Shankheshwar Properties Pvt. Ltd. (R-1) - there is no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1075
Approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- Adjudicating Authority has directed that the proceeds from sale of the aircraft will be deposited in an escrow account and be utilized to discharge the payments to various stakeholders in accordance with the Resolution Plan. Aircraft is a depreciating asset and huge costs are being incurred for preservation and parking of the same. Appellant was trying to recover its dues de horse the Resolution Plan. Erstwhile Resolution Professional has complied with the NCLAT order and communicated the computation of dues of the workmen and employees to the Successful Resolution Applicant. The impugned order fully protects the interests of the Appellant since it has directed the amount proceeds from the sale to be kept in escrow account.
Approval of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order while considering the rival submission of the parties has come to the conclusion that the sale process with regard to which LoI was issued on 19.10.2022 had concluded in view of the performance on the part of the Ace Aviation. Submission of the Successful Resolution Applicant for re-bidding insofar as three aircrafts was concerned was not accepted. With regard to other two aircrafts whose process was halted on 11.11.2022, direction was issued to reinitiate the process and conclude the sale of aircrafts after considering the Ace Aviation as one of the eligible bidders. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in directing to conclude the sale agreement of three aircrafts for which LoI was already issued - there are no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.3747 of 2022. The interests of the Successful Resolution Applicant are also protected since the Adjudicating Authority had directed that the proceeds of the sale of aircrafts is to be deposited in the escrow account and dealt with in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan - The order disposing is not an order which has any consequence on the manner of distribution of the sale of the aircrafts as observed by the Adjudicating Authority sale proceeds has to be distributed as per the Resolution Plan. Rights and contentions of the Successful Resolution Applicant are left open to be raised at the relevant time with regard to distribution of sale proceeds as and when occasion arises.
Recovery of the PF and gratuity dues of the workmen and employees of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The sale proceeds having been directed to be deposited in escrow account which has to be distributed in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan, the Appellants are fully protected the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in no manner affects the entitlement of the Appellant- ‘All India Jet Airways Officers and Staff Association’ to receive their dues under the Resolution Plan as per order of this Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2022. The Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in partly allowing IA No.883 of 2023 - there are no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.883 of 2023.
There are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1074
Maintainability of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 and filed on 04.02.2023. The period of 30 days, as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code, counted from 06.12.2022 expired on 05.01.2023 and further period of 15 days expired on 20.01.2023 whereas the appeal has been filed on 04.02.2023. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order was not passed dismissing the application for non-prosecution rather the impugned order was passed dismissing the application having been rendered infructuous, therefore, the period of limitation would start from the date of order 06.12.2022 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagrajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. &Ors. [2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT].
The appeal having been filed even after the expiry of further 15 days prescribed under Section 61(2) proviso, is not maintainable in view of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli [2021 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT].
This appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and not maintainable, the Corporate Debtor has already been sold as going concern subsequent to the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in 1018 of 2022 and thereafter the change in the management has taken effect and the sale proceeds received from such sale have also been distributed to the stakeholders.
There is hardly any merit in the present appeal which is otherwise barred by limitation and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1073
Seeking Condonation of Delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - Appellant had waited for the outcome of the Liquidation Application before filing the instant Appeal - HELD THAT:- The discretion lies with the Courts to distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ and only then to exercise discretion to condone the delay. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the Appellant was aware of the Impugned order on 10.08.2023 itself and the justification given that the Appellant had requested the Third Respondent/The erstwhile RP to apply for a certified copy of the Impugned Order since it was not a party to the proceedings is rejected as Rule 50 read with Clause 31 of the Schedule of Fees of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides for the Registry to send a certified copy of the final Order to the parties concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be made available with costs as per schedule of fees, in all cases. Hence, it is clear that the Appellant itself could have applied for a certified copy by making an Application with the requisite fee, therefore, the contention of the Appellant that it was a Third party to the proceedings, is of no relevance.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V NAGARAJAN VERSUS SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD. & ORS. [2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT] addressed the issue of the commencement date of the period of limitation for filing an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code. In this aforenoted Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question as to when the clock for calculating the limitation period would begin to run for Appeals filed under the Code and recorded the same in Paras 33 through 35, after taking into due consideration the provisions of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, Section 12 of the Limitation Act, and Section 421 of the Companies Act holding that While it is true that the tribunals, and even this Court, may choose to exempt parties from compliance with this procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice, as re-iterated in Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance. The appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
Neither the provisions of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 nor the Code bars the Appellant from filing an Appeal within the statutory limitation period provided for under Section 61(3) of the Code and requesting the erstwhile RP to seek a certified copy and awaiting the outcome of the Liquidation Application, further renders the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the delay may be condoned for the foregoing reasons, unsustainable - there are force in the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the First Respondent that the Appellant, having 85% of the voting share in the CoC of the Corporate Debtor, ought to have taken effective steps within the limitation period, which they have failed to do so.
The reasons given by the Applicant/Appellant do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for the Appellant to have filed the Appeal on the 45th day - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1072
Validity of approved Resolution Plan - Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously allowed the Application seeking Liquidation on the ground that the Appellant had not adhered to the terms of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- Admittedly there were several rounds of discussions held and the Appellant sent a letter dated 12.08.2021 where it sought for modification for the repayment Plan promising to deposit Rs.25 Crores in a no-lien account and a balance 15 Crores within three weeks from the date of approval - there are force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent that though the other CoC members, SBI and IDBI, did not accept the modified payment terms, the First Respondent being the majority voting shareholder of the CoC accepted the modified payment terms way back on 29.09.2021, but the Appellant did not comply with the terms and hence, no further opportunities are required to be given.
It is evident from the record that though almost two and half years has lapsed from the date of approval of the Plan and several opportunities were given to the Appellant and the modified payment terms were also accepted by the First Respondent, even then the Appellant did not pay the required amount of Rs. 83.07Cr by November 2021. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that if the Appellant is allowed to manage the Corporate Debtor Company, the Appellant shall repay the money to the Bank in a ‘short period’, is untenable, specifically having regard to the fact that the Plan was approved way back in 2019, IBC is a time-bound process, and several opportunities were given for implementation of the original Plan as well as the modified Plan.
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED & ANR., KUNDAN CARE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS MR AMIT GUPTA AND ORS. AND SEROCO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAVI KAPOOR RP FOR ARYA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMTIED & ORS. [2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly emphasised the importance of adhering to strict timelines, keeping in view the scope and objective of the Code - In the instant case as the Appellant / SRA could not implement the Resolution Plan within the specified time, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly, as provided for under Section 33 of the Code, allowed application filed by the Monitoring Committee of Scott Garments and Canara Bank respectively, seeking Liquidation.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1071
Sabka Viswas Scheme (SVLDRS) - petitioner not able to pay the demanded amount in time - HELD THAT:- In W.P.No.24366 of 2021 [2023 (11) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], a similar set of facts was already considered and a detailed order was also passed by this Court where it was held that this Court is of the view that the application, filed on 13.02.2023 consequent to the payment made by the petitioner, has to be accepted under the SVLDRS scheme by the respondent and in such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to direct the respondent to issue Form SVLDRS-4 to discharge the tax liabilities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The impugned order dated 24.08.2021 is set aside. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to accept the payment made by the petitioner in terms of Form SVLDRS 3 and issue a Certificate of Settlement in Form SVLDRS 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1070
Refund of service tax - Principles of unjust enrichment - incidence of duty - it is alleged that appellant had not passed on the burden of service tax to its client departments.
According to the Revenue, unjust enrichment would apply to this case because the contracts were for an all inclusive price (including duties and taxes) and therefore, the appellant must have had reckoned the service tax into the total cost while bidding and at the time of bidding, there was no exemption from service tax and therefore, the appellant must have included in its invoice price, the service tax element.
HELD THAT:- This finding because section 102 provides for refunds only if the contracts were signed prior to 1 March 2015. During that period, no service tax was payable because of exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST. cannot be agreed - it is found inconceivable that the appellant would have anticipated that the exemption from service tax would be withdrawn even before submitting its bids and would have included the service tax element in the bills.
It is found impermissible to hold that the appellant had indirectly passed on the burden of the service tax to its client government departments. Once this anomalous and baseless presumption that the service tax would have been indirectly passed on by the appellant to its client government departments is removed, no basis remains for rejecting the refund claim or crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
What distinguishes the present case from UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SOLAR PESTICIDE PVT. LTD. [2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT] is the fact that no service tax was paid when the appellant submitted its bids to the clients. Therefore, there is no scope for passing on the burden of any service tax at that stage. After the service was rendered, it was only entitled to the amounts which it bid and which were accepted in the contract and not to any additional amount as service tax. The contracts specifically exclude any additional payments towards service tax - The Commissioner’s reasoning in the impugned order is based on the presumption as to how the appellant would have decided to bid an amount and we find no room in law to speculate as to how the bids would have been made by the appellant. It is their business decision and there is no presumption in law that whenever bids are made, elements X, Y or Z have been reckoned. Based on this presumption as to how the appellant would have made its bids and further, based on the factually incorrect assumption that at the time of making the bids, service tax was not exempted and hence would have been reckoned by the appellant while preparing its bids, the Commissioner held that unjust enrichment would apply.
The impugned order deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1069
Recovery of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Business auxiliary services - spares and parts - incentive received from the Atlantic Lubricants and Specialities Pvt. Ltd. for buying minimum quantity of goods - amount received on account of colour difference charges of vehicles - rent received for providing table space to banking and financial institutions - HELD THAT:- It is found that neither in the show cause notices, nor in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has mentioned any specific clause of Section 65 (19) of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under which service tax demand is sought to be made - it is also found that the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that specific clause of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ is required to be mentioned and if not mentioned, the entire demand is liable to be set-aside.
Reference made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SYNIVERSE MOBILE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD., (EARLIER TRANSCIBERNET INDIA PVT LTD.) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD – IV [2023 (6) TMI 463 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where it was held that On this issue it is seen that Tribunals have been consistently holding that it is essential for the Show Cause Notice issuing authority to clearly indicate the sub-clause under which the service tax in question would fall.
Demand of Service Tax on spares and parts - HELD THAT:- It is found from the documents placed on record at Page No. 116 to 124 of the Appeal Paper book that services and spares are charged separately from the manufacturer for the warranty period and service tax was paid on the value of services and on the value of spare parts, VAT/Sale Tax was paid as the sale of spare parts is considered to be sale of goods and liable to VAT. Therefore, the service tax is not leviable on the sale of spare parts - reference made to Department Circular No. 699/15/2003-CX dated 05.03.2003 which specifically clarifies that the sale of parts, accessories and consumables are not includible in the value of taxable services provided the value of such consumables are shown separately and in the present case, we find that the assessee has shown the value of service and value of spare parts separately.
Service tax on amount of incentive received from the Atlantic Lubricants and Specialities Pvt. Ltd. for buying minimum quantity of goods - HELD THAT:- It is found that such receipt of incentives/trade discount is not towards provision of any service which fact is clear from the perusal of the agreement dated 01.10.2009 entered into between the parties which is placed at Page No. 195 to 200 of the Appeal Paper Book - it has been held in many case by the Tribunal has held that the demand of service tax is not sustainable on incentives and trade discounts received on the buying minimum quantity of goods.
Demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Service on the amount received on account of colour difference charges of vehicles - HELD THAT:- Such charges are in relation to sale of car and is related to the value of car sold and not a consideration for any service, let along BAS. To this effect, the appellant has produced the certificate of the Chartered Accountant alongwith ledger which is on record of the appeal paper book - in the appellant’s own case, for the previous period, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh set-aside the demand on this issue on the ground that there is no provisions of service involved in this case.
Demand of service tax on rent received for providing table space to banking and financial institutions - HELD THAT:- It is found that the amount received by the appellant is for providing space and not for promoting the business of banks/financial institutions. The provisions of space cannot be considered as promotion of business of the person to whom the space has been provided as held in various decisions.
The impugned order confirming the demand amounting to Rs. 18,11,691/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law, and therefore, the same is set aside - once the demand is set aside, the question of interest and penalty does not arise - appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1068
Non-payment of Service Tax - Cargo Handling Services - evacuation of Ash and Nuisance Free Disposal at the abandoned mines of CCL/BBCL - Mining Services - transportation of Coal - Supply of Tangible Goods Service - GTA Service - services availed for hire of trucks from various persons for transportation of coal - Violation of CCR '04 by not paying 6% on the value of exempted services.
Demand of Service Tax under Cargo Handling Service - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Appellant has rendered the service to Tenughat Vidyut Nigham Limited, Damodar valley Corporation and Mejia Thermal Power Corporation, for evacuation of ash from different Ash Ponds located at the power stations. The ash was transported to the abandoned mines of CCL, ECL, BCCL for the disposal of ash - the ash was transported in automatic dippers/dumpers/trucks and unloaded the same into the abandoned mines, by automatically sliding down the ash in the core of such mines - A perusal of the work order reveal that the primary service in this case is transportation and the loading and unloading work is ancillary to the transportation service - the Appellant has rendered transportation service. In terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the recipients are liable to pay service tax for the GTA services received by them - the demand of service tax from the Appellant under the category of 'Cargo Handling Service' is not sustainable.
Demand of Service Tax under the category of 'Mining Services' - HELD THAT:- The services rendered by the Appellant was transportation of coal. They have not received any contract for actual mining of coal - A perusal of the work order received by them would reveal that it is a composite contract involving transportation as the primary service. All other services are incidental or ancillary to transportation service - the adjudicating authority has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the appellant has rendered 'Mining Service' - the service rendered by the Appellant is transportation service. As the receiver has already paid service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the demand confirmed in the impugned order under 'Mining Service' against the Appellant is not sustainable.
Demand of Service Tax on the transportation services rendered by other transporters as sub-contractors - HELD THAT:- The transporters have not issued any 'Consignment Notes'. In respect of this transportation service, the Appellant has raised invoice for the full value to their clients CCL/BCCL and the receiver has paid service tax on the full value of the contract. As the sub-contractors who provided the transportation service has not issued any 'consignment note', it is observed that the Appellant are not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA service on reverse charge - Since the sub-contractor who rendered the transportation service to the Appellant has not issued any 'consignment note' for the transportation service, it is held that the Appellant is not liable to pay service tax as recipient of GTA Service. As the Appellant has raised the invoice on the full value and the recipient has paid service tax under GTA on the full value, demanding Service Tax again from the sub-contractor for the transportation service would amount to 'double-taxation' - the demand of service tax from the Appellant on reverse charge basis under GTA service is not sustainable.
Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the issue involved in the Work Orders covered by earlier Notices were also related to the issue whether Evacuation of Ash from the ponds and transporting it out side ti fill the abandoned mines. Earlier Notice demanded service tax under the category of ,Cleaning Service, for the same work. Thus, it is evident that even though the Work Orders are different, the issue involved is the same - the department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation of suppression in this case, to invoke extended period - the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demands on the ground of limitation and not imposed penaltied under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15 of the CCR ’04 - the department’s appeal is not sustainable and it is liable for rejection.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1067
Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary service or not - Appellant only receives distributor’s profit margin - BSNL pays service tax on the wholesale price including the distributor’s profit margin, thus appellant were not paying service tax on this income received - exemption under Sl. No.29(f) of the mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 – ST dated 20-06-2012 - dispute in the instant case relates to the period 2015-16 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30-12-2020 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellant submits that they are distributors of BSNL Prepaid/Post-paid SIM, Vouchers and are engaged for sale and distribution of BSNL products. The relation between them and BSNL is that of buyer and seller. There is no service provider/service receiver relationship. The Appellant does not provide any service and does not receive any service charges from BSNL. They only receive distributor’s profit margin. BSNL supplies these cards etc. with fixed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to them which is inclusive of Service Tax reduced by distributor’s profit margin which is sold by them to end users at MRP. The difference is the distributor profit margin. BSNL pays service tax on the wholesale price including the distributor's profit margin.
The issue is no longer res integra as the Tribunal Kolkata has decided the issue in Appellant's own case M/S KEDIA COMPUTER SERVICES VERSUS CCEX., CUS. & S. TAX, BHUBANESWAR [2020 (7) TMI 183 - CESTAT KOLKATA] for the period July’2003 to November’2004 and December’’2004 to July’2005 while dealing with identical facts has held that there is no agency service or sales promotion service provided in such transactions, but it is a case of sale/purchase of item from BSNL on principle to principle basis which is pure trading activity and on the cellular products, the BSNL has already discharged Service Tax, hence, demanding service tax again from the trader would amount to double taxation.
Thus, the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable on merits. Since the demand itself is not sustainable the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty does not arise.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The dispute in the instant case relates to the period from 2015-16 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30-12-2020 i.e. beyond the normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Act. The normal period of limitation under Section 73(1) is 30 month from the relevant date while the Show Cause Notice is issued after lapse of 4 year 9 months. Accordingly, the demand is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation also.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1066
Non-payment of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - providing services of 'Sizing of coal' to their customers - Appellant while invoicing the sale of coal has included all the components of its sale price of coal which includes the sizing charges and paid applicable VAT on such assessable value as per the State Laws - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra, as the Tribunal Kolkata Bench has decided the issue in favour of the Appellant in the case of M/s Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bolpur [2021 (1) TMI 179 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where it was held that Sizing of coal is an incidental and ancillary process to make coal marketable and thus complete “manufacture” of coal and to make it into “excisable goods” as per Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. The process of sizing of coal is also therefore outside Section 65(19) of the Act since it is a process in the manufacture of the final product, sized coal.
The demands confirmed in the impugned order is not liable to service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' - the demands of service tax, interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1065
Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Service Tax along with the interest is paid by the assessee on commission income before issuance of SCN - Classification of services - income booked as godown rent - Renting of Immovable Property Service (RIPS) or not.
Whether penalty is imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 when service tax along with interest thereon has been paid before issue of the SCN and whether further penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposable under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has deposited the Service Tax of Rs.4,05,205/- along with interest of Rs.1,30,876/- on 25.02.2009 without raising any dispute. In terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, where the Service Tax along with the interest is paid by the assessee on the basis of tax ascertained by the Central Excise Officer, no SCN is required to be served - this view has been held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. NATIONAL POWER ENGINEERING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, SILIGURI COMMISSIONERATE [2023 (7) TMI 361 - CESTAT KOLKATA] - imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not warranted in this case - the penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside.
Whether Service Tax of Rs.34,865/- is payable under the category of Renting Immovable Property Services (RIPS) during the period 2007-08 & 2008-09 for the amount shown as 'godown rent' in the balance sheet? - HELD THAT:- From the rate payable by ICICI bank as per the agreement mentioned above, it is evident that the land has been used for parking of the vehicles by ICICI bank. Accordingly, the Appellant are entitled for the exemption provided under Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 65(105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, which specifically excludes the land used for parking purposes from levy of service tax under the category of RIPS. Accordingly, the demand of Rs.34,865/- confirmed along with interest and penalty in the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside.
Penalty imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the penalty was imposed for non registration and not filing the returns and non-payment of the tax in time - the Appellant has been filing returns regularly. The demand confirmed in the impugned order has been held as not sustainable. In view of the above, the penalty under Section 77 is not imposable and accordingly the same is set aside.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1064
Denial of benefit under N/N. 29/2004-CE and N/N. 30/2004-CE both dated 09.07.2004 - Denial on the ground of availment of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellants can avail both the notifications and as to whether CENVAT credit is available under such circumstances? - HELD THAT:- The very same issues have been deliberated by the Tribunal in number of cases - it is found that this Bench in the case of SHRIJEE LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., THANE [2013 (9) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held it is not a situation where the duty credit on inputs were availed in respect of exempted goods and dutiable goods simultaneously. Hence the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in the facts of the case.
The Tribunal in the case of Winsome Yarns Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 459 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held When an assessee does not avail of input duty credit, he has option to pay 4% duty under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and also the option to clear his goods at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. and when two exemption Notifications are available to an assessee, he can always opt for the Notification which is most beneficial for him and in this regard the Department cannot force the assessee to avail a particular exemption Notification. Looked at from this point of view, the Department’s stand is incorrect.
There are no infirmity in the simultaneous availment of benefit under both the Notifications No. 29/2004 and 30/2004 and the credit on capital goods by the appellants - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1063
Disallowance of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and penalties - denial of credit on the sole ground that no service has been rendered by the contractors to the Appellant and the amount paid by the Appellant is in the nature of reimbursement of capital investment and not towards the provision of any service - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The ground under which the Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant was denied, cannot be agreed upon - It is a settled proposition of law that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to service recipient when payment of service tax is not disputed by the department at the service provider’s end.
In the case of M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, ROURKELA [2023 (12) TMI 117 - CESTAT KOLKATA], this Tribunal has held that Without challenging the assessment, the department cannot question the Cenvat credit passed on by ABMCPL to the Appellant - By relying on the decision, it is held that the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 183,36,81,368/-in this case vide the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the demand of recovery of Cenvat credit is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise.
Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has confirmed the demand without any conclusive evidence towards any suppression, misstatement, fraud, collusion, etc. with the intent to evade payment of service tax on part of the Appellant. Further, the Appellant being a PSU, there exists a presumption of bona fide and no allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax can be levelled against them without any concrete evidence - It is also observed that the factum of availment of CENVAT credit was duly reflected in the periodical returns filed by the Appellant. Therefore, the demand confirmed vide the impugned O-I-O by invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained - the demands confirmed in the impugned order are liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation also.
The impugned order is set aside on merit as well as on limitation - the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1062
CENVAT Credit - eligibility to avail credit on input services relating to captive mines, which is distributed to the Appellant vide ISD invoices - HELD THAT:- It is found that both the mines as well as the manufacturing unit belongs to one legal entity i.e. SAIL, which is engaged in manufacture of Steel. The subject mines are set up primarily to serve as captive mines to manufacturing units of SAIL and thus bears an integral link to steel plants - it is observed that the input services like security service, mining service, transportation etc used by the captive mines bears a direct nexus with Appellant’s units manufacturing final products i.e. Steel. Hence, such services are very well covered within the scope of the definition of ‘input services’. Rule 3 of CCR does not mandate that for the purpose of availment of credit on input services, such services should be received within the premises where manufacture of final product takes places but only provides that services should be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products.
Thus, the Appellant is entitled to avail credit of service tax paid on input services received at the mines, which serves as an intermediate product for manufacture of final product i.e. steel items.
Thus, the Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of input services relating to captive mines, which is distributed to the Appellant vide ISD invoices - the demand of reversal of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty confirmed vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2019, is not sustainable - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1061
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Appellants have availed Cenvat Credit both for dutiable and exempted goods - separate Cenvat Credit records and status were not maintained - with effect from 01/03/2011, the supplies to Railways brought under the concessional rate of 1%/2% Excise Duty subject to the condition that no Cenvat Credit is availed - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] has held that if the Cenvat Credit taken is reversed, the same would amount to non-availment of Cenvat Credit.
As per the factual details available and seen from the records, it is found that the Department itself does not dispute after proper verification by the Superintendent that the Appellant has maintained separate accounts and has not availed the Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 2,69,26,825/- and they have availed Cenvat of Rs. 54,46,566/- only in respect of three or four common inputs - there are no justification for confirmed demand of Rs. 35,39,80,370/- for the period 2009-10 to 28/02/2011. For the same reason, the confirmed demand of Rs. 49,43,41,259/- for the period 01/03/2011 to May 2013 is not legally sustainable.
However, verification is required to be done about the Cenvat Credit taken for the common inputs to the extent of Rs. 54,46,566/-, a figure which is being agreed to by the both sides - it is directed that the Adjudicating Authority to apply the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, for proportionate reversal of Cenvat Credit. For arriving at this figure, Gross Total Credit available, total credit taken, credit taken for common inputs, total turnover, exempted turnover etc. are required to be considered as per the CCR Rules, 2004.
Extended period of limitation - Appellant submits that there is total absence of suppression on their part and prays that the confirmed demand towards the extended period is required to be set aside - HELD THAT:- There are considerable force in this argument since the Appellants have been filing the Returns regularly and non-availment of Cenvat of over Rs. 2.69 Crores as claimed was found to be correct by the Superintendent on 18.06.2018, after the Show Cause Notice was issued. Therefore, it is held that the any confirmed demand for the extended period is not sustainable and such demand on account of time bar is set aside.
Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of quantifying the Cenvat Credit to be reversed on account of common inputs for the normal period only after excluding the demand for the extended period - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (12) TMI 1060
Irregular availment of CENVAT Credit - imported goods - cleared as such as the said tools neither inputs nor capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products - process not amounting to manufacture - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various high precision tools, and also import certain parts used as inputs. The tools were customised and sold by the appellant on payment of appropriate duty of excise on its transaction value, which was more than the credit availed on the inputs. The Revenue disputed the processes undertaken on the imported items alleging the same do not result into manufacture of a new item different from the inputs; hence the activity undertaken by the appellant is purely in the nature of trading; therefore, cenvat credit availed on the inputs cannot be admissible.
This issue is no more res integra as it has already been settled by various decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. In THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS AJINKYA ENTERPRISES [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Bombay High Court taking note of the arguments of the Revenue, more or less in the same line observed once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture.
There are no merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
