SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2015
List of updates in the month of June ‘15
1st of June
2015-VIL-12-MSTT
M/s ATOS ORIGIN INDIA (P) LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act – Agreement for modification, development, enhancement and customization of the standard software - Whether the services which are in the nature of “Work for Hire” and rendered for customization and development of software falls within the definition of ‘sale’ under the Act - Whether the Service Contract with QAD India Pvt Ltd for flexible staffing for Time and Material pricing Mechanism attracts VAT or CST as per the provisions under MVAT Act – HELD - The standard software, as said earlier is to be modified, developed, enhanced or customized by finding out a software programme as per the requirement of end user and embed the same on the standard software. The terms of the agreement would reveal that the QAD India is availing the intelligence of the employees of the appellant for creating a software programme as per the requirement of end user. The said intention is clearly discernible from the Work Statement. The dominant intention of QAD India is, therefore, to get the software by utilizing the intelligence of the appellant, is not a mere service - The software programmes for modification, development, enhancement and customization of the software, has all the three attributes as contemplated in the decision of Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of AP, and therefore, would the “goods” – Sale of goods – Clause-4 of the agreement deals with assignment of right, title and interest excluding the copy-right in software development on completion of services and payment thereof. The agreement discloses the emergence of software programme, which is “goods” and assignment thereof for consideration to QAD. The agreement is, therefore, for sale and purchase of goods; it provides transfer of ownership in goods and copyright therein on emergence of software i.e. when the goods come in existence and payment is made therefor - The agreement is an agreement to sale software programme, which is “goods” for consideration. Although the said consideration is paid monthly per person, the same would be consideration for sale of software programme evolved by employees of the appellant, which come into existence on completion of services. The right of ownership including the Copyright therein would be transferred to QAD on payment of price therefor. Therefore the transactions are rightly held by the Commissioner as sale in terms of provision of Section 2(24) of MVAT Act – Assessee appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-213-ALH
M/s HIRA LAL SHUBH KARAN Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act – Refund - Claim of interest on refund - Refund claim was adjusted towards penalty imposed - Penalty for charging tax at higher rate – HELD – The order for refund of the money adjusted against penalty was directed to be returned to the assessee under the order dated 04.10.1988 which order stands affirmed up to the High Court. Therefore, the liability to make payment of interest under sub Section 29(2) would accrue from the date the order of the First Appellate Authority was received by the department - The order of the Tribunal insofar as it quashes the order under Section 29(3) will not control the applicability of interest under Section 29(2) of the Act, in the facts of the case, inasmuch as the direction for refund was made by the Appellate Authority as early as on 04.10.1988 which order was affirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.09.2002 as also by the High Court while dismissing the Revision No. 214 of 2003 vide order dated 15.03.2010. These orders also lead to the conclusion that the stand taken by the department in exercise of powers under Section 29(3) for refusing to return the money under orders of the Appellate Authority dated 04.10.1988 was illegal - For the aforesaid reasons it is a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assessing Authority to re-calculate and pay the interest for the period commencing from the date the Assessing Authority had received the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 04.10.1988 till 27.12.2002 at the rates as were applicable from time to time to the assessee - Assessee petition is allowed
2015-VIL-215-GUJ-CE
MUNDRA PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – Input service – Admissibility of credit on excise duty paid on the cement and steel used in the construction of new jetties and other commercial buildings – construction of jetty - Exempted service - HELD - The appellant is a service provider of port. We need not go into this question as to whether the appellant is a factory or manufacturer or service provider and provides service on port for which he is getting jetty constructed through the contractor and the appellant has claimed input credit on cement and steel. The cement and steel were not included in Explanation 2 from 2004 upto March 2006. The Cenvet Credit Rules 2004 were amended in exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Central Excise Act 1944 with effect from 7.7.2009, the date on which it was notified by the Central Government from the date of the notification, this amended definition would apply only to the factory or manufacturer and would not apply to the service provider - The jetty is constructed by the appellant by purchasing iron, cement, grid etc. which are used in construction of jetty. The contractor has constructed jetty. There are two methods, one is that the appellant would have given entire contract to the contractor for making jetty by giving material on his end and then make the payment, the other method was that the appellant would have provided material to the contractor and labour contract would have been given. The appellant claims that he has provided cement, steel etc. for which he was entitled for input credit and, therefore, in our opinion, the appellant was entitled for input credit and it cannot be treated that since construction of jetty was exempted, the appellant would not be entitled for input credit. The view taken contrary by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-254-CESTAT-CHE-CE
TVS ELECTRONICS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit – Exempted goods - Disallowance of cenvat credit taken on the inputs lying in stock when the Retail Computer System became exempted by Notification No.23/2004 dt. 9.7.2004 is correct or otherwise - period of dispute involved in the appeal is September 2003 to August 2004 - Recovery/reversal of credit already taken on the inputs when the final product became exempted subsequently – HELD - Appellant availed the credit on inputs when the final product was dutiable and there was no one to one correlation and the final product was exempted vide Notification No. 23/2004-CE dt. 9.7.2004 and the sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of CCR came into effect from 1.3.2007 onwards and cannot be applied retrospectively - The ratio of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras order in Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs CCE is squarely applicable to the present case - The impugned order confirming the demand on credit already taken on inputs lying in stock when the finished goods i.e. computers became exempted on 9.7.2004 is liable to be set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-54-SC-CE [Download link]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Vs M/s DABUR INDIA LTD
Central Excise - Classification of Caldhan suspension, Livfit Vet and Ayucal premix - Animal feed supplements or Veterinary medicament - Classification under sub heading no.2302.00 or sub heading no.3003.39 – HELD - There are several reasons given by the Tribunal in classifying these products as animal feed supplements. One important reason in support which is noted by the Tribunal is that the Department's own laboratory, namely, CRCL has opined that livfit Vet is not described in authoritative books for Aurvedic medicines and it can be considered animal feed supplement. Insofar as Ayucal premix is concerned, here again, CRCL has opined that it should be animal feed supplement. Thus, insofar as these two products are concerned, Government's own laboratory has classified them as animal feed supplement and not veterinary medicament - Insofar as Caldhan suspension is concerned, the CRCL could not give any opinion either way. Pertinently even on the printed labels for this product, it mentioned "not for medicinal use". Otherwise also insofar as Caldhan suspension is concerned, the Revenue effect is only 16,000/- for the period in question and the assessee has stopped the production of this product – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-253-CESTAT-MUM-ST
NUKAY, NUFIT, NAKSHTRA Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - III
Service Tax - Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Refund claims of an amount paid by the appellants on a direction of the DGCEI – Payment of tax liability before the service of notice – HELD – Section 73(3) lays down that the Central Excise officer shall not serve any notice on the appellant if the payment which has not been paid or has been short-paid is ascertained by the Central Excise officer and paid before the service of notice, no notice requires to be issued to the assessee. The provisions of sub-section are very clear and if no notice is issued to the appellants under Section 73(1) of the Act, it would mean that the tax liability discharged by the appellants would be the tax as accepted and paid by him. In our considered opinion, when the appellants themselves had discharged the tax liability, there cannot be any refund of the amount as the issue is considered as ‘closed’ by the revenue authorities - The impugned orders are correct and legal and do not suffer from any infirmity – Assessee appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-214-P&H-ST [Download link]
M/s KAPSONS ELECTRO STAMPINGS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANOTHER
Service Tax – Pre-deposit - renting of immoveable property – Amended Section 35F - Assessee contention that the service tax was not liable to be paid since the rent amount had been divided into two heads, one of land and building and the other for plant and machinery, was rejected as the same had never been disclosed during the audit – HELD - The explanation to Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act provide that renting of immoveable property includes use of immoveable property, factories, office buildings, warehouses plus for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce. Sub-section (105)(zzzz) also provides that taxable service means providing of any service by renting of immoveable property - The submission of the appellant that it was not covered under the definition of immoveable property and does not come within the ambit of service tax, cannot be accepted. This Court would not interfere in the discretion which has been exercised by the authorities under the Act, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The authorities were able to detect the amount of evasion of tax on the basis of the audit conducted on a sister concern and the extended period of limitation had been invoked. Under Section 35G of the Act, this Court would only interfere if there is a substantial question of law involved and the appeal is only to be heard on the questions so formulated. Admittedly, the adjudicating order was passed on 15.12.2011, well before the amendment came on 06.08.2014 and even the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed on 31.01.2013, well before the amendment - Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion which has been exercised and where the benefit of pre-deposit has been restricted to a reasonable amount, in favour of the appellant – Appeal dismissed
tnCir21
Tamil Nadu: Instructions regarding mandatory e-filing of Monthly Returns & e-Payment
apNotiGO191
Andhra Pradesh: Amendment to Schedule-VI - Whole-sale Trade and Distribution of Liquor - Regarding Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
telNotiGO72
Telangana: The Telangana State Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 – Amendment to Rule 18
GVAT Guide
Gujarat: Guidelines for Registration
upNoti722
Amendment in UPVAT Schedule I - Regarding 'Gulkand'
rajCir01
Rajasthan: Application for e-amendment in Form VAT-05
2nd of June
2015-VIL-13-MSTT
M/s TATA POWER LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Goods in Local Area Act, 2002 – Validity of Entry tax on Goods which cross customs barriers – Entry tax on imported low sulphur furnace oil and low sulphur waxy oil - HELD - Entry tax can be levied on such goods which cross customs barriers by invoking the powers conferred on the State Legislature covered under Entry 52 of List-II, 7th schedule of Constitution. There is no encroachment on the powers of parliament - The arguments advanced by appellant that this amendment is hit by Article 286 of Constitution of India cannot be considered – Limitation - Applying the provisions of section 23 of MVAT Act period of limitation is 7 years where returns have been filed for period 2005-06 in view of amendment and bringing in provisions of section 23(3A) and proviso thereunder and for assessment of 2008-09 within period of 5 years as per proviso to section 23(3). Hence, the assessment carried out in the year 2013 is, therefore, within limitation - Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-215-TRI
ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Appellant entered into a contract with Jubilant Oil and Gas Pvt Ltd whereby it agreed to provide 2D Seismic Data Acquisition & Basic Processing Services for oil exploration in the State - Whether the services being rendered by the petitioner are in the nature of works contract or are pure and simple services - Whether the equipment which have been brought in by the petitioner for their own use to carry out the surveys has been transferred to Jubilant Oil and Gas Pvt Ltd and there is any sale within the meaning of Section 2(25)(d) of the Act r/w Rule 7(2) of the TVAT Rules, 2005 and exigible to tax under Section 4(2) of the Act - Transfer of the right to use any goods or not – HELD - Jubilant Oil and Gas entered into a JV with GAIL and by the contract in question the petitioner was to carry out seismic surveys to assist the Jubilant and GAIL in carrying out the gas exploration. From the terms of the contract there was no transfer of any property. In fact none of the machinery of the petitioner was to remain with the Jubilant – Revenue has failed to point out any stipulation in the contract which would indicate that there is any transfer of right to use property. It is also obvious that this was not a works contract because no work was to be done except carrying out a survey - The petitioner is not engaged in drilling work but was only engaged for carrying out seismic survey work. The said work does not fall within the ambit of Section 4(3) of the TVAT Act - Provisions of the contract clearly indicate that the contractor’s equipment remained his equipment solely under his control and even the equipment of the company, if any, given to him did not become his equipment but remained the equipment of the company. Therefore, there was no transfer of right to use goods and the petitioner was only rendering services which are only amenable to tax by the Union of India and not by the State - The contract of the petitioner shall not be treated as a Works Contract. The order of deduction is quashed. The tax, if any, deducted from the account of the petitioner be refunded along with statutory interest - The writ petition is allowed
2015-VIL-256-CESTAT-DEL-CE
CCE, RAIPUR Vs M/s BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.
Central Excise - Whether the aluminium dross and skimming arising in course of manufacture of aluminium products during the period of dispute would attract Central Excise duty – HELD - The Apex court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. has held that the dross and skimming of Aluminium neither goods nor marketable commodities and, hence, are not liable to excise duty. Though Apex court’s judgment pertains to the period prior to 1986 when there was no specific entry in the Central Excise Tariff for dross and skimming of non-ferrous metal in the Central Excise Tariff and the such dross and skimming was sought to be taxed under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and during the period of dispute there was a specific heading 2620 covering the dross and skimming of Aluminium, just because a particular product is covered by a tariff entry, it would not imply that the same is excisable, as for treating the goods as excisable the same must be ‘goods’, that is, the same must be marketable and the Apex court in the above-mentioned judgment, has held that dross and skimming of Aluminium are neither goods nor marketable. This judgment of the Apex court would be applicable to the present case also - For treating the product as marketable, what is relevant is as to whether there is existence of market for it and the product is known to commence as marketable commodity and merely that some waste or by-product is sold, this cannot be treated as evidence of marketability. In this case, no such evidence of existence of market for aluminium dross and skimming has been produced - We also find Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur, Mumbai-III has reversed the finding of the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the same case that during the period w.e.f. 10/5/08 the aluminium dross and skimming were excisable. In view of this judgment also the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods, in question, are not excisable cannot be assailed - There is one more reason why the impugned order is correct. In terms of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 26 of the Tariff, heading 26.20 applies only to that ash and residue which are used in the industry for extraction of metal or as starting material for manufacture of metal compounds. Such ash and residues would, obviously, be marketable as there would be demand for the same from metal extraction and chemical industry. But in this regard, no evidence in form of evidence of end use of the dross for extraction of Aluminium or for manufacture of Aluminium compound has been produced. Therefore the dross and residues, in question, is not covered by 2620 - In view of the above discussion, we do not find in the merit in the Revenue’s appeal. The same is dismissed
2015-VIL-255-CESTAT-KOL-ST
M/s HINDUSTHAN AERONAUTICS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, BBSR-I
Service Tax - Repair/maintenance service - transfer of certain materials to customers - The appellant discharged service tax on the service portion as shown in their invoices, whereas no Service Tax was paid on the value of materials supplied by the appellant to the service receivers claiming the same as ‘deemed sale’, hence not includible under Notification No. 12/2003 ST dt.20.06.2003 - The department has raised demand notices by including the cost of materials supplied along with service charges for computing the service tax liability denying the benefit of Notification No.12/2003 ST as no sale was effected – HELD - On the aspect of liability of the sales tax/ VAT on the goods supplied by the Appellant, the matter went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and after the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the disputed parties, namely the appellant and the respective state governments had settled the issue - Pursuant to the said settlement, the Appellant had paid sales tax/VAT on the supplied material. In view of these developments, it is prudent to remit the case to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue of abatement of value of the materials supplied and applicability of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 afresh taking into consideration the claim of the appellant about discharge of sales tax/VAT and arrive at a finding on the eligibility of Notification No.12/2003-ST - Appeal allowed by way of remand
rajNoti20
Rajasthan: Regarding rate of tax on cigarettes under section 6(1) of RVAT Act
kerCir15
Kerala: Registration and furnishing of details by Electronic Commerce Websites
upNoti729
Uttar Pradesh: Amendment in UPVAT Schedule-I and Schedule-II - Regarding 'All kinds of footwear including hawai chappals and straps thereof'
mahaNoti1515
Maharashtra: Addition of entry Russian Federation to refund of the tax to dealer on his sales made to diplomatic authorities etc.
3rd of June
2015-VIL-216-RAJ
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALWAR Vs M/s INDIAN SHAVING PRODUCTS LTD
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Levy of sales tax on distribution of free samples – HELD – Distribution of Free samples is in accordance with trade practice and is one of the major factor where manufacture / producer can put its product in the market. Marketing through free samples is commonly accepted trade practice which one is required to resort in the competitive business environment. The revenue gains substantially when the samples are accepted over the years by the consumers who later on purchases the commodity - The free samples provided to the dealer who in turn provides the same to selected consumers cannot be said to be liable for sales tax. It has no marketable value - To say that the samples provided by assessee can be held to be liable to sales tax does not appear to be justified - The revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed
2015-VIL-257-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., DAMAN
Central Excise – Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Refund claim by appellant of excise duty paid under protest by manufacturer - PSL which was later held by the Tribunal that process undertaken by PSL does not amount to manufacture - Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant have not furnished any documentary evidence that the incidence of duty was not passed to other person – Unjust enrichment – Demand for cost of material and pricing of the contract - HELD - After examining the books of accounts, the auditor by certificate had certified that no part of duty paid by the appellant has been reimbursed by the customer. The genuinety and authenticity of the certificate was not doubted by both the authorities below. There is no material available on record to discard the Chartered Accountant certificate. Hence, there is no need to furnish the cost of material and pricing of the contract. It will be necessary in the case, when the Auditor’s certificate is not accepted as incomplete or any other reason - The other aspect of this matter is that the expressions ‘the applicant may furnish to establish’, if read with ‘the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person’, in sub-Section (1) of Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, make it clear that the applicant is required to produce the evidence that the ‘other person’ had not paid the duty amount to the applicant. In present case, the appellant discharged the burden by producing certificate dated 10.12.2003 from their customer namely, Nuclear Power Corporation Limited – NPCL, a Government of India Enterprise had confirmed that they have not reimbursed any Excise Duty to the appellant against the excise duty paid on the invoices of the manufacturer. Thus, the ‘other person’ in Section 11B(1), has certified that they have not reimbursed the duty. In such situation, there is no requirement to furnish the costing of product and pricing of contract, when the certificate of the ‘other person’, particularly a Government of India Enterprise, is found genuine. Hence, there is no reason to reject the refund claim on the ground of unjust-enrichment - Impugned orders are set-aside and appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-259-CESTAT-MUM-ST
PHOTOLIBRARY INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
Service Tax - Online information and Data base access or Retrieval service – Appellant website providing access to the image or photograph, which can be downloaded for the purposes either to place an ad or for research – Classification of service – HELD - Appellant’s website allows the access and retrieve the data or information contained therein which are free for the purpose of viewing on the monitor, but has to be paid for downloading in the for further commercial use – The claim made by the appellant that as to at the most the issue would be covered under the Copyright Act, is incorrect submission as the information or data contained in website may be having a copyright, but when this information is only available on the website for accessing and subsequent downloading, the copyright on the said images becomes incidental and the main activity so far as the appellant’s client is concerned is making information available for retrieval - It is also to be noted that the database or the information which is accessed need not be only photograph, it can be strategic, legal and having data wherein graphics are displayed, books and other electronic publications etc. The service as rendered by the appellant would be web-based service providing access or downloading of a digital content inasmuch as the images and photographs are nothing but a digital content stored in website - the impugned order of the first appellate authority is correct and does not require any interference - Appeal filed by the appellant is rejected
2015-VIL-258-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s HIKAL LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., SURAT
Central Excise – CENVAT credit on inputs on the basis of ‘Original for Buyers’ copy instead of ‘Duplicate for Transporter’ copy – On being pointed out that the appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT credit, appellants debited the amount and informed to the Range Superintendent that they have debited the said credit alongwith interest - Show cause notice proposing demand of CENVAT credit alongwith interest and imposition of penalty – HELD - The Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provide that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid, the person chargeable with the duty, may pay the amount of duty on the basis of his own ascertainment of such duty or on the basis of duty ascertained by a Central Excise officer before service of notice on him under sub-Section (1) in respect of the duty so paid and inform the Central Excise officer of such payment in writing, who on receipt of such intimation shall not serve any notice under Section 11A(1) in respect of the amounts so paid. In the present case, it is found that the appellant had paid the duty alongwith interest as per the amount ascertained by CERA audit and requested to drop the show cause notice. Hence, the show cause notice cannot be sustained - the appellant voluntarily reversed the credit alongwith interest and therefore, they have rightly contended that the show cause notice should be dropped – The impugned order is modified to the extent the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is set aside - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected
Guest Column
Freight and other costs is includable in value of goods where transfer of property takes place at buyer's premises - Analysis of judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs Roofit Industries Ltd 2015-VIL-38-SC-CE
4th of June
2015-VIL-14-MSTT
M/s THE PAPER PRODUCT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act - Central Sales Tax Act – Adjustment of MVAT refund towards CST dues – Interest on refund – HELD - Rule 55(3)(a) and (b), it is clear that the appellant is allowed to adjust or carry forward the refund available to him under the MVAT Act in the Returns against the dues under the CST Act for the same year which was precisely done by the appellant, while filing the return under the MVAT Act and CST Act. Ultimately his assessment made on 31/03/2009 under the MVAT Act has resulted in refund of tax, which shows that the appellant not only claimed refund in Returns, but actually got the refund in the assessment order which is passed on later date i.e. after the date of CST order - There is huge refund which was to be adjusted against CST liability of the appellant dealer in the same year as provided in Rule 55(3)(b), but the assessing officer taken up assessment of the appellant only under CST Act by not considering refund under the MVAT Act adjusted by the appellant in the returns of the same assessment year, which is legally allowed as per rule 55(3). Considering this provision, injustice is caused to the dealer by levying interest on the tax dues under the CST Act. As of now the assessment under the MVAT Act is completed, it would be in the interest of the justice and more fitting in the scheme of the MVAT Act, particularly in view of the provision of Rule 55(3)(a) and (b) and section 52 interest under CST Act is to be calculated taking into consideration the refund, ultimately due under the MVAT Act to the appellant. Therefore, we direct interest u/s.9(2A) r/w.sec.36(3)(b) be levied on the amount of CST due after adjusting MVAT refund of tax of the same period. The appellant’s submission that interest is compensatory in nature, so the money used by the department should get interest @6% till the date of refund of excess is not fitting in the scheme of the Act and Rules and hence, cannot be granted - Interest u/s.9(2A) of the CST Act r/w.sec.30(3) of the MVAT Act is to be calculated after adjusting refund of tax amount under the MVAT Act - The Appellate Authority is also directed to modify the order under the MVAT Act and withdraw the interest granted on refund of tax to the appellant and adjust the refund of tax due under the MVAT Act against the dues under the CST Act – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-220-DEL
ITD-ITD CEM JV Vs COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES
Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Assessment Notice invoking extended period in terms of the proviso of sub-section 1 of Section 34 of the DVAT Act - re-condition for invoking the extended period – HELD - In the absence of recording ‘reason to believe’ non-payment of tax on account of concealment etc., in the notice, extended period cannot be invoked - ‘Reasons to believe’ must be disclosed clearly in the record prior to the issuance of the default Assessment Notice/Order or in the said Notice/Order itself – The default assessment notice dated is time barred and is quashed – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-218-MP-CE
M/s BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs CEC, BHOPAL
Central Excise – Modvat Credit - Section 57A of the CER, 1945 – Entries in RG-23 A Part I & Part II – Denial of credit on the ground that even though in the entries made under Part I with regard to account of inputs, the entry is made within six months, but in Part II – the entry number showing the date is beyond six months – HELD - In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee was entitled to avail the MODVAT credit under Rule 57A, merely because of the time frame fixed in making the entries in Part II of RG-23A, and only because of some error in making the entry, denial of the benefit cannot be permitted - The right to the credit under the MODVAT Scheme accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw material or inputs and when such a right gets crystallized in their favour once the input is received in the factory on the basis of the existing Scheme - The act of the assessee in making such receipt of input in Part I of a single comprehensive RG-23A action is evidence enough with regard to crystallization of right to MODVAT credit and merely because in second accounting entry of Part II, there is some inconsistency, the right accrued already to receive the credit cannot be taken away - The credit which had accrued to the assessee could not be denied in law by the Tribunal holding it to be inadmissible merely because of the error in making entry in Part II of RG-23A – Impugned order is quashed and assessee appeal allowed
M/s ADHUNIK POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED Vs THE UNION OF INDIA
Central Excise – Section 2(d) & 2(f) of CEA Act, 1944 - Excisable goods – Manufacture – Marketable byproduct - Appellant is manufacturing galvanized tubes and in that process, Zinc dross ("Zn-dross") is also produced, which is a by-product – Excisability of Zinc dross – By-product which is marketable, saleable, purchasable and commercially a new goods – HELD - Even if a by-product or ancillary product or even a subsidiary product of a main manufacturing product is capable of being sold in a market which is commercially a new item, it is always falling within Section 2(d) and 2(f) and, hence, always excise duty can be imposed and levied in view of the tariff entry for that particular item enacted under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the facts of the present case, these petitioners are manufacturing “galvanized tubes” and during the process of manufacturing of “galvanized tubes”, "Zn-dross" is produced. This may be a voluntary phenomena or involuntary phenomena and there may not be any intention on the part of the manufacturer to produce “Zinc-dross”; nonetheless it is a fact that "Zn-dross" is produced during the manufacturing process of “galvanized tubes”. This involuntary phenomena of the production of "Zn-dross" is also covered, by the definition given under Section 2(d) and 2(f) specially, when "Zn-dross" is commercially another item; saleable item; purchasable commodity, marketable - If the contention of the petitioners is accepted by this Court that even if Zinc content is more than 96% in a "Zn-dross", it is not excisable goods, then 99.999999% Zinc content in "Zn-dross" will also not be an excisable goods. This is an absurdity. Even a pure Zinc will escape from the liability of payment of excise duty. It should be kept in mind that up-to what percentage of Zinc should be allowed in the "Zn-dross", which is a policy decision. Court is not sitting in appeal upon this policy decision. The contention that even if the Zinc content is more than 92% then also it remains non-excisable goods, is not accepted by this Court – Writ petition dismissed
SKF INDIA LTD & SKF INDIA LTD (ISD) Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I
Service Tax - CENVAT Credit on Trading activity - Credit of input services in proportion to the turnover of trading activities and that of manufacturing activities - Invocation of extended period of limitation – input service distributor – Jurisdiction to issue of showcause notice - HELD – The main objection of the appellant that the show cause notice should have been issued to the ISD and not to the factory and proceedings is, therefore, without jurisdiction, in our view, is not sustainable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as both ISD and the factory are located in one and the same place and the two registrations, one for excise and the other as an ISD, will not make a difference. Both registrations are for the same legal entity. Both the activities are to be dealt by the same Commissioner. The credit in dispute, if eligible, will also be utilized in the factory located within the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner - Trading was not a service and therefore, cannot be considered as an exempted service during the period prior to 1.4.2011 and the amended provision with effect from 1.4.2011 will not have retrospective effect - For the period under dispute the credit of service tax paid on the common input services should be apportioned in the same ratio as the turnover of the manufacturing and trading - Credit in respect of services used in trading activity cannot be considered as bona fide at all. Just because the Government has put a trust in the trade and permitted them to take credit without any reference to tax authorities, it does not imply that the appellant can avail any credit whether permissible or not under the law and the later on, take the plea that the same is not recoverable on the grounds that the issue involves interpretation and hence the extended period of limitation cannot be applied - Penalties have been correctly imposed and we uphold the same – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-260-CESTAT-CHE-ST
CCE & ST, TRICHY Vs M/s DALMIA CEMENTS (B) LTD
Service Tax – GTA Service - Demand under reverse charge mechanism – Period of dispute period March 1998 to May, 1998 – HELD - Lower appellate authority allowed the assessee appeal by relying the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. The Revenue’s main ground is that on similar appeals the Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the revenue appeals on identical issue - We find that the lower appellate authority has relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., which is still in force. However, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed both the appeals in the case of Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd - In view of the above, Revenue’s reliance on the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs M/s. Pondicherry Paper Ltd., is not applicable - Accordingly, Revenue appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld
SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES Vs OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALORE
Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on renting out to Government Organisation - Assessee argued that service recipient viz. Commercial Tax Department should file refund claim for service tax wrongly paid by it - VAT Department submitted that since service tax was paid by assessee, refund claim should be filed by assessee and it would co-operate with assessee - HELD - Both assessee and Commercial Tax Department shall make appropriate representation addressed to Service Tax Department and service tax would be refunded, if it is found to have been wrongly paid - Partly in favour of assessee
stCir184
Service Tax: Clarification on rate of service tax on restaurant service
kerCir16
Kerala: Extension in last date for filing of Annual Return for the year 2014-15
apCir45
Andhra Pradesh: Transporter registration and declarations to be filed at Border Check posts-eWay bills for Interstate movement - Certain instructions on goods vehicles covered by single eWaybill
FCP0406
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
5th of June
2015-VIL-222-BOM
M/s KIRTI ORNAMENTS PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Section 13AA – Purchase Tax – Exemption notification – Transfer of manufactured jewellery by the appellant to its branches outside State of Maharashtra – Inter-state transfer of goods - Levy of purchase tax under Section 13AA at 2% on purchase of gold bullion, which was used in the manufacture of said jewellery – Denial of levy of reduced rate of purchase tax of 0.5% - Loss of Revenue which is occasioned by transfer of goods manufactured in the State, to the branch of the assessee or his agent which are situated outside the State - Whether irrespective of the notification issued under Section 41 of the BST Act, an assessee is liable to pay the purchase tax at the rate of 2% as is provided in Section 13A of the said Act – HELD – The Apex Court in clear terms has held that, the levy under Section 13AA is waived only when the goods are either sold in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or sold in the course of export. It has further been held that, when the goods manufactured are not sold within the State, there is no reason as to why the State should not collect the levy on purchase of raw material - The purpose for bringing Section 13AA on the Statute Book, was to compensate the loss of revenue, that occasioned on account of the purchasers purchasing raw material at concessional rates, using the same for manufacture of goods in the State and also using the State infrastructure, but however not selling the goods in the State, thereby depriving sales tax which the State would have earned from such sales at a higher rate - Conflict with other provisions of the Act - The legislature has specifically provided for a purchase tax, at the rate of 2% in addition to the tax payable under the other provisions of the Act, when the requirements as provided under the said section are fulfilled. The tax as provided in Section 13AA, is an additional tax payable in certain circumstances as carved out in the said Section, so as to compensate the loss of revenue. We are of the considered view that there is no conflict between any of the provisions of the said Act if the principles of harmonious construction are applied thereto - Validity of Section 13AA of BST Act - Section 13AA is intended to encourage industry and at the same time derive revenue. If the interpretation as sought to be placed by the assessee is to be accepted, it will frustrate both the intentions. The purchaser who sells the goods in the State of Maharashtra, will be required to pay much higher rate of tax, whereas the purchaser who purchases raw material from the State at concessional rate, uses the said material and State infrastructure for manufacturing the goods, but does not sell the same in the State, would be required to pay meager tax. This would neither encourage the industry nor would be in the interest of revenue - As held by the Apex Court that only in 3 situations i.e. (i) sale of manufactured goods within the State, (ii) inter-State sale and (iii) export sale of manufactured goods, the said levy is waived; in other cases it is not waived. Further, such tax is required to be paid, in addition to the tax payable under the other provisions of the BST Act - The Tribunal was justified in holding that the dealer was liable to purchase tax at the rate of 2% and not at reduced amount of 0.5% or 1.55% as per entry A-47 and the benefit of the said notification was not available, insofar as the purchase tax, as is levied under Section 13AA of the said Act, is concerned – Reference dismissed – Decided in favour of Revenue
2015-VIL-223-MAD
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs Tvl. ANDAVAR MINERALS AND INDUSTRIES
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act – Taxable Turnover - Whether the expenses, viz., grinding, loading and unloading and freight charges, claimed by the assessee is post-sale expenses or pre-sale expenses – HELD - The Tribunal, after examining the records and based on facts has come to the conclusion that these expenses are post-sale expenses and could not be included in the turnover - Being pure question of fact, we find no reason to differ with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, which is a final fact finding authority – In favour of assessee
2015-VIL-263-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s BECTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT LTD Vs CCE, DELHI - III
Central Excise - Medical equipment - Disposable and non-disposable Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and Cannula for intra-corporal spaces - The appellant-company manufacturer of Intravenous Cannula (IV Cannula) under the brand name Venflon and Neoflon – Eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 6/03-CE dated 01/3/03 - Proceeding on the basis of opinion of Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) that Venflon Cannula being primarily used in peripheral veins and arteries for the purpose of blood sampling, blood transfusion, drug infusion etc. cannot be treated as the Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels or the Cannula for intra-corporal spaces, as peripheral blood vessels cannot be treated as blood vessels similar to Aorta or vena cavae – HELD - The IV Cannula being manufactured by the appellant would be covered by entry in the list 37 of Notification No. 21/02-CUS and accordingly would be exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 6/03-CE and its successor notifications - In this regard, the plea of the learned Counsel for the Department that ‘Similar veins and blood vessels’ must be construed in ejusdem generus with preceding expression and that in view of the Apex court’s judgments, while interpreting an exemption notification, in case of doubt, the benefit has to go to the Revenue, is not acceptable, as once the Tribunal’s judgment has been affirmed by the Apex court by the way of dismissal of the civil appeal, even if without giving any reasons, that becomes a binding precedent - The Department, has chosen to rely only on the opinion of Dr. P. Ravindran of DGHS which is silent on the point as to which blood vessels are similar to aorta and vena cavae and whether the Cannula, in question, can be used for the blood vessels similar to aorta and vena cavae. In view of this, permitting the cross examination of Dr. P. Ravindran was necessary, but unfortunately the same has not been allowed. In our view, therefore not permitting the cross examination of Dr. P. Ravindran in the circumstances of the case has vitiated the proceeding. Moreover the entry in the exemption notification does not prescribe the degree of similarity in respect of blood vessels similar to aorta and vena cavae and in broad sense, even peripheral veins would be similar to vena cavae as both carry de-oxygenated blood from various parts of the body to the heart and peripheral arteries would be similar to aorta, as both carry oxygenated blood from the heart to various parts of the body. For these reasons the impugned orders denying the exemption under Notification No. 6/03-CE and its successor notification to the IV Cannula being manufactured by the appellant would not be sustainable – Assessee Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-264-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s TIMEX WATCHES LTD Vs CCE, NOIDA
Central Excise - Cenvat credit – Defective goods during the process of manufacture or R&D - Denial of credit on ground that the watch parts were rejected as defective before they were used in or in relation to the manufacture of watches and were destroyed without following the prescribed procedure - Credit demand also proposed to deny on the ground that the inputs found short on the basis of general ledger stock of stock adjustment account – HELD - The defective goods were found only after inputs were issued for processing or assembling of watches. Therefore, it cannot be said that the inputs were not put to use – In terms of Rule 57D of erstwhile CER, 1944, the inputs have become waste during the course of manufacture or used in or in relation not the manufacture of the final product are eligible for modvat credit - The observations of the Commissioner itself is conclusive that the inputs were issued for manufacturing of watches and the same were found defective during the process of manufacture or during the course of R&D process which is integral part of the manufacturing process – Since the defective goods were found only after inputs were issued for processing or assembling of watches, the appellant is entitled to credit as per Rule 57D of erstwhile CER, 1944 - The shortages and excesses are due to the fact that stock accounting used to be done on weighment basis since the minute inputs ran into millions and physical counting is not possible. The Commissioner has not given any credence to the defence taken by the appellant for shortages of the inputs have not verified the said fact with cogent evidence. Therefore the defence taken by the appellant is acceptable - Accordingly, there is no shortage of inputs as explained by the appellant. Further all the shortages/rejections have been supported by the chartered accountant certifying the same which has not been controverted by the Revenue with cogent evidence – Hence, the appellant has taken modvat credit correctly and consequently they are not required to reverse the modvat credit taken by them. In the circumstances, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant - The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief
2015-VIL-221-BOM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, AURANGABAD Vs ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD
Service Tax – Cenvat Credit – Input Service - Admissibility Cenvat credit on ‘management, maintenance or repair services’ provided to windmills installed and situated away from factory and factory premises - Whether electricity generated far away, could be said to have been used for manufacture of the final product of the assessee – HELD - The answer lies in interpretation of Rule 2(B)(k),(l) (m), 3 and 4 of CCR, 2004 - On perusal of these Rules, it becomes clear that the management, maintenance and repair of windmills installed by the respondents is input service as defined by clause ‘l’ of Rule 2 - Rule 3 and 4 provide that any input or capital goods received in the factory or any input service received by manufacture of final product would be susceptible to CENVAT credit. Rule does not say that input service received by a manufacturer must be received at the factory premises - Electricity generated at Supa and Satara which are situated far away from the manufacturing unit of the appellant can be said to have used for manufacture of final product at Waluj, Aurangabad. Mainly because admittedly such electricity generated at Supa and Satara is adjusted to the electricity used at Waluj. This adjustment is admitted by the revenue and in view of this adjustment, it can safely be stated that the electricity generated at Supa and Satara is the electricity used at Waluj – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-262-CESTAT-MUM-ST
AMP CAPITAL ADVISORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I
Service Tax – Refund claim in the case of service-provider is the appellant in India and the service-recipient is located aboard – Service provided to foreign entity - export of service' or otherwise – HELD - services were carried out in India but the recipient is outside India and, therefore, the services provided by Indian entity deemed to be used by the person located outside India and, therefore, it satisfies the terms used "outside India" provided under the Export of Service Rules - The appellant has provided the services from India and the same was used outside India. Accordingly, it qualifies as 'export of services' and refund is admissible - The appellant is rightly entitled for the refund holding that the services provided is export of services - Hence the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appeals of the appellant are allowed
ceNoti32
Central Excise: Exemption to Ethanol produced from molasses generated in sugar season 2015-16 for supply to OMCs for blending with petrol
karNotiFD127
Karnataka: Exemption on sale of Bio-gas produced using Municipal waste
List of updates in the month of May - Please go through the contents and let us know if you have need / missed any of these files
8th of June
2015-VIL-224-GAU
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD Vs STATE OF ASSAM
Assam General Sales Tax Act - Determination of sale price - First sale - Review of order of Assam Board of Revenue which originally held that in view of the explanation 1 of section 8(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993 the sale made by the petitioner cannot be construed as a first sale made by the petitioner to its dealers and is not taxable – Phrase “a substantial part of the goods” in the explanation 1 – HELD – The words “a substantial part of the goods” in explanation 1 should be understood with reference to the quantity of goods and not the sale price and in fact that was the view taken by the Assam Board of Revenue in disposing of the appeal. The view taken in the review petition that a substantial part of the goods manufactured should be with reference to the sale price is untenable - In the instant case as a fact it is on record that the quantity of goods sold to the petitioner by the IOC accounts for only 4.5 per cent of its total production, therefore the said quantity cannot be considered as a “a substantial part of the goods manufactured”. When that condition does not apply despite the fact that the sale price collected by the petitioner from its dealers being in excess of the 40 per cent of the purchase price the question of levy of tax does not arise, since one of the requisite conditions viz. “the sale of a substantial part of the goods manufactured” is not fulfilled. Unless both the conditions are fulfilled the question of levy does not arise. In that view of the matter the view taken by the Assam Board of Revenue in review is untenable – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-15-MSTT
M/s G.K.B. OPTOLAB PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Central Sales Tax Act – Registration certificate – C Form – Purchase of goods for resale – Penalty - HELD - Appellant has purchased ophthalmic equipment on ‘C’ forms which were utilised by him on eye testing, he is under belief that optical item and ophthalmic equipments are one and the same, but being a reseller, he is not supposed to purchase such items for his use these items for processing job of glass or job of eye testing Therefore, penalty can be levied either u/s. 10(b) or 10(d) but here the charge of false representation is not proved, it will be his misunderstanding or omission. Hence appellant is more particularly liable for penalty u/s. 10(d) of the Act. However, levy of penalty by the Assessing authority and confirmation of the same by Appellate authority is not proper in view of the discretionary power. Because such powers are exercised always taking into consideration the overall facts. The fact that appellant had sold some equipment in subsequent year and tax thereupon he paid was completely overlooked. The charge of false representation was not proved, beyond doubt - Even if the spectacles are prepared and sold by him, he is not treated as manufacturer. This fact is not taken into consideration. The defaults committed by appellant are required to be penalised under section 10(d) but we think penalty of Rs.50,00/- is justified – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-265-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s JINDAL STAINLESS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, ROHTAK
Central Excise – Cenvat credit – Electricity generated in the appellant’s captive power plant was used in their own factory and a portion of the electricity was sent to power grid for synchronization and it was received back by the Appellant in their unit after synchronization - Reverse the credit on the inputs furnace oil on the ground that the appellant cleared the excess electricity to the grid – HELD - In the present case, there is no sale of electricity to the power grid. It is also noted that the electricity sent to power grid was returned back to the Appellant, which was further used in the manufacture of final product. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically observed in Maruti Suzuki case that the reversal of credit would be required on the wheeled out of electricity at a price to the joint venture/vendor etc, for manufacture. In the present case, there is no sale of electricity, and the same was returned back to their factory for consumption in their final product – There is no substance in the submissions of the learned AR - The impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-266-CESTAT-DEL-CE
C.C.E. CHANDIGARH Vs PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD
Central Excise - Whether the Transmission Assemblies (TA) captively consumed in the manufacture of tractors manufactured by respondent during the period 1.8.1996 to 1.06.1998 is exigible to excise duty - Goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory for the manufacture of the final products – HELD - The issue whether T.A. is an excisable good emerging in the course of manufacture of Tractor has been analyzed in detail and settled by the Apex Court in M/s Escorts Ltd Vs CCE, Faridabad - Therefore no need to delve into the submissions and various judgments placed before us. The Apex Court in the above case, whose facts are identical to the facts of this case, has held that TA comes into existence during manufacture of Tractor, is an intermediate product and the same is a distinct product commercially known to the market as such. The Apex Court has categorically held that the transmission assemblies of tractors are commercially known products, and that the fact that not a single sale of such Assembly has been made by the appellants is irrelevant. The ratio in the above case is squarely applicable to the case before us - The TAs came into existence in manufacture of Tractors by the respondent and the same are excisable goods - Levy of excise duty on TAs which came into existence in the course of manufacture of Tractors is upheld – Extended period of limitation - Respondent was under bonafide belief that TA emerging as intermediate product in the manufacture of Tractor was not subject to excise duty and that there was no fraud willful mis-statement or suppression of fact - The process of manufacture undertaken by respondent has been made known to the department - In such circumstances, the respondent cannot allege of any contumacious conduct warranting invocation of extended period - Respondent cannot be accused of any fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts so as to invoke the extended period of limitation clause as per proviso to Section 11A(1) of the CEA, 1944 - Since the showcause Notice for demand of duty for the period from 1.8.1996 to 1.6.1998 has been issued on 31.8.2001, the same is wholly time barred and the duty demand is not sustainable on limitation – Partly allowed
2015-VIL-268-CESTAT-MUM-ST
VIDARBHA GRINDERS (P) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - Demand of service tax on processing charges for job work of converting black bars into bright bars for various clients – Manufacturing activity - HELD - Revenue has not disputed the fact of discharge of excise duty on the very same item manufactured and cleared by the appellant on their account. It is surprising to note that the first appellate authority has not considered this vital submission of the appellant as to when the same goods are manufactured by the same process, how the said process cannot become manufactured out of job working. In our considered view, the self same activity of conversion of black bars into bright bars on their account and clearance of the same on discharging duty as manufactured product cannot become a non-manufactured product when the appellant undertakes job working for some other clients – Time barred - There was no response from the department on this query raised by the appellant. The show-cause notice issued in this case is on 13.10.2008 for the period 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005 which is time barred and cannot invoke suppression against the appellant – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-267-CESTAT-BLR-ST
KERNEX MICROSYSTEMS (INDIA) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-IV
Service Tax – CENVAT Credit - Input service - Nexus with manufacturing activity – Professional fee for preparing a business plan appraising the same and work relating to public issue, filing of public issue offer document, professional charges in relation to IPO and for preparing the complete study of commercial and financial aspects of anti-collusion devices and fee for acting as co-Managers of public issue – HELD - The services are clearly covered by inclusive part of the definition which covers financing as one of the headings under which services are eligible - The services received were received for mobilization of finance by IPO and for conducting study of the business plan and study done in relation to anti-collusion devices proposed to be manufactured by the appellants. All these activities, are clearly covered by the inclusive part of the definition - Appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund of CENVAT credit and therefore the impugned order has no merits and has to be set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
hpNoti2
Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2015 - Amendment in Rule 2, 36, 38, 41, 45, 50, 64, 65, 66, Insertion of new rule 73-A & Substitution of Forms VAT-II, VAT-II-A and VAT-XV-H
bihNotiSO114
Bihar: CST Act - Rate of tax for micro Industrial Units for the period 12/10/2006 to 13/03/2013
telCir11
Telangana: APVAT Act, 2005 – Section 13 – Input Tax Credit declared in the return in Form VAT 200 for May 2014 to be availed by the dealers in the return in Form VAT 200 for June 2014
apCir45
Andhra Pradesh: e-Waybill - Transporter registration and declarations to be filed at Border Check posts-e-Way bills for Inter-State movement
9th of June
2015-VIL-227-TRI
BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Tripura Value Added Tax Act – Divisible contract - Contracts to provide Direct To Home service using Set Top Box - Liability to pay VAT on the value of the Set Top Boxes (STB) as valued by the petitioners in their own books - STBs continue to be the property of the service providers and are installed at the premises of the customers - The contention of the State is that the transaction virtually amount to sale of the STBs and in any event the petitioners have transferred the right to use the STBs to the customers and, therefore, such a contract is liable to be taxed within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Act – HELD - True it is that the petitioner companies have not sold the STBs to the customers. There can however be no manner of doubt that the right to use these goods i.e. the STBs has been transferred to the customers. In today’s world, nothing is given free of cost. The cost of the STB is obviously included in the activation charges and/or the monthly subscription. Under the TVAT Act even where payment of the goods is made by way of deferred payment the goods can be subjected to tax. The main issue is whether the contract can be easily divided and the value of the goods can be ascertained with exactitude - One of the most important elements of determining whether the right to use goods has been transferred or not is by ascertaining who has effective control over the goods. As far as STBs are concerned they are in total control of the customer. Under his effective control the STBs are installed in the house of the customer. He can use the STB when he wants to. He can use the STB to view whichever channel he wants to view. He may or may not use the STB. The company does not even have the power of entering the premises of the customer. Most importantly as per the terms of the agreement, the companies are responsible for the functioning of the STBs only for a period of six months. The warranty is valid only for six months and thereafter there is no warranty. Therefore, if STB of a customer is spoiled after six months he will have to pay for repair or replacement of the same. We are of the considered view that this amounts to transfer of the right to use goods - The State is assessing the tax solely on the basis of the value of the STBs as given in the books of account of the petitioners. The petitioners claim depreciation etc. on these STBs and the valuation given by the petitioners is the value of the goods, the right to use which has been transferred to the customers. This is easily separable and discernible and the State has the full authority to levy value added tax on the sale part of the transaction i.e. the value of the STBs - Therefore, no merit in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed
2015-VIL-225-TRI
QUIPPO OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Works contract – transfer of right to use goods – Liability to pay VAT on contract for digging directional wells – As directional drilling is one of the components of digging a directional well, accordingly petitioners have entered into a service contract providing service of directional drilling and, therefore, they are paying service tax to the Central Government. The petitioners contend that the contract does not amount to sale and no VAT can be levied on the same – Demand of VAT on the ground that the contract is for hiring of machineries – HELD - The contracts we are of the view that the contracts are mainly for hiring of services. There may be a very small element of transfer of right to use goods but according to us the pre-dominant portion of the contract relates to hiring of services and not to transfer of right to use the goods. We are aware that the dominant nature test is not to be used in composite contracts falling within the ambit of Article 366(29A) but from the reading of the contract it is more than apparent that the intention of the parties was to treat the contract as a contract for hiring of services. Moreover, it is impossible to divide the contract into two separate portions. Every element of the digging directional wells and Mobile Drilling Rig service contains a major element of provisions of services. In such an eventuality it is virtually impossible to divide the contract. It is not possible to work out the value of the right to use goods transferred under the contract. In cases, where the contracts are easily divisible or where the parties have by agreement clearly indicated what is value of the service part and what is value of the transfer of right to use goods part, the contract may be divided. We are in agreement with the Delhi High Court that when the contract cannot be divided with exactitude then the Central Law must prevail - Parties have been paying service tax and if the State is allowed to tax any portion of the value of the contract then there has to be a proportionate refund of the service tax to that extent. This cannot be done without hearing the Union of India. If there is any dispute between the State or the Union of India then they must resolve it between themselves. The petitioners or the ONGC cannot be made liable to pay both the taxes for the same transaction - We are clearly of the view that in all the cases the transactions do not amount to sale within the meaning of the TVAT Act, 2004. The State is not entitled to levy any sales tax or Value Added Tax on the transactions in question. It is, therefore, directed that the amount of tax, already deducted and received by the State shall be refunded to the petitioners along with statutory interest - Writ petitions are allowed
2015-VIL-226-KAR-ST
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE–II Vs M/s FEDERAL MOGUL TPR INDIA LIMITED
Service Tax – Demand under Business Auxiliary Service - Services of production of goods on behalf of the principal manufacturer - CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the activity of chrome plating done by their sister concern on job work basis – Interpretation on notification No.8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 - Payment central excise duty/service tax on wholly excepted goods, with an intention to pass on the unintended benefit of the credit to their principal manufacturer – HELD - Notification No.8/2005-ST is issued under section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 which exempts the taxable services of production of goods on behalf of the principal manufacturer from the whole of service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act - However, this exemption notification is subject to the condition that the principal manufacturer and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to the manufacture of other goods on which appropriate duty of excise is payable - Thus, this notification is condition precedent. Any job worker who undertakes services of processing is not free to avail the benefit of the said notification unless the recipient of the services pays appropriate duty of excise on the goods returned back by the job worker - The words “shall not pay” enumerated in the Section 5A(1A) of the CEA, 1944 specifically denotes that it is the mandatory requirement on the manufacturer of such excisable goods not to pay the duty of excise on such goods in respect of which an exemption under Section 5A(1A) has been granted absolutely. Such a mandatory requirement of “not to pay” the duty of excise on goods exempted under sub-section (1) of Section 5(A) is not found in Section 93 of the Service Tax Act. Section 83 of the Service Tax Act provides for application of certain provisions of CEA, 1944 in relation to service tax under Finance Act, 1994. Absence of Section 5A of CEA, 1944 in Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, indicates that the provisions of Section 5A of Central Excise Act, is not applicable to the Finance Act, 1994 - The contention urged on behalf of the Department that the FMGIL having wrongly paid service tax has consequently passed an inadmissible CENVAT credit to the principal manufacturer i.e., FMTPR much against the exemption notification No.8 of 2005 is not worthy of acceptance. As the Notification No.8 of 2005 is a conditional notification and Section 5A(1A) of CEA, 1944, is not applicable to the present case – Tribunal order upheld – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-271-CESTAT-MUM-ST
JSW SALAV (STEEL) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD
Service Tax - CENVAT Credit – Service tax paid on various insurance policies in respect of capital assets - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 – HELD - The eligibility to Cenvat credit on marine insurance policies taken in respect of tugs and barges is not admissible as there was no nexus between the impugned services with manufacture / clearance of goods; therefore, they are not input service on which the assessee could get benefit of credit of service tax - There is one more reason for coming to this conclusion. The CCR 2004 does not provide for Cenvat Credit of excise/ CVD credit in respect of tugs and barges under the category of capital goods. If excise duty paid on these goods they are not available as credit, it does not stand to reason that service tax paid on insuring these goods should be available as credit under CCR 2004. Therefore, Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on assets of the appellant used outside the factory premises is not clearly admissible as they are neither inputs nor capital goods. Similarly, in respect of service tax paid on life insurance and mediclaim insurance for the employees/families the same is specifically excluded in terms of clause (C) of Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004 and therefore, the appellant would not be entitled for credit on the same - As regards the insurance done on Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy, it is the contractors who are undertaking the job work for the appellant. For the contractor or the job worker it may be an input service but not to the appellant who does not own these goods - In respect of other assets, which are used by the appellant within its factory for the manufacturing activity, the appellant would be eligible for the credit of service tax paid on various insurance policies in respect of such assets – Matter remanded and appeal is partly allowed
2015-VIL-270-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s IPCA LABORATORIES LTD Vs C.C.E INDORE
Central Excise – Cenvat credit – Failure to maintain separate account and inventory of the input services for use in exempted and dutiable final product - Period of dispute May, 2007 to March 2008 - Common input in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final product as well as exempted final products - During the period of dispute, assessee were foregoing the cenvat credit in respect of the common input services to the extent of 70%, based on the ratio of the turnover of dutiable and exempted final product during the previous financial year - The Department was of the view that since separate account and inventory of the input services meant for dutiable final product and exempted final product had not been maintained as per the provisions of Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) would become applicable - Whether just because the appellant did not maintain separate account and inventory of the input services meant for dutiable and exempted final product as per the provision of Rule 6(2) the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) providing for payment of an amount equal to 10% of sale value of the exempted final product would be applicable – HELD - Once the appellant have foregone the proportionate cenvat credit in respect of input services used in or in relation of the manufacture of exempted final product, they have to be treated as complied with the provisions of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 and hence, there cannot be any demand of amount under Rule 6(3)(b). In view of the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010, the appellant were entitled to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit, they have complied with this obligation. In view of this the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-269-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s PIRAMAL GLASS LTD Vs COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-SURAT-II
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit on various vehicles/equipments like forklift, tempo, cars etc. for transportation of input/raw materials within the factory premises and movement of workers / staff within the factory premises – HELD - By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the said vehicle might have been used for purpose other than what is claimed by the appellant - I do not find any material that the said vehicle was used outside of the factory, and the credit cannot be denied on the basis of assumption and presumption - The impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed
Supreme Court Cases
Central Excise: List of recent judgements of Supreme Court
ceNoti17NT
Central Excise: Exemption to manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of aluminium roofing panels
wbNoti790FT
West Bengal: Jurisdiction of STDS Cell, Data Analysis Wing and the ITC Investigation Unit in the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal
assamCir06
Assam: Online issuance of 'C' & 'F' form
FCP0806
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
10th of June
2015-VIL-228-J&K
M/s PARDEEP ELECTRICALS & BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA
Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 – Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 - Sales Tax on service tax – Quantum of sales tax on services rendered in the shape of works contract – Taxable turnover – Clarification issued by Commissioner - HELD - The stipulation in the contract condition is loud and clear that the service tax plus surcharge and labour welfare cess is deemed to be included in the contract sum quoted by the tenderer / contractor. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the contract sum quoted by the tenderer includes the component of service / sales tax plus surcharge leviable on services in the shape of works contract and labour welfare cess. Given the nature of condition, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the tax leviable on services rendered by the contractor through works contract are included in the sale price and have not been charged on sale of goods separately. The taxable turnover is, thus, to be determined in accordance with the formula engrafted in Clause (d) of Section 19 of the Act - The impugned clarification holding that inclusion of tax in whole price of service provided is not covered under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 cannot be supported. There is no dispute with the proposition that contract for supply of goods and materials as well as installation amounts to works contract and the constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kone Elevator case upholds such view. However, the impugned clarification, though reiterating the same principle, departs from the issue as to whether service tax has to be charged on the gross amount of the contract or after deducting the tax element in contracts where the agreement is inclusive of taxes. It is, fallacious to hold that Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962 does not cover inclusion of tax in sale price. Such an interpretation would render Clause (d) of Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules redundant which provides the formula for computation of tax included in the sale price. The impugned clarification cannot be sustained in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and has to be quashed – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-274-CESTAT-DEL-CE
C.C.E. JAIPUR-I Vs M/s BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD
Cenvat Credit on MS plates, MS Angle, MS Channel, Steel, Aluminum sheets & bar & rods that were used by the respondent for repairs and maintenance of capital goods – HELD - Items in dispute have been used by the respondent in repairing and maintenance of existing plant and machinery or for staging or supporting structure i.e. civil construction work - both the lower authorities have examined the usage of these items and held that these items have been used in fabrication / repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery – Impugned order is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
2015-VIL-273-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s TRAVEL INN INDIA PVT LTD Vs C.S.T., DELHI
Service Tax – Availment of irregular credit - Reversal of wrongly availed cenvat credit along with interest - benefit of exemption Notification No.1/2006-ST – Output service - HELD - If the assessee has reversed the Cenvat credit availed along with interest, the same shall amount to non-availment of Cenvat credit - The argument revenue that if reversal is made before point of taxation only then the tax exemption is available is not acceptable - Consequently, appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST. In these terms the demand of service tax along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty are set aside on this issue - Payment of interest for delayed payments of service - 6(2A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has paid the service tax through cheque on due dates and the same stand realised on a later date. Therefore, the date of deposited the cheque into the treasury is the date of payment of service tax as per Rule 6(2A) of the said Rules. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant has paid the service tax in time. Consequently, demand of interest on delayed payments is not sustainable – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-272-CESTAT-MUM-ST
SYNISE TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE
Service Tax – Cenvat credit - Appellant is engaged in the provision of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and IT Software Services as well as trading of scrap – Availment of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on common services received for providing output services as well as in trading activities – ‘Method of computation of value’ of input services used for trading under Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 – denial of service tax credit on input services used for trading – HELD - In respect of input services used for trading cannot be applied for period prior to 01/04/2011 - Credit disallowed in proportion of trading turnover to the total turnover is correct - Decision in Mercedes Benz followed since being a later judgment – The Mercedes Benz judgment also held that the formula introduced in Rule 6 in 2011 cannot be applied retrospectively. The amount of credit to be disallowed was correctly computed by the adjudicating authority in proportion of trading turnover (i.e. sales price of traded goods) to the total turnover (i.e. trading plus value of output service). The department is not imposing a condition which is not in the Rules. Department is merely saying that input credit is available under Service Tax law for providing output services in terms of the definition of input service in the CCR whereas the trading activity is outside the purview of service tax law - Limitation - The appellants have not declared in their ST-3 returns that the input service credit was used in relation to trading. This amounts to suppression of facts. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is correctly invoked as the appellants are following self assessment procedure and taking credit on their own against the provisions of law - Penalty - Reducing penalty to 50% of amount confirmed under proviso to Section 78(1) is bad in law because the proviso became effective from 08/04/2011 whereas the period in the present case is from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. The department was not put to notice on application of Rule 6(3A) by the Commissioner (Appeals) when the show-cause notice did not state this. Principles of natural justice have been violated. However, issue already decided on merits in favour of Revenue. In view of applicability of extended time period for suppression of facts, penalty equivalent to amount of Cenvat Credit demanded as held by the adjudicating authority upheld - Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Revenue's appeal is allowed
stPressNote
Service Tax: CBEC Press Note on clarification on service tax
punNotiSO21
Punjab Development of Trade, Commerce and Industries Ordinance, 2015 - Levy tax on the entry of Sugar
punNoti290515
Punjab Development of Trade, Commerce and Industries Ordinance, 2015 - Addition of Schedule
TVAT Act 2005
TELANGANA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2005 [Updated]
11th of June
2015-VIL-230-MAD
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs S.K.F. BEARING INDIA LTD
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act – Section 14 - Fresh assessment - Refund of penalty – HELD - In the instant case, there is no dispute that it is a case of fresh assessment in terms of Section 14 and, therefore, the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) of the Act has been rightly deleted by the authorities below - The grounds raised by the State that the Tribunal has misinterpreted Section 14 (3) of the TNGST Act is totally erroneous, since the assessee in this case has complied with the requirement of Section 14 for fresh assessment and, therefore, is entitled to the relief under Section 14 (3) – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-231-SIK
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD Vs THE STATE OF SIKKIM
Sikkim Sales Tax Act, 1983 – Section 2(m) - Sale – Supply of goods by Petitioner to the contractors - Agreements between the Petitioner and contractors for supply of cement, steel and explosives by the Petitioner and the cost of these materials were to be deducted from the approved bill amount(s) of the contractors at the rate already fixed - Transfer of goods and transfer of the right to use any goods – HELD – Perusal of the clauses of the agreement(s) would show that the goods were supplied to the contractors on a fixed rate and were to be consumed in the work as per approval and then the deductions of their sale price were to be made. Thus, it is clear that the above event of supply of specified goods were clearly covered under sub-clauses (b) and (d) of clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act and were ‘sale’ within the meaning of such clauses - There was transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract with the transfer of right to use the goods. Thus the taxation authorities have rightly held that the said instances were ‘sale’ within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act and the assessee was liable to pay the sales tax on such transactions – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-276-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD Vs CC, CE & ST, NOIDA
Service Tax – Denial of refund of credit of service tax, paid by the appellant on immovable property taken on rent from its holding company – Payment of rent through Debit note - Correlation between an input or output service – HELD - The payment of rent including the service tax component thereon by the appellant to M/s HCL Technologies Ltd evidenced by the debit note constitutes proof of the appellant having incurred in service tax liability in respect of the lease of immovable property as a sub-lessee. The burden therefore shifts to the Revenue to establish that the debit note recorded by M/s HCL Technologies Limited is a fraudulent instrument not reflecting the true transaction between the parties. A mere suspicion, has been as recorded by the primary and appellate authority, that appellant had paid the rent two to three years after the period of which the premises was taken on lease is an unusual occurrence, is not sufficient to displace the veracity of the debit note - Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST, clearly enjoins that there is no requirement of a precise or a one-to-one correlation between an input service leading to an output service - In the absence of any finding that the renting of immovable property was not a service having any nexus whatsoever with the output service provided by the appellant, on the basis of any factual analyses, then is no justification for rejecting refund - In the light of the fact that the premises in issue was the premises from which the appellant was operating is established by the debit note, by the lease deed of M/s HCL Technologies Limited and the sub-lease deed of the appellant, the preponderance of probabilities legitimises the conclusion that renting of immovable property was the input service utilised for the exported output service provided by the appellant - Appellant is entitled to refund of service tax – The impugned is quashed and appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-229-ALH-CE
COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE Vs M/s BARCO ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD
Central Excise – Interim order / stay
- Rights of an assessee - Whether after the expiry of the statutory period of
365 days prescribed under Section 35-C (2A) of CEA, 1944, the interim order
granted by the Tribunal would stand vacated automatically or there is a power
with the Tribunal to extend the interim order, where the appeal could not be
heard during these 365 days of its pendency despite all cooperation of the
assessee – Revenue in appeal against Larger Bench order - HELD – The High Court
cannot keep on passing orders for extending the stay with a direction to the
Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months inasmuch as such directions on
regular basis would be impossible for any Tribunal to comply because of heavy
work - The Tribunal cannot be expected to decide the appeals within six months,
when it could not do so within a year because of pendency of large number of
cases despite the statutory requirement - There has to be some mechanics for
deciding the cases where interim order has not been granted on their turn and
for cases where interim order has been granted simultaneously in whatever
proportion it may be - Filing of Excise Appeal/writ petition of like nature
before the High Court must also be brought to an end inasmuch as the
substantial question of law which arises in these Excise Appeals/writ petitions
must be answered once and for all - If the Tribunal fails to perform its part
of obligation within the timeframe, for whatever reason it may and not
attributable to the assessee, it is the assessee alone who has been made to
suffer. Choosing of one party only for the sufferance because of non-compliance
of the statutory time frame by the Tribunal, would be unfair and
discriminatory. Parties before the Tribunal to a lis must be treated at par -
If the assessee has not sought adjournment and has not avoided hearing of the
appeal in any manner, there can be little or no justification for his interim
order being vacated only because 180/365 days have elapsed. Any other
interpretation jeopardising the rights of such an assessee would in our opinion
be per se arbitrary. It is settled law that the assessee cannot be permitted to
suffer for the wrong of the Court/Tribunal nor the taxing authorities can be
permitted to take benefit of the wrong committed by the Court/Tribunal - An act
can either be an act of omission or be an act of commission. The non-disposal
of an appeal, if not due to the fault of any of the parties, but due to the
heavy work with the Tribunal, would fall under the category of "act of
omission". No law can be so unfair as to say that if the Court/Tribunal is
at fault, the parties shall suffer. No case law is required to support the
proposition that an act of Court/Tribunal shall not prejudice a party - In the
cases where the assessee is not at fault in the matter of his appeal being not
decided within the statutory period fixed under the aforesaid provisions and
his interim order stands vacated for no fault of his, his right to file a
second interim stay application cannot be said to have been taken away or
barred – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-275-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s HINDUSTAN PENCILS (P) LTD & M/s SANGHVI WOODS (P) LTD Vs CCE, JAMMU & KASHMIR
Central Excise - Manufacture - Whether making pencil slats from wooden logs (timber) would amount to manufacture and whether such pencil slats would attract Central Excise duty – HELD - Manufacture for the purpose of levy of Central Excise can be said to be a process by which a new article with a new commercial identity has emerged having a different name, character and uses from the material from which the same has been made - The internet websites regarding suppliers of pencil slats and newspaper article about the pencil slat industry of Kerala, is a clear evidence of the fact that there is a market for pencil slats. Since by the process adopted by the appellants a new product with different and distinct commercial identity from its raw material and different character and uses emerges, the process undertaken by the appellants has to be treated as manufacture - Plea of the appellant that the Department in view of the principle of res-judicata cannot revise its stand and hold that the process undertaken by them would amount to manufacture, is totally incorrect - The Apex court has held that the Central Excise authorities are not estopped from taking a view different than in the classification list as there is estopped against the law. In view of this, the plea of the appellant regarding res-judicata is not acceptable – Limitation - the appellants cannot be accused suppressing of any material fact from the Department with intent to evade the duty - In the circumstances of the case, only the normal limitation period would be available to the Department for recovery of duty and for the same reason, no penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 or Rule 25 (1) of the CER, 2002 would be justified. However, for quantification of the demand within normal limitation period, the matter would have to be remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority – Appeal partly allowed
ceNoti33
Central Excise: Pharmaceutical products - Exemption from excise duty for goods required for the National AIDS Control Programme funded by GFATM
mpOrdinance3
Madhya Pradesh VAT (Amendment) Ordinance - Amendment in Section 4A, 10, 14, 16A, 18 & 29
delCir12
Delhi: Instructions regarding processing of refund
Goa VAT Schedule - Updated upto 31st May '15 [Download link]
FCP1006
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
12th of June
2015-VIL-234-P&H
STATE OF HARYANA Vs M/s RAVINDRA TUBES LTD & M/s JINDAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Haryana Value Added Tax Act - Section 41(1) - ‘person aggrieved’ - Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner could maintain an application for review, under Section 41(1) of the Act, against the order passed by the Tribunal, restoring his order –- HELD - The Tribunal has dismissed the application by holding that as order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner has been restored, he is not a person aggrieved and, therefore, cannot maintain an application for review - Section 41(1) of the Act empowers the “Assessing Authority” or “any person aggrieved” to file an application for review. A situation may arise, as has arisen in the present case, where an order passed by an assessing authority (the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner), is restored by the Tribunal. In such a situation, the assessing authority cannot possibly file an application for review against an order restoring its order whether as the assessing authority or the person aggrieved. The revenue should have empowered an officer other than the assessing authority to file an application for review – No reason to differ from the majority opinion recorded by the Tribunal and while dismissing the appeal, grant liberty to the State of Haryana to either file an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, remanding the matter to the assessing authority or to file a fresh application for review by any person considering himself to be aggrieved – Dismissed on merit
2015-VIL-233-DEL
COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX Vs M/s ABHISHEK ELECTRICALS
Delhi Value Added Tax Act – Dismissal of delayed appeal by High Court – Review petition – HELD – The case of M/s Behl Constructions has ultimately settled the law i.e. the objections cannot automatically deemed to have been allowed if they are not decided within 8 months, the matter is remitted to the first appellate authority/objection hearing authority who shall hear and decide the contentions of the parties after issuing due notice
2015-VIL-232-GOA-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA Vs M/s ESSEL PROPACK LTD
Service Tax - Credit of service tax paid on goods transport agency services - Specified document for availing credit - Whether assessee is entitled to claim CENVAT Credit prior to 16/06/2005 on the basis of TR6 Challan, in terms of Rule 9 which was introduced on 16/06/2005 – HELD – Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, do not prescribe any documents for availing of service tax credit during the disputed period in respect of the service tax paid on GTA services. The appellant-Department, in the present case, has nowhere contended which were the specified document for availing of such credit during the relevant time. If no documents have been mentioned, TR6 challan has to be considered as a proper document, reflecting payment of such tax. Further, it is also not the case of the appellant that service tax was not paid by the respondents or that they were otherwise not entitled to such credit - In any event, the appellants are not entitled to rely upon Rule 9 to refuse the credit to the respondents, as Rule 9 is a procedural aspect which cannot deny the claim of the respondents to avail of such CENVAT Credit which they are, otherwise, admittedly, entitled to – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-277-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s VIKRANT AUTO INDUSTRIES Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I
Central Excise - Rule 8(3A) of CER 2002 - Stay – Pre-deposit - Appellant paid duty for Apr 2012 partly from PLA and partly from cenvat account - Since the forfeiture period had started from 06.06.2012 which continued till 18.12.2012, the Department was of the view that during this period the duty in respect of all the clearances made should have been made paid through PLA without utilizing the cenvat credit – HELD - While Gujarat High Court in the case of Indusar Global has gone into the question of constitutionality of this provision and has held that Rule 8(3A), applicable for period of default beyond the period of one month from the due date, the payment of duty without utilizing the cenvat credit, is unconstitutional - On the question of constitutionality of the provision of Rule 8(3A) there is no contrary judgment of any other High Court and, therefore, the Indusar Global would be binding on this Tribunal - One of the grounds raised in the appeal was that there was no intention on the part of the appellant not to discharge full duty liability for April 2012 inasmuch as while the shortfall in payment was to the extent of Rs. 2 Lakh, at that time they had cenvat credit balance amount of Rs. 3.3 Lakh - Keeping in view the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indusar Global Ltd., the appellant have prima facie case in their favour - Accordingly, the pre-deposit of the duty demand, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed
goaNoti1086
Goa: Delegation of powe for refund
utrNoti226
Uttarakhand: Amendment in UVAT Schedule-II (b) - Regarding Aluminium/Aluminium alloy & Ferrous and non ferrous metals
13th of June
RAJASTHAN NOTIFICATIONS
rajNoti25: Amendment in Schedule VI of RVAT ACT 2003 [Regarding Tobacco products and Pan Masala]
rajNoti26: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of full amount of CST on Mooda, Invitation cards etc
rajNoti27: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of full amount of CST on Paddy, Ajwain, Sonf, Suwa etc
rajNoti28: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of full amount of CST on Pollution control equipments
rajNoti29: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST on certain goods
rajNoti30: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of edible oil to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 1%
15th of June
2015-VIL-235-AP
M/s ANDHRA CEMENTS COMPANY LIMITED Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ANDHRA PRADESH
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act – Sale of cement – Sale of packaging material/HDPE bags – Whether integrated or independent sale – Assessee contends that the packing material as well as the contents which are sold independently are to be assessed separately at the relevant rates of taxes – Revenue contention is dealer-appellant had failed to establish that the sales of cement and packing material are distinct and separate. Thus, the sale of cement and packing material is an integrated sale – HELD - Except the invoice there is no other contract. The invoice on a perusal would lay bare that the cement was sold in quantities of metric tonnes and that the rate of cement and the cost of packing material are separately shown. Therefore, the invoice produced clearly establishes that there is a separate sale of packing material and that there is no integrated sale of cement with HDPE bags/packing material and that the appellant had not provided the bag free of cost considering the significant cost of the bag. Therefore, from the contents of the invoice, the contention of the appellant that there is a separate and distinct sale of cement and packing material appears to be correct – Whether invoice can be construed as a contract - In the absence of any other material, recitals in invoices will furnish good proof of the intention of the parties relating to the terms of the agreement and that by themselves, they will be inclusive piece of evidence - Therefore, the appellant is able to establish that the sale is not an integrated sale but, the sale of cement and packing material is distinct and separate. Therefore, when there is an agreement to sell separately the packing material and the goods packed or filled, the appellant/dealer can successfully contend that the sale of cement and the sale of packing material are different and distinct – Order impugned of the respondent is set aside - Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-16-MSTT
M/s PRIYATA INTERCONTINENTAL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra Value Added Tax - Set off on Wind Mill - Plant & Machinery - Admissibility of set off on purchases effected by the employer by way of works contract - Immovable property – HELD - Plant & Machinery is very wide term. It is not specified under any schedule entry because raw material of one will become Plant & Machinery for other. It is combination of many units by which some thing is manufactured. Wind mill is also combination of several units. Hence, set off is admissible under general rule 54(g) - So as distribution of electricity is concerned, there is specific rule 53(7B) under which reduction of an amount equal to rate notified by Central Government as per section 8(1) of CST Act is permissible from an amount of set off otherwise available. The position of law is very clear, appellant is entitled for set off - Matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority for verification of purchase bills and for correct quantification of set off on machinery and parts thereof – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-278-CESTAT-MUM-ST
RELIANCE GAS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
Service Tax – Majority order - Waiver of pre-deposit - Transportation of Gas through Pipeline - Services rendered by pipeline laying contractors – Input Service – Cenvat credit – HELD - Services of CICS, ECIS, WCS rendered by pipeline laying contractors is prima facie an input service and CENVAT credit is admissible – There is no dispute that as to the fact that the pipeline system which is put in place by the contractors is used for rendering of output services falling under the head of "transport of goods (other than water) through the pipeline or conduit services" - The services rendered by the contractors for laying the pipeline is towards bringing into existence a system which is the back bone for rendering the services of the appellant. Hence, the services rendered by the pipeline laying contractors would be eligible for Cenvat credit - Pre-deposit of Rs.262.13 crores waived and stay granted
2015-VIL-279-CESTAT-AHM-ST
MICRO INKS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, DAMAN
Service Tax - Whether assessee can distribute service tax credit of service tax paid on external commercial borrowings (ECB) paid under reverse charge mechanism under ‘Banking and other financial services’ - Activities in relation to business – HELD - ECBs are obtained by the appellant for the purpose of capital expenditure to increase their existing facility and to create new production capacity - The ‘ECB’ services availed by the appellant are therefore, clearly in relation to the business activities - During the relevant period the activities relating to business was covered with the definition of inputs services under Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004. No contrary arguments are available in the orders passed by the lower authorities that such activities relating to business were not existing in the definition of Rule 2 (l) of the CCR, 2004. Hence, the credit taken by the appellant with respect to the ECB, for which tax was paid under ‘Banking and other financial services’, is covered with in the definition of Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 prevalent during the relevant period – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-280-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s NHH TEXTILE PROCESSORS Vs COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD-I
Central Excise – Manufacture - whether processes of Chemiking and Spotting undertaken by the Appellant amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the CEA, 1944 or not – HELD - The processes undertaken before the fabrics are received in the Appellant’s premises and the processes undertaken by supplier of fabrics (M/s M.H. Mills) after receipt of the processed fabrics from the Appellant, are not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the processes undertaken by the Appellant amounts to manufacture or not. This line of argument that the processes undertaken both by the Appellant and M/s M.H. Mills have to be taken together is not legally correct and is required to be rejected - every process undertaken on the fabrics will not go into the category of ‘any other process’ as mentioned in Note 2 of the Chapter 52 of the CET Act, 1985 - The processes of Chemiking and Spotting undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed
2015-VIL-282-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s GEM GRANITES Vs CCE, CHENNAI-IV
Central Excise – Benefit of Exemption notification No. 23/03 and 22/03 - EOU clearance to DTA – HELD - Notification exempt the goods when brought in connection with manufacture and packaging or production into EOU, it relates to the procurement of inputs, raw materials and capital goods for manufacture of finished goods by the EOU. Therefore, notification referred both in the show cause notice and in the impugned order not related to EOU clearance of finished goods into DTA market and not relevant to the payment of duty on the goods cleared by EOU to DTA – Previously held in the appellants own case - Appellants did not use any imported raw material in the manufacture of polished granite slabs during the material period and hence were eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/03-C.E. ibid. The demand of duty is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-281-CESTAT-CHE-CE
SUNBEAM GENERATORS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Central Excise – Supply of goods to the projects approved by the Government of India - Denial of benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE on the ground that the supply of goods were to the sub-contractors leading to possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes – HELD - No material placed by the Revenue on the allegations of the possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes by the sub-contractors. Secondly, being the beneficial Notification and the project itself being executed fully by the Contractors as per the directions of the Project Implementing Authority, the fact that the machineries were not given directly to the project implementing authority but given to the agency executing the work in fact cannot go against the assessee’s claim. Thus ultimately, as the machineries had been put in use by the sub-contractors, who were given the job of execution the claim for exemption cannot be denied. The use of the phrase ‘supplied to the projects financed by the UN or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India’ clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond – Followed the order of Madras HC in the case CCE Vs Caterpillar India – Assessee appeal allowed
harNotiS59
Haryana: Amendment in HVAT Schedules B and C
utrCir1494
Uttarakhand: Clarification regarding use of manual Form-16 along with e-form-16 till 30.06.2015 for the dealers having turnover more than Rs. 500 Crore [in Hindi]
16th of June
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003: Updated upto 01.04.2015
2015-VIL-236-UTR
COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, UTTARAKHAND Vs M/s BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act - Packing material – Use/Sale of packaging material purchased against Form 3-B and on the strength of declaration certificate under Section 4-B(2) – HELD - Revenue was not able to show that the packing material was not used or the goods were sold without their packing material being used for the purpose of packing - What is material referred to is the fact that the packing material is returned back and it is separately accounted in the ledger. From the said circumstances alone, we cannot find basis for proceeding under Section 4-B(5) as the issue is, whether the packing material which was purchased against Form 3-B and on the strength of declaration certificate under Section 4-B(2) was used or not used for the purpose for which it was granted. Under the terms, the recognition certificate, the material purchased against Form 3-B was to be used for packing. There was nothing to show that it was not so used. In such circumstances, the revision stands dismissed
2015-VIL-283-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s TIRUPATI STRUCTURALS LIMITED, GHAZIABAD Vs CCE, GHAZIABAD
Central Excise - Return of goods by buyer due to defects in the finished goods – Credit as per Rule 16 of the CER, 2002 – Denial of credit on the ground that returned goods are waste and not identifiable – HELD – The appellant had paid the duty on the final product at the time of clearance from the factory, which was returned back as defective for accomplishing the purpose indicated in Rule 16 (1) of the CER, 2002 - Upon receipt of the goods, the same have been duly reflected/ entered in the Daily Stock Account i.e. RG-1 Register - The entries in the said register is on the basis of the original invoices, in the cover of which the goods were initially removed from the factory. Hence, it is erroneous to assume that the goods were not identifiable and relatable to the duty paid documents and also it is not proper to conclude that no records have been maintained for return of defective goods - Therefore, the cenvat credit taken by the appellant on such duty paid defective goods received in the factory for carrying out the processes under Rule 16(1) of the rules are eligible for cenvat credit and accordingly, the impugned order confirming the Cenvat demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-284-CESTAT-DEL-ST
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD Vs CCE, JAIPUR-I
Service Tax – Credit - Sale Promotion activity – Admissibility of credit on the services namely, printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc and organization award functions – HELD - Appellant used these services for advertisement purposes of their products, therefore, these are integral part of their sale promotion - The appellant is entitled to take credit on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc. as these activities are parts of their sale promotion as the students to whom the awards have been given, they give innovative idea for marketing their products - Therefore, the said activities are also the activities for sale promotion. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to take credit on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc. and organizing award functions which are integral part of the sale promotion
Order No.1 [Download link]
Haryana: Clarification regarding rate of tax on sale of 'Flavoured Milk'
RAJASTHAN NOTIFICATIONS
rajNoti31: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of all heavy commercial motor vehicles
rajNoti32: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of packing materials
rajNoti33: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of cereals and pulses
rajNoti34: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of the goods taxable at the rate of 4 percent
rajNoti35: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of tyres and tubes of motor vehicles
rajNoti36: Notification under section 51B of RVAT Act, 2003 - Rebate of CST payable on sale of pre engineered building system
17th of June
2015-VIL-239-TRI
M/s ABHISAR BUILDWELL PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Tripura Value Added Tax Act - Central Sales Tax – Input Tax Credit – Admissibility of input tax credit on inter-state sale – HELD - A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act clearly shows that input tax credit can be claimed only in respect of tax paid or payable under the Act. Section 10(3) makes it absolutely clear that input tax credit is permissible only in respect of sales or resale made within the State of Tripura. Section 10(6) is couched in negative language and is in the nature of an exception or a proviso to sub-section 10(1). We have to read section 10(6) along with section 10(1) and when both of these parts of the section are read harmoniously, then even if a person is entitled to benefit of input tax credit under section 10(1) but is excluded under section 10(6), he would not be entitled to get the benefit of input tax credit. Clause (ix) of section 10(6) provides that input tax credit will not be available in respect of transfer of stock, other than by way of sale outside the State of Tripura. This by no stretch of imagination can be interpreted to mean that under Clause (ix) of sub-section (6), such benefit has been given in respect of inter-State sales. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the legislation. When the language of the legislation is clear, we cannot do violence to the language and misinterpret it in such a manner that the purport and intention of the legislature is defeated by such interpretation to the Act – The benefit of input tax credit is only available in respect of taxes collected and payable under the TVAT Act. The benefit of input tax credit is not available in respect of Central Sales Tax or any other tax which may have been collected or which may be payable under any other law - From a reading of the various provisions of the TVAT Act, we have no doubt in our mind that the intention of the State of Tripura was to give benefit of input tax credit only in respect of sales intended or made within the State of Tripura. There is no doubt in our mind that the Act specifically excludes from its ambit, the inter-State sales and the benefit of tax paid on inter-State sales cannot be availed of by the petitioner to claim input tax credit - If such benefit is not at all available and the petitioner has collected the Central Sales Tax, then obviously it cannot set it off against the purchase tax and must deposit the same with the appropriate authority
2015-VIL-238-RAJ
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs M/s SHIV KRIPA CONDUCTORS PVT LTD
Rajasthan Sales Tax - Benefit of lower rate if the purchase of copper was to be made in manufacturing of products made of copper – Denial of benefit on manufacturing of electric wires and cables – HELD - Where the intention of the Government was that lower rate is required to be kept if the purchase of copper was to be made in manufacturing of products made of copper and when the assessee has used the said copper in manufacturing of electric wires and cables therefore benefits as per Notification cannot be denied - The revenue was unable to pin-point how the copper was not used in the product manufactured by the assessee – Revenue revision petition is accordingly dismissed
2015-VIL-287-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD Vs CCE, RAIPUR
Central Excise - Goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding – Benefit of Notification No.6/02-CE - Power Project as an interstate Thermal Power Plant – Denial of benefit of exemption on the ground that since the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in Ministry of Power has not certified in respect of the power project in question, that the power purchasing state has agreed to provide recourse to that state’s share of central plant allocation and other devolution towards discharge of any outstanding payments in respect of purchase of power, the conditions of the Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus. are not fulfilled and, hence, the goods, if imported into India would not be eligible for customs duty exemption and hence the excise duty exemption would also not be admissible – Duty demand - Condition of duty exemption which is being insisted is impossible to fulfill as the same is not applicable -HELD - In the present case the concerned Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Power in the certificate issued by him in respect of power project, in question, has certified that the power project is interstate Thermal Power Project of capacity of 1000 Mega Watt and has also certified regarding fulfilment of the conditions 86 (a) (i) and (a) (ii) the condition No.86 and in respect of the condition No.86(a) (iii) the Joint Secretary has clarified that this condition has not applicable for independent power project. This fact has also been taken note of by the Commissioner in the impugned order. When a particular condition prescribed in Notification No. 21/02-Cus for full customs duty exemption is not applicable and for this reason, the condition cannot be satisfied, its fulfilment cannot be insisted in accordance with the principle of lex non cogit ad impossiblia which is applicable to the tax matters also. We, therefore, hold that the denial of exemption under Notification No.6/02 -CE and 6/06-CE on the ground that the goods imported would not be eligible for customs duty exemption under Notification No.21/03-Cus is not correct – The impugned order is not correct. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-286-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED Vs CCE, GHAZIABAD
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit - welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery – HELD - Since majority of the High Courts have held that welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are eligible for Cenvat credit, in our view it is these judgments of these High Courts which would hold the field. Therefore, we hold that the denial of Cenvat credit in respect of welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery and Cenvat credit demand on this basis is not sustainable - As regards the capital goods Cenvat credit in respect of CI Slag pot, this issue also stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi-III vs. Jindal Strips Ltd. In view of this, we hold that the denial of Cenvat credit in respect of this demand and Cenvat credit on this basis is not sustainable – Credit on end cuttings of pipes - we find that the various depots had transferred the end cuttings of pipes under invoices wherein the proportionate duty paid on the pipes at the time of clearance from their respective factories had been mentioned. The Department seeks to re-calculate this duty on the basis of the scrap value of the end cuttings, as mentioned in the depot invoices and restrict the Cenvat credit to that amount. In our view this stand of the Department is not correct in view of the Apex court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. wherein it has been held that the receiver manufacturer who had received the duty paid inputs from a supplier - manufacturer is entitled to Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer and the Central Excise Authorities having jurisdiction for the recipient manufacturer cannot review the assessment of the duty at the end of the supplier manufacturer - Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-285-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s FAZLANI EXPORTS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I
Service Tax – GTA service - Terminal Handling Service - Refund - Notification 41/2007-ST - Certain services were not notified on the date of export but were duly notified on the date of claiming refund – HELD - Refund eligibility is to be examined vis-à-vis date of claiming and not date of export ST - Terminal Handling Charges (THC) - Refund denied on the ground that invoice was raised by shipping line instead of port operator and the service provider being registered under a different service category or no proof regarding authorisation from port authorities – HELD - Issues stand concluded in favour of appellant by Circular 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 - appellant entitled to refund claim – GTA Service - The impugned order on one hand allows refund on inward transport of empty container from port/ICD to factory to be further used for stuffing and exporting cargo, at the same time, rejects refund on the ground that export invoice details are not mentioned on the face of the LR – HELD - It is rightly submitted by the Appellant, that it is almost impossible to mention export invoice details on incoming transportation documents, since export despatch is yet to take place, and this is only inward movement of containers to be used for exports - The container number mentioned on LR/transport documents tallies with export documents thereby proper co-relation stands established. Thus, the refund claim for GTA service is held to be allowable – Further, in terms of Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST, procedural infractions in respect of export documents require to be ignored while granting refund. Once it is not in dispute that services stand qualified for refund purpose, on the date of claim, and service tax was actually paid on specified service pertaining to export activity, in terms of the broad scheme of refund under Notification No. 41/07-ST, refund must be allowed and paid to the exporter – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-237-MAD-ST
M/s THIRUMURUGAN ENTERPRISES Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Service Tax – Lack of clarity in show cause notice - Non-classification of services in SCN – Plea of limitation – HELD - A careful perusal of the orders of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) as also the Tribunal would reveal that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issues on two aspects, viz., one on the vagueness of the show cause notices stating that it is bereft of details and being without clarity and the other on the plea of limitation. The Tribunal, however, was of the view that the Revenue had discharged its burden by producing the statements given by NLC and that the assessees did not dispute it at any point of time and that the entire demand was raised on the basis of the statements provided by NLC. However, this finding of the Tribunal runs conter to the plea raised by the appellants-assessees before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the show cause notices were challenged on the very foundation that they are vague and without particulars as to classification of works that attracts service tax - The issues raised by the appellants/assessees and answered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour has to be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits - The arguments of the Department that all the issues can be trashed out before the adjudicating authority does not find favour with this Court as the Department cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunae in the show cause notices on the basis of an open remand as alleged by appellants – Appeal allowed and matter is remitted back to the Tribunal
Assam Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2015 - Amendment of tax return (Form-13) by way of omission of words and brackets after Part-FF and substitution of existing Part-G to Part-N
Haryana VAT Schedule: Updated upto 15th June [Download link]
mahaCir8T
Maharashtra: Regarding non-acceptance of correspondence and letters
FCP1706
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
18th of June
chanNoti1544
Chandigarh Value Added Tax (Amendment) Rules 2015 - Amendment in Form VAT-23 & VAT-24
karNotiFD3
Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Exemption u/s 11-A to Tourism units
RAJASTHAN NOTIFICATIONS
rajNoti37: Rebate of CST payable on sale of cement to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 6 percent
rajNoti38: Rebate of CST payable on sale of AC pressure pipes to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 6 percent
rajNoti39: Rebate of CST payable on sale of Polyster filament yarn and nylon filament yarn to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 0.75 percent
rajNoti40: Rebate of CST payable on sale of Polyester filament yarn / nylon filament yarn, polymer chips and polypropylene filament yarn to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 0.75 percent
rajNoti41: Rebate of CST payable on sale of all kinds of man-made fiber and man-made yarn etc. to the extent to which the rate of tax exceeds 2 percent
rajNoti42: Rebate of CST payable on sale of goods to the extent the rate of tax exceeds the rate notified under RST Act, 1994 / RVAT Act, 2003
FCP1806
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
2015-VIL-241-KAR
M/s PAN PARAG INDIA LTD Vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-3, BENGALURU
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act – Section 53 - Detention of vehicle / goods – Non-production of any document pertaining to the goods under transport – Subsequent production of relevant documents by the appellant – Intention to evade tax - HELD – In the matter on hand, the documents were not tendered by the person in-charge of the goods vehicle immediately after interception of the vehicle. Such interception has taken place at 11 A.M. and a fax message along with copy of the invoice was received by the inspecting officer only at about 5 P.M. informing the department that the invoice was with the driver and he could not tender said document before the inspecting officer. Such explanation is certainly an afterthought and hence it cannot be accepted - The act of the appellant in not sending records along with the person in-charge of the vehicle along with the goods is a clear violation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 53 of the Act - The legislature in detail has prescribed procedure for carrying goods under section 53 of the Act. The said provisions are mandatory in nature and having regard to the legislative intention, if those provisions are not complied then there is non-compliance of statutory requirement. As the provisions do not anywhere disclose or indicate that the intention to evade tax is necessary for levy of penalty, same cannot be read in section 53 of the Act to find out whether statutory contravention is established or not. Once statutory contravention is established, section 53(12) is attracted which provides for levy of penalty - No interference is called for in the quantum of penalty as the authorities have rightly imposed penalty to an extent of two times of the tax liability – Assessee appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-240-GUJ
SHREE SHYAM METAL CORPORATION Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
Gujarat Value Added Tax – Non-payment of pre-deposit – Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal without observing anything on merits and/or without considering anything with respect to the legality and validity of the order passed by the first appellate authority – HELD - The learned Tribunal was required to decide the appeals on merits and was required to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by the first appellate authority - We could not find any reason by the ld.Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the pre-deposit. Under the circumstances, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the matters are to be remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits so as to enable the learned Tribunal to consider the orders passed by the first appellate authority directing the appellants to pay the aforesaid amount by way of pre-deposit and dismissing the appeals on non-payment of the pre-deposit. While considering the issue of pre-deposit, even the learned Tribunal is required to consider the provisions of the Act, more particularly, section 73(4) of the Act – Appeal allowed by remand
2015-VIL-288-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s BDA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT
Service Tax - Intellectual Property Right service – Appellant is brand owner of IMFL and marketing, it is getting manufactured IMFL through M/s. Pilkhani - Manufacture and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) – Manufacturing agreement - The Revenue is of the view that M/s. Pilkhani is using the brand name and technical knowhow of the appellant and paying consideration in terms of royalty for use of brand name and technical knowhow of the brand owner i.e. the appellant – Demand of service tax under the category of Intellectual Property Service under Section 65(65A) of the Finance Act, 1994 for permission to use the brand name – HELD – The arrangement between the appellant and M/s. Pilkhani is covered under clause 3 of CBEC Circular dated 27.10.2008, wherein the appellant gets IMFL manufactured by M/s. Pilkhani who is holding the State license of manufacture of alcoholic beverages. In particular M/s. Pilkhani is owner as contract bottling i.e. CBU. As per the agreement, cost of raw material and other expenses were either paid by the appellant or reimbursed by the appellant. The State levies such as excise levy or taxes were also reimbursed to M/s. Pilkhani by the appellant. The IMFL was sold by or as per the direction of the appellant on profit /loss on account of the manufacturing and sale of IMFL is entirely on account of appellant who holds the property risk and reward of the product. M/s Pilkhani received consideration for undertaking the manufacture of job work done basis. In these circumstances, the appellant is not required to pay service tax at all - Appellant are the Brand Owner of IFML and M/s. Pilkhani is a job worker manufacturing IMFL on behalf of the appellant and the amount retained by the appellant is the business profit not liable to be taxed under the Finance Act, 1994 under the category of Intellectual Property service. Therefore, appellant are not required to pay Service Tax under the category of Intellectual Property Right service – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-289-CESTAT-AHM-ST
M/s GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., SURAT-II
Service Tax - Admissibility of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on commission charges by distributors – Appellant contention that in addition to selling products of the appellant such distributors were also undertaking the work of sales promotion of the appellant and facts are different from Cadila Healthcare Ltd case – Revenue is of the view that no sales promotion activities are undertaken by the distributors/consignment stockists of the appellant and therefore, no CENVAT credit is admissible - Issue is whether distributors/ consignment stockists of the appellant are doing any sales promotion activities in addition to selling of goods of the appellant - HELD - It is observed from the contracts that basic agreement between the appellant and the distributors/ consignment stockists is for getting commission on the sales affected - Clauses the contract also don’t convey that distributors/ consignment stockists are required to undertake any sales promotion activity on behalf of the appellant. The only mention is provision of some samples, display photographs, brochures and sales promotion materials by the appellant but there is no whisper in the entire contract that any consideration is paid by the appellant to its distributors/ consignment stockists for undertaking such activity - In the light of the interpretation made by the jurisdictional High Court Cadila Healthcare Ltd, it is held that activities undertaken by the distributors/ consignment stockists of the appellant are purely distribution/ sales and has no element of sales promotion and, therefore, CENVAT credit taken with respect to commission paid to such distributors/ consignment stockists is not admissible - The credit so taken is required to be paid by the appellant with interest and appeal with respect to CENVAT credit on services of Sales Commission, availed by the appellant, is rejected - As the issue involved was disputable, therefore, no penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CCR, 2004 is imposable - The appeal is partly allowed
2015-VIL-290-CESTAT-BLR-CE
SEALED AIR (INDIA) PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-II
Central Excise - Denial of Cenvat - Removal of finished goods from old factory premises on payment of duty to new premises where credit of duty paid was utilized and thereafter same goods were cleared after repacking – HELD – Even if the appellants have not followed the provisions of Rule correctly, it is only a technical omission on the part of the appellant and it cannot be said that there is revenue loss - The only claim of the department is that the finished goods were cleared and there was no process undertaken on it and therefore, the CENVAT credit could not have been taken. If the proper packing was not done and further packing was undertaken in the new premises, it would amount to clearance of semi-finished goods, the procedure followed by the appellant is acceptable - Availment of CENVAT credit on services used for trading and manufacture - Trading was not an exempted service during the relevant period in question - During the relevant period, the trading was not defined as a deemed service and therefore it cannot be considered as an exempted service - Appellant is directed to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading activity – Partly allowed
2015-VIL-291-CESTAT-BLR-CE
DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-II
Central Excise - Reversal of Cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods – Maintaining of separate account - Payment of proportionate credit attributable with interest and thereafter the appellants, in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, paid the interest also and made an application to the Commissioner as per the provisions of law – HELD - The Provision does not postulate Commissioner to pass an order that the amount paid was correct - Once the Commissioner does not send any communication within two months, the matter has to be considered as finalized as per the provisions of Section 73 reproduced above. Under such circumstances, Additional Commissioner while adjudicating the show-cause notice earlier issued for demanding the amount as per the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR has no option but to do what he has done in this case. Obviously, there is no case for the Department to demand 10% of the amount received by the appellant in respect of exempted hand-pumps once the assessee fulfilled the obligations caused on him under Section 73 giving retrospective effect to the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR 2004 – Therefore, the litigation started by the Department was under a mis-conception and the first appeal itself should not have been filed. Since the appeal itself should not have been filed in the first place as the decision taken by the Addl. Commissioner was in accordance with law – The assessee appeal is allowed
harNoti16
Haryana: Central Sales Tax (Punjab) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2015 - Amendment in Rule 7
apCir126
Andhra Pradesh: Invoice matching system - Purchase, sale Invoice details effected to VAT dealers to be filed along with monthly Returns
delCir13
Delhi: Nodal officer for restoration of Registration Certificate
19th of June
2015-VIL-17-MSTT
M/s AVDEL INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Central Sales Tax Act – Section 5(2)- disallowance of high seas sales - sale in the course of import – Bill of entry - Airway Bill – Title of goods – Privity of contract between customers and foreign suppliers - HELD - Back to back contracts by themselves do not establish and prove that the first limb of section 5(2) is attracted and applicable. The import may have been with the intention to supply the imported goods to the customers, but this by itself is not sufficient to satisfy requirement of section 5(2) of the CST Act. There is no privity of contract between the local customers and the foreign suppliers. In our considered view, there is no inextricable link between import of goods and their sales within India by the appellant to its customers. Though the Bills of Entry of some of transactions, which are made available by the Appellant, are filed by the customers of the Appellant, the Bills of Entry per se cannot be said as the document of title to the goods. Bill of Entry for home consumption is for deciding and making payment of customs duty and taking out the goods from the Customs. Bill of Entry is not the document of title to the goods. The Notifications/Circulars issued by the Customs Dept. in respect of noting the names on Bills of Entry and claiming high seas sales is not sufficient for the purpose of section 5(2) of the CST Act. They are for procedure adopted for Customs clearance. Considering the facts of the case, it is also not possible for us to draw inference of transfer of document of title to the goods in absence of any other evidence, more so in view of Air Way Bills being non-negotiable document and the same being in the name of the Appellant. Under such circumstances, we could neither hold that the purchase orders placed by the Indian customers on the appellant occasioned such imports under first limb nor the sales are effected by the transfer of document of title to the goods before the goods have crossed customs frontier of India under second limb, u/s.5(2) of the CST Act - The claim of the appellant in respect of impugned sale in the course of import is not allowable and hence, confirm the order passed by the First Appellate authority in respect of levy of tax. However, as regards levy of interest u/s.36(3)(b) of the BST Act and u/s.9(2) r/w.sec.36(3)(b) of the BST Act, the issue of levy of tax on disallowed claims of sales u/s 5(2) was debatable. In the interest of justice, levy of interest should be restricted to 50% of the tax ultimately remained unpaid as on the date of assessment order as per the order of First Appellate Authority
2015-VIL-242-TRI
M/s SHEROWALI TRADE & TRANSPORT Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA
Tripura Value Added Tax Act - Section 22(5) – Section 67 – Power of the Commissioner to cancel the registration of the transporter in case of contravention of the Act and Rules - establishment of check posts for inspection of goods in transport – Issue of undervaluation of goods and mis-description of goods – Liability of Transporter – HELD - The transporter is only expected to transport the goods and he has no reason to dis-believe the Bill of Lading, Bill of Sale or any other documents produced by the Consignor or showing the description and value of goods. However, where the description on the face of it does not match the packing then the transporter must explain why there is a discrepancy. Obviously the transporter cannot know what is inside the box but when the goods are in an open condition and are clearly visible then it is the duty of the transporter to ensure that the goods which he transports match the description given in Form-XVI and are duly entered in Form-XXV - For the future, the Court makes it clear that if the transporter settles the matter and compounds the matter at the check post it shall be deemed that he is the offender and, therefore, he is compounding the matter unless he produces a written authorization from the dealer authorizing the transporter to compound on his behalf when the composition shall be treated to be an offence by the dealer and not by the transporter - The transporters, w.e.f. 1st July, 2015 shall strictly comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules as interpreted by this Court in M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs The State of Tripura and Ors. 2015-VIL-198-TRI and in this judgment
SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE (SCEC) Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, GUNTUR
Service Tax – Majority Order - Commercial training or coaching services – Limitation - Legislative intent – Taxability of coaching provided for competitive exam – Extended Period - HELD - The activity of the appellant of providing coaching through its coaching centre, the said activity will be taxable under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 - Coaching provided for engineering and other entrance examinations along with Intermediate Course is taxable under Commercial training or coaching services – Limitation – Appellant plea that it is a charitable institute and not covered within the definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" was resolved against the Appellant by inserting Explanation under Section 65(105)(zzc) of Act, with retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2010 that the expression "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" shall include a Trust or a Society with or without profit motive. So, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant tried to mislead the department by stating that their committee is non-commercial nature with an intention to evade payment of tax, cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that there was a suppression of facts with intent to evade payment tax. In any event, the difference of opinion on the leviability of service tax in the present case would also support the bonafide belief of the Appellant of the leviability of tax - Delay in furnishing information sought for by Revenue from the appellant, cannot be a ground for invocation of extended period. All the powers of a Court with regard to attendance of witness, discovery of information/documents, etc. are vested in the adjudicating authority. Only for failure on the part of the adjudicating authority to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, extended period is not invokable - Demand limited to normal period and penalties set aside – Assessee appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-296-CESTAT-AHM-ST
M/s LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD
Service Tax - Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 & 78 – Service tax on advance receipt – HELD - When the Appellant challenged the levy of tax for the period prior to insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 67 before the High Court and obtained injunction, it would be sufficient to establish that there is a prima facie case in favour of the Appellant. In such situation, there is no scope to doubt the bonafide of the Appellant. Hence, it is a fit case to invoke Section 80 of the Act, 1994 and no penal provision should be invoked – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-294-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III
Central Excise - CENVAT credit - Availment of credit earned by one unit by another unit of the same company is under dispute herein – HELD - 4. The basic principle of Cenvat credit being to avoid cascading effect, genuine credit earned by one unit is not disallowed for set off against liability of other in absence of any prohibition thereto by law - However, a word of caution may be stated that the manner of distribution of credit should not be contrary to Rule 7 of the CCR, 2004 – Following ruling of Karnataka High Court in ECOF Industries – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-293-CESTAT-DEL-CE
J K LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR-II
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit - Assessee utilized their cenvat credit account for payment of output transportation service – Appellant paid service tax on output transportation service twice - by utilizing cenvat credit account and by payment in cash. In such circumstances, whether the appellant is entitled to take suo moto credit of duty paid twice or not -Revenue sought to deny utilization of cenvat credit account for payment of output transportation service relying on CBEC Circular 97/8/2007 – HELD - Period in dispute is March, 2006 to March, 2007 and CBEC has issued said Circular only on 23.08.2007 which is after the period in dispute. Therefore, said circular have no relevance to facts of this case - It is not in dispute that assessee has paid ST by availing cenvat credit as well as in cash - Suo moto credit can be taken by assessee of duty paid twice or excess – Assessee appeal allowed
Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act and Schedule, 2008: Updated upto 1st June 2015
21st of June
odiNoti17576
Odisha Entry Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2015 - Amendment in Rule 4, 5, 7 & 9
gujNotiGHN23
Gujarat: Remission of tax on Re-gasified Liquid Natural Gas (RLNG) sold to Power plant
Gujarat: Provisional refund in 3 steps [Dowanload link | File in Gujarati]
rajNoti43
Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 - Exemption to M/s. Lafarge India Private Limited for setting up of cement plant
apCir01
Andhra Pradesh: Regarding VAT Registrations – Compulsory e-Registration
apCir03
Andhra Pradesh: Timeframe for granting of Refunds under Section 38 of the APVAT Act
22nd of June
2015-VIL-244-MAD
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs ANNAMALAIAR MILLS LTD
Central Sales Tax Act - Whether the transaction is inter-state sale or local sale by reason of delivery of goods, after payment of entire sale consideration within Tamil Nadu – Movement of goods from Maharashtra to Tamil Nadu – HELD – It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-state movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement. In this specific case the movement is in pursuance of the contract even if the goods have been transferred to the buyer in Tamil Nadu, the transactions cannot be considered as a local sales and very well fall under the definition of interstate sales defined under section 3(a) of the CST Act, 1956 - The Federation has delivered the goods from the godown only after receipt of the payment in Tamil Nadu. Because of this factor, the disputed transaction cannot be considered as local sale - In all the years, the goods have been moved with reference to the firm purchase order placed by the buyers specifying the quantity and variety of cotton. In these circumstances, this transaction cannot be considered as one brought from outside the State without referring to any buyers and for selling after receipt in Tamil Nadu. In this regard also, the disputed transactions cannot be considered as a local sale – Court upheld Tribunal order – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-243-KAR-CE
M/s TVS MOTOR CO LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA
Central Excise – Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 – Duty / Cess - Claim for Rebate of Automobile cess, Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on Automobile Cess paid along with customs duty on the goods exported – Denial of rebate on the ground that "Automobile Cess", Education Cess and SHE Cess are not specified as duty under Explanation-I to notification - HELD - The expression "duty" used in Rule 18 of the CER, 2002 would include such of those duties levied under Section 3 of the CEA, 1944 which includes the Cess defined under Rule 2(c) of Automobile Cess Rules, 1984 - Rule 18 does not indicate that rebate can be granted in respect of any duty other than duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As such, the Automobile Cess, Education Cess on Automobile Cess and SHE Cess on Automobile Cess though not expressly specified under notification dated 06.09.2004 would encompass within its sweep to include these Cess within the definition of phrase 'duty' - Automobile Cess collected is "duty of excise" in terms of the provisions of the CEA, 1944 and thereby, Automobile Cess, Education Cess on Automobile Cess and SHE Cess on Automobile Cess is a "duty of excise" and is part of the duties paid by the petitioner and thereby petitioner is entitled to the rebate – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-300-CESTAT-CHE-CE
GODREJ SARALEE LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Central Excise - Denial of cenvat credit availed by the appellant as a recipient of GTA services discharged by their registered office and distributed to the units - Appellant’s registered office at Mumbai obtained centralized registration for discharge of service tax on various services including GTA services and discharged service tax - HELD - The jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate at Mumbai not raised any dispute on the payment of service tax nor any demand issued against them. In Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur, the Tribunal held that the availment of cenvat credit by the respondent was allowed where even the centralized registration was rejected by the department. Whereas in the present case there is not even iota of dispute raised by the Mumbai Commissionerate on the centralized registration obtained by the registered office of the appellant - That being the case, the ratio of the above judgement is squarely applicable to the facts of this case - Admissibility of the credit cannot questioned by the department at the recipient side. Appellants have rightly availed the credit on GTA distributed by their registered office as ISD – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-299-CESTAT-CHE-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II Vs DYNAVISTA INDUSTRIES (P) LTD
Central Excise – Appellants cleared combi-pack containing free offer of detergent soap along with washing powder – Labelling and relabeling - Denial of Cenvat credit availed on the detergent soap which was supplied free along with detergent powder on the ground that detergent cake is not an input for manufacture of detergent powder and they are not eligible for the input credit availed on the detergent soap which was supplied free along with detergent powder – HELD - Respondent has discharged central excise duty on the detergent powder packed in 500 grams and have discharged duty under Section 4A under MRP price. Assessee had packed free supply of one detergent soap inside the washing powder of 500 gms and correctly declared the net weight of the combi-pack of 575 gms. and discharged duty on the detergent powder. The respondents are rightly covered under Section 2(f) (3) of CEA, 1944 - Goods is falling under the category after the amendment of Section 2 (f) of CEA, 1944 where labelling and relabeling amounts to ‘manufacture’ – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-297-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I
Service Tax – Export of service - Refund of input service tax credit – Exempted service - Whether services of software maintenance which includes corrective maintenance, adoptive maintenance and perfective maintenance, or enhancement and preventive maintenance or re-engineering can be categorized under maintenance and repair service of 'goods' - Whether under the facts and circumstances, software will be treated as 'goods' w.e.f. 9.7.2004 in view of clarification letter F.No. 256/1/2006-CX.4 dated 7.3.2006 r/w Circular No. 81/2/2005-Service Tax, which provides that service tax is applicable on 'maintenance or repair of software service' under Section 65(105)(zzg) – Difference of opinion - Matter referred to Third Member
2015-VIL-298-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
Service Tax – Telephone Service – Service tax liability on distribution of recharge vouchers free to the dealers in lieu of commission payable – Period of dispute April 2003 to September 2006 - HELD - Distribution of recharge voucher fee of cost to the distributors/dealers would in a way amount to giving commission to the dealer for the transactions of sale of prepaid SIM Cards for the appellant. It can also be noticed that during the relevant period the Explanation as per the Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 also do not indicate inclusion in that gross value of any cost towards free distribution made by the service provider – During said period distribution of prepaid recharge vouchers, free of charge to the dealers as commission for the sale effected by them does not attract tax liability – Assessee appeal allowed
apCir4
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Registrations - Inspections (Advisory visits) by Inspection Authorities
23rd of June
2015-VIL-246-RAJ
M/s INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act – Claim of exemption from the VAT on sale of ATF to airline establishing a HUB in the State – Set-up of HUB in the State with the intention to of availing benefit - Refund of unduly collected tax - Remand of earlier order – HELD – The ultimate outcome of earlier order was remand of the matter to the assessing officer to decide the petitioner's claim for refund after making appropriate enquiry. The Assessing Officer was thus required to make enquiry in the limited scope as to exactly on which date the HUB stared and since when the interest was payable. The argument of the petitioner-company in this behalf must be therefore upheld that it was a remand to determine specific issue and that the scope of enquiry in such remand, was delineated by earlier judgment of this court itself - If the judgment of this court in earlier proceedings has not been challenged by the respondents, and has been allowed to attain finality, that would imply that the correctness of the judgment has been accepted by the respondents. That being so, they cannot be permitted to again reopen an issue which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner-company and against them - The assessing officer has recorded categorical finding in the impugned orders that the collection of VAT by IOCL from petitioner-company pursuant to notifications dated 31.03.2006 and 25.02.2008, was unauthorized. The petitioner-company is therefore held entitled to refund thereof together with interest - The writ petition deserves to succeed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take 05.01.2007 as the date of commencement of HUB to be correct, and are further directed to refund the amount referred to in the preceding para, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 20.09.2013, the date on which they ought to have allowed refund claim of the petitioner-company but illegally rejected the same – Petition allowed
2015-VIL-245-KAR
M/s CHITRADURGA SUNFLOWER OIL COMPLEX PVT LTD Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act – section 10 - Input tax credit – Rebate – Appellant filed revised return subsequent to law laid down in M/s M.K.Agro Tech case – Claim of full input tax rebate – Denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment – HELD – The question of unjust enrichment in the instant case does not arise at all inasmuch as language of sub-section (5) of section 10 is clear and unambiguous. It would clearly indicate that where the input tax deductable by a dealer exceeds the output tax payable by him the excess amount is required to be adjusted or refunded together with interest as the case may be. While interpreting a Fiscal statute the courts would not add or subtract the words to gather the intention of the legislature and the plain meaning of the statute alone has to be looked into - In the instant case the refund applications of petitioners has been kept in abeyance by the first respondent not on account of contentions now raised by learned HCGP but on the other hand it is on account of the fact that the department is proposing to file a SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the dicta laid down by Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s.M.K.Agro Tech case - In that view of the matter contention now raised would not be available for the respondent-State to either reject the prayer of petitioners for refund of excess input tax or keep the applications filed by the petitioners in abeyance on the said ground - Petitioners would be entitled for the relief sought for in the present writ petitions
2015-VIL-301-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., VADODARA
Central Excise - Linear Alkyl Benzene Feed Stock (LABFS) and Low Aluminum Rolling Oil (LARO) – Claim of exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE which is applicable to such Kerosene which is ordinarily used as illuminant in oil burning lamps – HELD - the Apex Court that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation and in case of any doubt or ambiguity the benefit must go to the State. The word ‘Kerosene’ used in the exemption Notification 75/84-CE therefore, cannot be understood by taking recourse to parameters given to ‘Kerosene’, under CETH 2710. The word Kerosene has to be understood with respect to interpretation/ understanding attributed by those who deal in ‘Kerosene’ - The description given in CETH 2710 is interpreted by the judicial pronouncements that mineral oils meeting with the parameters specified, will be classified under 2710.29 even if they are not known as Kerosene in common parlance. In view this it is held that products LABFS and LARO will be classifiable under 2710.29 as claimed by the appellant - For the purpose of benefit under exemption notification 75/84-CE only those categories of Kerosene will be eligible which are distributed through PDS. Therefore, on admissibility of exemption Notification 75/84-CE, the case is to be decided in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-302-CESTAT-CHE-CE
THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM
Central Excise – Manufacturing of aluminium by re-processing or remelting of the scrap finished goods returned by the suppliers - The appellant has received the raw materials from for reprocessing under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) and got it repaired. Instead of repairing or reprocessing, appellants cleared the excisable goods by using the inputs which were available in from stock – Violation of provisions of Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) - Demand of excise duty on the goods cleared under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) of CER, 1944 – HELD - There is no dispute on the fact that appellant admitted that they have supplied the goods under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) of Central Excise Rules which were manufactured from their input stock. It is also not in dispute that defect sheets which were received cannot be repaired or reconditioned but has to be re-melted. Therefore once the returned goods are re-melted, it lost its identity. There is no dispute that appellant followed 173H procedure and also filed D3 intimation to the Department - The finished goods manufactured out of returned goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty as normal clearance. Therefore duty cannot be demanded twice there is revenue-neutrality – Limitation - There is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, demand on the goods cleared under Rule173H is hit by limitation and liable to be set aside and equal penalty imposed is also liable to be set aside - However, appellants are liable for under penalty under Rule 173Q as they have violated the procedure - Demand and section 11AC penalty is set aside and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000 under rule 173Q is upheld – Appeal mainly in favour of assessee
2015-VIL-303-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s SHUBHAM ELECTRICALS Vs CST & ST, ROHTAK
Service Tax – Show cause notice – Demand under vague or no specific taxable service – HELD - It is a axiomatic that a best judgment assessment under Section 72 could only be for ascertaining the quantum of the tax liability - There cannot be a best judgment assessment regarding the specific taxable service provided. There can be no best judgment, for instance as to whether the tax liability is for income tax, sales tax, excise duty, customs duty, service tax or professional tax. A conclusion as to the taxable event and the liability to tax under the appropriate fiscal legislation authorizing the levy and collection of such tax is a matter for determination with precision and clarity and not by a process of guess-work or speculation - Neither the show cause notice nor the impugned adjudication order record any assertion/ conclusion whatsoever as to which particular or specific taxable service the appellant had provided. In the absence of an allegation of having provided a specific taxable service in the show cause notice and in view of the failure in the adjudication order as well, neither the show cause notice nor the consequent adjudication order could be sustained - The disinclination to employ the ample investigatorial powers conferred by the Act is illustrative of gross Departmental failure and cannot afford justification for passing an incoherent and vague adjudication order. The failure to gather relevant facts for issuing a proper show cause notice cannot provide justification for a vague and incoherent show cause notice which has resulted in a serious transgression of the due process of law - The show cause notice and the consequent impugned adjudication order is quashed and appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-304-CESTAT-DEL-ST
CCE, RAIPUR Vs M/s SUPREME WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
Service Tax – Valuation – Inclusion of transportation charges paid by the respondent on reimbursible basis – Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand – HELD - The Commissioner (Appeals) order holding that transportation charges reimbursed by M/s Grasim Industries are not includible in the assessable value for charging service tax under the C&F agent service provided by the respondent is legal and proper - However, the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with direction that the required verification of the impugned order-in-appeal shall be conducted at his end and appropriate orders passed – In favour of assessee
odiNoti17764
Odisha: Exempt on sale of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) to international flights
tnCir24
Tamil Nadu: Issue of manual 'C' and 'F' Forms
FCP2306
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
24th of June
2015-VIL-248-KAR
WEIR BDK VALVES Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act – CST Act - Submission of ‘C’ Forms and ‘H’ Forms subsequent to the assessment subsequent to completion of assessment – Takeover/acquisition of new company – Belated submission of statutory form – Reopening of assessment under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 39 of the KVAT Act – HELD - The circular dated 7-6-2006 issued by the Commissioner makes it clear that the Assessing Authority should consider the statutory forms which were produced belatedly i.e. subsequent to the completion of the assessment by reopening the assessment. Further, Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules also provide for the same. The statutory forms can also be filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority has not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective - Even on belated production of statutory forms, the statutory authority is bound to take into consideration the same and give the benefit of reduction of the tax - The matter requires to be considered by the Assessing Authority by reopening the same only to the limited extent to look into the statutory forms produced by the petitioner. If one more opportunity is given to the petitioner, it will not cause any hardship to the respondents - In order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, the assessment order, subsequent demand notices and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are required to be quashed – Petition allowed by remand
2015-VIL-247-P&H
THE PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Punjab Value Added Tax Act - Section 35 - Statutory preference on the tax arrears – First charge on attached property - Unpaid arrears of tax - petitioner-Bank or Tax department – HELD – The statutory preference has been given to the tax arrears under the VAT Act. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bank of India’s case the claim of the petitioner-bank that it had preference over the tax dues of the borrower of the petitioner, does not merit any acceptance in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the VAT Act – Writ petition dismissed
2015-VIL-306-CESTAT-MUM-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-I Vs M/s HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit Rules – Rule 10 - Transfer of CENVAT Credit - Sale of manufacturing unit alongwith raw material and semi finished goods by way of slump sale – Continuation of manufacturing after sale - Duty demand in respect of inputs and semi finished goods transferred to the buyers of the unit – HELD - There is no condition provided in Rule 10 that provision of such rules is not applicable in case where factory is partly sold - Though the manufacturing unit was sold by the appellant but sale is on as where is basis. Accordingly, the input in question was not removed from the factory and therefore in absence of removal of input from the factory duty demand is not sustainable. It is also not disputed that the factory was on going and after sale, the buyer was engaged in the manufacture and was assessed under Central Excise - It is permitted even to transfer the Cenvat credit to the buyer unit as well as transfer of stock of input - No infirmity in impugned order, revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-308-CESTAT-CHE-CE
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III
Central Excise - Denial of modvat credit availed on 57E certificates issued by the Customs for payment of CVD after the amendment of Section 57F (4A) w.e.f 16.03.95 - Denial of modvat credit on ineligible document issued by the supplier who is not registered with Central Excise – HELD - As regards the denial of cenvat credit availed by the appellant based on 57E certificate issued by Customs, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case had rejected their appeal on the identical issue pertaining to the demand confirmed for the subsequent periods - Appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit availed by the it after the amendment of Section 57F (4A) w.e.f. 16.3.95 - The Notification No.27/92-CE(NT) dt. 9.10.92, exempts from taking registration under Rule 174 of every manufacturer who gets his goods manufactured on his account from any other person. The said notification clearly stipulates that the person who is getting the goods manufactured and availing the exemption notification shall discharge all liabilities. Therefore, invoice issued by the supplier who is exempted from taking registration is a valid document. Further, there is no dispute on the payment of Central Excise duty on the inputs. Accordingly, the appellants are eligible for credit – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-305-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s TATA STEEL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I
Service Tax - Demand of service tax under reverse charge basis on payment of various service charges to different foreign financial institutions/banks namely Arrangement fees (MLA fees) for arranging loan, agency fees, front end fees, syndicate fees, out of pocket fees, structuring fees, upfront fees, issuing fee, underwriting fees, trustee fees, road show expenses, etc. - Banking and other Financial services - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Difference of opinion – HELD – Difference of opinion – (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Arrangement fee and Agent's Bank fee are taxable in the hands of the appellant company in view of the findings recorded by the learned Member (Technical) Or Whether the same was not taxable in view of the findings recorded by Member (Judicial) (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable and penalties under Section 76 & 78 are payable as held by the learned Member (Technical) Or Whether the extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case as held by the learned Member (Judicial) – Matter referred to Third Member
2015-VIL-307-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD Vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST PVT LTD & NHAVA SHEVA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER PVT LTD
Service Tax – Classification - activity of relocation of containers - net billing between the two container terminals – Revenue neutrality - HELD - Irrespective of the fact whether the activity is classified as "port service" or as a "Cargo handling" service, the stated policy of the government is to exempt exports from levy of any tax - In normal circumstance the revenue neutrality will not apply to cases when one entity is providing service to another entity and the tax paid by the first entity is providing service to another entity and the tax paid by the first entity is availed as input service tax credit by the second entity. But in the unique nature of mutual transactions between the two container terminals in the present case, even if there is no netting off of containers, both terminals will pay identical charges on the same number of containers which are netted and both will be simultaneously entitled to the same amount of credit – Suppression of facts – Penalty – Appeal allowed in favour of assessee on merit, the appeals of Revenue on the issue of penalties do not stand
Assam Value Added Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 - Amendment on Section 10 & 14 and Amendment in First, Second, Third & Fourth Schedule
RAJASTHAN CIRCULARS
rajDealerCir02: Application for early-refund in Form VAT 20A
rajCir01: Regarding directions for transport checking
rajCir02: Regarding cancellation of registration of the dealers who have failed to file their returns
rajCir03: Regarding acceptance of CST and VAT statutory Forms through Statutory Form Details functionality
rajCir04: Regarding maintenance of assessment records
rajCir05: Regarding Audit under section 27 where cases have been assigned to an Auditor posted at headquarter or STAR
rajCir06: Regarding determination of turnover of sub-contractor
25th of June
2015-VIL-249-KER
THE STATE OF KERALA Vs M/s WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA
Kerala Value Added Tax Act - Section (3) of Section 46 – Prescribed documents for goods in transit - Delivery Note – Form KK – Assessee imported of air conditioners from China and the imported goods were taken to Ernakulam from Chennai Port – Import documents in favour of assessee’s office at Faridabad – Transfer of imported goods directly to Branch at Ernakulam – Penalty due to absence of delivery note – HELD – As per the Tribunal - The records shows that the goods were imported from China to M/s Whirlpool India Ltd, Faridabad. The Form KK issued by the C&F agent and the consignment note would show that the goods imported as per the bill of lading and commercial invoice were transferred to M/s Whirlpool India Ltd., Cochin. It is very clear that M/s Whirlpool India Ltd, Cochin had not directly imported the goods from China. Therefore, the appellant cannot use delivery note in Form 15 to this consignment. But the consignment was supported by bill of lading, commercial invoice, packing list, form KK issued by C&F agent, and consignment note and the consignment was declared at the Walayar Check Post - Therefore there is no evasion or attempt of evasion of tax in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for imposing penalty under Section 47(6) of the Act – The revision for fails and it is accordingly dismissed
2015-VIL-310-CESTAT-CHE-CE
PACKAGING INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Central Excise - Removal of capital goods as waste and scrap - Removal of cylinders/rollers which are used in printing of packaging materials and clearance of certain old and machineries used as a scrap - Both rollers and old and used goods were cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty as per the transaction value - Revenue’s contention that appellants availed credit on these capital goods and held that the capital goods are cleared as such and demanded reversal of entire credit – HELD - In the present case demand of reversal of entire credit on used and worn out capital goods cleared is not sustainable as these goods are cleared as such but used and worn out Rollers. Accordingly the demand is restricted to the extent on the value arrived after allowing depreciation. The ld. Advocate also submits that appellants have already paid duty in excess as per transaction value. I hold that since the appellants have discharged duty as per the transaction value on the goods declared it as scrap, the differential duty, if any, is demandable to the extent on the value of capital goods after allowing depreciation - appeals are allowed subject to the re-quantification by the original authority
2015-VIL-309-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s TATA MOTORS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I
Central Excise - Levy of Automobile Cess on tractors - Whether Cess would be applicable on the Tractors cleared by the appellant during the period of Jun 2001 to Dec 2001 – HELD - tractors are chargeable to tractor cess in terms of the Tractor Cess Rules, 1992 read with the IDRA Act, 1951 - Appellant are liable to pay @1/8% even though in the demand notice it was proposed to be recovered under Sr. No. 7 [equipments used in the transportation industries] while tractors are more specifically covered under Sr. No. 10. We observe that even Sr. no. 7 is wide enough to cover the said goods - However, since tractors are specifically listed in Sr. No. 10, these will be covered by Sr. No. 10. However the rate of Cess is same viz. 1/8% and will not make any difference in the quantum of demand and accordingly the demand is upheld - Penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of CER, 1944 is set aside – Assessee appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-311-CESTAT-KOL-ST
M/s MAGMA FINCORP LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA
Service Tax - Banking and Financial services - Service tax liability on Leasing of equipments, hire purchase agreements - Business Auxiliary services - Securitization transactions – Tax liability on Collection Commission - Recovered of under section 11D of the CEA, 1944 read with Section 73A of Finance Act, 1994 - Levy of service tax on penal interest, prepayment / termination charges & management fees – HELD - The terms of the contract relating to all the agreements claimed to be financial lease, equipment lease, operating lease, hire purchase agreement, hire purchase finance agreements and loan cum hypothecation agreements be analysed/examined along with other relevant documents/evidences to ascertain the true nature of transaction between the appellant and its customers so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the said services fall within the scope of "Banking & other Financial services - The securitization agreements/contracts between the appellant and its customer banks be examined/scrutinized to ascertain whether the transaction is that of a sale or a service, accordingly, its deductibility from the gross taxable value or otherwise - In the event various services rendered are held to be taxable, detail findings and reasons in computing the value either from RBI statements or from any other source for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 be recorded - The transactions between the Appellant and clients(banks) be scrutinized to ascertain the collection commission received by the Appellant whether would fall under the scope of Business Auxiliary service - The Appellant be allowed to furnish further evidences in support of their claim that demand of Rs. 93.00 lakh is the result of computation error, the amount of Rs. 69,52,945/- is collected as contingency deposit and not service tax - The demand on penal interest and termination charges are liable to be dropped and the transaction relating to collection of 'Management Fees' be scrutinized and reasons be recorded for its leviablity or otherwise to service tax under the category of Banking & other Financial services
assamCir7
Assam: Production of Tax Clearance Certificate" or "Despatch Note" at Check Posts for despatch of taxable goods and demand of additional security
delEcoSurvey
Delhi: Highlights of Economic Survey of Delhi 2014-15
rajCir03
Rajasthan: Android based mobile application for Form VAT-47A and VAT-49A
jharYojna
Jharkhand Kar Samadhan Yojna 2015 [in Hindi]
26th of June
2015-VIL-250-MAD
M/s TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act – Rule 6(3)(b) of TNVAT Rules - Sell of LPG as industrial input - Claim of concessional rate of tax at 4% as industrial input – Failure to produce certificates required under Rule 6(3)(b) of the TNVAT Rules – use of incorrect commodity code in filing of return – HELD - It has been consistently contended by the petitioner that they have inadvertently entered the commodity code and that they have actually collected only @ 5% from their customers and there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 6(3)(b) of TNVAT Rules for filing the certificates and it should be every month. Since there is no time limit prescribed in the Rule, it can be held that the petitioner can file the certificates by the end of the assessment year - The petitioner can be permitted to file the documents afresh by quoting correct code of commodity as well as by furnishing all the certificates required under Rule 6(3)(b) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, subject to certain condition - Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file the documents afresh by quoting correct code of commodity by furnishing all the certificates required under Rule 6(3)(b) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the admitted tax – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-18-MSTT
M/s TATA MOTORS LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bombay Sales Tax Act – Lease Act - Levy of sales tax on the promotional fees received from the manufacturers of lubricants or oil u/s.4 r/w. Schedule Entry 22 of Lease Act - promotional fees received at sale price for transfer of right to use the goods namely ‘trademark’ of the appellant - Agreements for recommendation and promotional assistance – HELD – The agreement read with the packing material itself would reveal that the appellant is permitting Castrol India Ltd. to use its trademark and receiving consideration for use of trademark described in agreement as promotional fees. The said permission by itself in case of intangible goods is transfer of right to use the trademark. In view of the decision of Bombay High Court in M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. appellant was free to permit use of trademark to others also, and it need not be exclusive to Castrol India Ltd or manufacturers of lubricants with whom, the appellant entered into an agreement - The agreement entered into by appellant with the manufacturers of the lubricants would amount to transfer of right to use the trademark. As such a sale u/s.2(10) of Lease Act, and the promotional fees received by the appellant from those manufacturers would be a sale price u/s.2(11) of the Lease Act exigible to sales tax u/s.4 of the said Act. Hence, the tax levied thereon does not suffer from any infirmity, and is liable to be confirmed – Levy of interest - In view of Section 8(2) of Lease Act expressly providing the substantive law of interest u/s.36(3) of BST Act is applicable to assessment or process incidental to or connected with assessment, under Lease Act. Assessing authority is permitted to invoke Section 36(3) for levy of interest in assessment under Lease Act – Levy of penalty set aside – Dismissed on merit – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-251-MAD
VIVEK LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act – Section 17 - Sales return - unfructified sales - Failure to produce documentary proof – Denial of benefit of deduction – HELD - when the provision contemplates time-limit for claiming sales return or refund on unfructified sale, then necessarily the time-limit has to be adhered to while claiming the relief in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, without complying the conditions contemplated in above Rule pertaining to sales return or to unfructified sale, an assessee cannot claim exemption. In the present case, no documentary proof was shown either for the claim of sales return or unfructified sale - Petitioner has not discharged its burden cast upon it under Section 17 of the Act, to fulfil the conditions to claim the exemption in respect sales returns – Since the petitioner has not discharged their burden by way of documentary evidence, the respondent has rightly disallowed the exemption claimed by the petitioner – Writ petition dismissed
2015-VIL-312-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD Vs C.C.E. JAIPUR-II
Central Excise – Cash refund of unutilised Cenvat credit - Input duty credit in respect of the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the yarn which had been exported – Application of refund as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCR, 2002 – Procedure of refund – Conditions of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14/3/06 – Refund sanctioned by Asst Commissioner but rejected by CCE (Appeals) – HELD - In this case, out of 70 export consignments cleared for export during July - September 2007 period, in 11 consignments, the vessel in which the goods had been loaded sailed in October 2007. In other cases the vessel carrying the export goods left during July 2007 - September 2007 period. Since the refund claim has been filed on within the prescribed limitation period, and, in fact, this is not the allegation of the Department. There is no allegation that the condition 2, 4, 5 or 6 are not satisfied. Since as per the provisions of the notification, the refund of unutilised Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of- inputs or input services used in manufacture of final products, ‘which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking’, when refund claim has been filed within the prescribed limitation period, and by the time the refund claim was filed, the goods had already been exported out of India, refund in respect of 11 consignments cannot be denied just because the same were physically exported in October 2007 - Another ground for denial of refund is that the copies of shipping bills duly certified by the customs officers regarding export of the goods were not enclosed alongwith the refund application. While it is true that alongwith the refund application, only self certified copies of shipping bills were enclosed, but as mentioned in the impugned order-in-appeal, the customs certified copies were produced subsequently. I am prima facie of the view that non-production of customs certified copies of shipping bills alongwith the refund application is only a remediable defect for which the refund claim cannot be denied when subsequently the customs certified copies of shipping bills were produced. A substantive claim cannot be denied for a minor procedural violation - The impugned order deserves, no merits, hence set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief
2015-VIL-252-MAD-CE
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI–II Vs INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
Central Excise - Clearance of waste scraps arising out of manufacture of exempted goods - Erroneous payment of duty on exempted goods - show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty along with interest and penalty – HELD - Erroneous payment of duty on any such goods would not render the goods "other than exempted goods" - Since the manufactured goods are exempted goods, the benefit of Notification No.89 of 1995 dated 18.5.1995 would be applicable - The Tribunal rightly held that proviso to this Notification would not apply to the facts of the case and the erroneous payment of duty would not render the goods other than exempted goods - So long as the goods manufactured are exempted goods, waste parings, scrap arising in the course of the manufacture of exempted goods would be entitled for exemption as per Notification No.89 of 1995 CE – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-313-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s DIGITECH TECHNOLOGY Vs CCE, CHANDIGARH
Central Excise - Exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE dt.10.6.03 – Change is factory address – Denial of exemption – HELD - It is seen that change of address has been intimated to district industries centre and district industries centre confirmed the change of address. When the information submitted by the appellant in respect of department’s letter dt.9.7.10, and the documents furnished by the appellant are not disputed, chartered engineer’s certificate has certified the existence of machinery and plant at the new premises and also the installed capacity, in our view, there is absolutely no ground to treat the appellant unit as having commenced their commercial production in July, 2010 and deny the exemption on this basis. Even in terms of Board’s circular dated 17.2.12, an eligible unit physically shifting to new location would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE for residual period of exemption. When the department does not dispute that the appellant had commenced commercial production with effect from 30.3.10 from their old unit and there is evidence of transportation of machinery to the new location, view, there is no justification to treat the appellant unit as having commenced commercial production after 31/3/10 and denying the exemption on this basis - The impugned order is set aside – Assessee appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-314-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR Vs M/s SUNIL HI-TECH ENGINEERS LTD
Service Tax – Input Service - Activities in relation to business – Travel for business purposes - Admissibility of CENVAT Credit in respect of Air Travel Agent service in case of the invoice raised by the service provider pertain to tickets issued in the name of personnel of the assessee – HELD - In view of the nature of the business of the assessee being mainly works contract, wherein the works are situated at different places, the personnel of the assessee are required to travel for business purposes between various works site from Head Office to work site and from work site to Head Office and also have various other means including resolution of dispute tax balance etc. The adjudicating authority has erred in holding that although the bills are raised in the name of the company, the traveling tickets are in the name of the personnel as the company being an artificial judicial person, cannot travel itself as it exists only on paper in the eyes of law. It is only the personnel of the company, who travel for the business of the company and the CENVAT Credit in respect of Air Travel Agent service is rightly allowed by the impugned order. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
2015-VIL-253-MAD-ST
P.K.SHEFI Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Service Tax – Pre-deposit - Contract with M/s IRCTC for supply of food and refreshments to the passengers on board the trains run by the Indian Railways - Service tax demand for the services rendered on board in other Mail/Express Trains for the periods March, 2006 to September, 2009, October, 2009 to September, 2010, October, 2010 to September, 2011 and October, 2011 to December, 2012 along with interest and penalty – The Tribunal merely reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of IRCTC v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi is in relation to sales tax and not directly relatable to service tax. Though several pleas have been taken by the appellant, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd and passed a brief order ordering pre-deposit. The primary plea appears to be that there is no element of suppression - when there are two views one in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court and the contra view by the Kerala High Court on the issue, as to whether such transaction would be outdoor catering, liable for service tax, suppression cannot be alleged per se - Tribunal was not justified in ordering the pre-deposit in the manner stated in its order – Amount of pre-deposit reduced – In favour of assessee
hpNoti2
Himachal Pradesh: Decrease in rate of CGCR on packed drinking water
hpNoti20
Himachal Pradesh: Draft Aemndment in HPVAT Schedule A & Schedule B
Delhi Budget 2015-16: Budget Speech [Dated 25.06.2015]
delBudgetHL
Delhi Budget 2015-16: Budget Highlights
29th of June
2015-VIL-254-JHR
M/s ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION LTD Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act - Transit of the goods - Sugam-504-G – Shifting of goods to another truck due to breakdown of original truck - No valid road permit as the time limit given in a form Sugam-504-G was over – Detention of goods and truck – Demand for Deposit and Bank guarantee - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to dispose of the revision application preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously possible and practically preferably within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order of this Court. Meanwhile, the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 82,000/- and to give bank guarantee of the rest of the amount is hereby stayed till the decision of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the aforesaid revision application, more so when the goods and the truck are both in the custody of the respondents. The goods will be protected and the truck will be kept in working conditions by the respondent-State, any expenditure incurred will be borne by this petitioner – Matter remanded
2015-VIL-317-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s RISHI BAKERS PVT LTD Vs CCE & ST, KANPUR
Central Excise – Use of dutiable product for manufacturing of exempted product - Whether sugar syrup made by the appellant for captive use in the manufacture of exempted biscuits is chargeable to Central Excise duty under sub-heading 17029090 of the Central Excise Tariff – Denial of benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE – Classification of sugar syrup - HELD - Just because the appellant during period till June 2008 were paying duty on the goods by classifying the same under sub-heading 17029090, it cannot be presumed that they had accepted that the goods, in question, conform to the description of sugar syrup blends of sub-heading 170290 for which the sugar syrup in dry stage must contain 50% by weight of fructose - Filing of classification list mistakenly does not mean that party has to pay duty, if in law, he is not bound to pay duty - In view of this, the classification of the goods under sub-heading 17029090 is not sustainable, as absolutely no evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry state was 50% - Test of marketability - Marketability of the goods produced by a particular manufacturer cannot be presumed on the basis of the marketability of the similar goods in different condition being produced by another manufacturer, unless it shown that the two products are identical - The basis of holding that the goods, in question, are marketable is absolutely wrong, as it has been presumed that the sugar syrup being made by the appellants is identical to the ‘invert sugar syrup’ being made by M/s Dhampur Speciality Sugars Ltd. for which there is no basis. It is, therefore, totally wrong to presume a given sugar syrup as invert sugar syrup without test - Neither there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, are classifiable under 17029090 nor there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, in form in which they come into existence in the appellant’s factories, are marketable - The impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief
2015-VIL-316-CESTAT-CHE-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD
Central Excise – Admissibility of Modvat credit on lubricating oil used outside the factory area under rule 57Q of CER - Demand under erstwhile Rule 57U (3) of CER, 1944 along with interest and penalty under erstwhile Rule 57U(6) read with 173Q(bb) of CER – Ownership of captive mines / mining rights - HELD - The TN Govt had granted mining lease in favour of the respondent for the period of 30 years and 20 years respectively. In terms of above G.O's, appellants have executed lease deed dated 17.6.95 and 5.3.92 - The rights, liabilities, restrictions of use of mines and the mode of payment are set out in the agreement. Therefore, it is clearly established beyond doubt that respondents had captive mining lease during the relevant period from 8.5.1991 onwards - As per the undertaking given by the appellant that the limestone mining has been captively consumed in the process to produce cement and not sold to outsiders whereas the Revenue has not brought out any evidence to the contrary. Since the facts have been established, the appellants availed the credit on lubricating oils for the use in the manufacture at their captive mines and by following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE, the appellants are eligible for cenvat credit on capital goods and at captive mines. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and Revenue appeal is rejected subject to the condition that mining products in dispute are not cleared to outsiders which may be verified by the Revenue – Revenue appeal is rejected
2015-VIL-315-CESTAT-AHM-CE
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT Vs M/s VARSANA ISPAT LTD
Central Excise - Benefit of area based exemption - Set up the machinery for manufacturing of the Ingots after the cut of date - Assessee installed the Concast Machines for manufacturing of Billets after 31.12.2005 – Assessee contents that the machineries installed prior to 31.12.2005 were capable to manufacture Billets and Ingots. The installation of Concast Machine is mainly for the purpose of enhancement of the production capacity – Denial of benefit on the ground that assessee has set up the Billete Concast Plant for manufacturing the Billets after 31.12.2005 – HELD - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminum Ltd held that the Ingots and Billets are two different commercial commodities. They have separate, distinct and identifiable marketability and saleability - The assessee in their Cross Objection stated that the Billets are being manufactured with the help of automatic moulding machine i.e. Concast Machine. So, it is clearly evident from the records that the Concast Machine was installed for manufacturing of the Billets after 31.12.2005 – Hence, the Respondents are not eligible to avail the benefit of the exemption notification – Revenue appeal allowed
2015-VIL-318-CESTAT-MUM-ST
KUNAL IT SERVICES PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III
Service Tax - Gross value for discharge of service tax liability - Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant received 80% of the fees collected by them and were discharging appropriate service tax liability under the head ‘Commercial Coaching or Training Service’ – Service Tax liability on 80% or on 100% - Commercial Coaching or Training Service - HELD - Appellant received 80% of the fees collected by them and were discharging appropriate service tax liability - It is on record that appellant is not receiving any amount from the students directly. The section 67 specifically provides that the gross value which is charged for the services has to be considered for payment of service tax liability. In the case in hand, the amount received by the appellant is the 80% of the amount paid by the students, as students make 100% of the payment directly in the name of M/s. Aptech Ltd. If that be so, appellant has correctly discharged the service tax liability on an amount received by him for the services rendered under the category of ‘Commercial Coaching or Training Services’ - The impugned orders are unsustainable and is set aside and the appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-319-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT Vs CCE & ST, CHANDIGARH
Service Tax – Outdoor catering – Supply of mid-day meal – HELD – The appellant are preparing the meals as per the fixed menu which are to be served in various schools of Chandigarh Administration under the mid day Meal Scheme of the Government. Neither there is any allegation nor there is any evidence to show that the appellant had prepared the meals at the schools where the same were to be served or were in any manner involved in serving the meals - The outdoor caterer as defined in Section 65(76a) means a caterer engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place other than his own but including a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving such services. Since the appellant are preparing mid day meals in their Institute and not in the schools where the meals are served and are not involved in serving of the meals in any manner, they are not covered by the definition of ‘outdoor caterer’ and hence their activity of preparing and supplying meals for mid day scheme would not be covered by the definition of taxable service under Section 65(106(zzt). Accordingly the duty demand on this count would not be sustainable – The impugned order is set aside. The stay applications as well as the appeals are allowed
Gujarat VAT Schedule: Updated upto 1st June 2016 [Download link]
karCir04
Karnataka: Extension of Revision option under e-UPaSS module for the Tax periods May 2014 to December 2014 enabled for all targeted dealers till 31/07/2015
30th of June
2015-VIL-257-MAD
GREENS AGENCY Vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT)
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act – Section 67(5) – Checkpost - Diversion in route of goods carrying vehicle - Detention of vehicle/goods – HELD - Goods were moved with the bills of sale, therefore, the respondent ought not to have hurriedly intercepted the vehicles and ought not to have issued the impugned goods detention notices - Even if it is presumed that the vehicles had taken a diversified route from the regular route, the respondent has miserably failed to place any provision to justify the passing of the goods detention notices impugned herein. Therefore, when there is no provision that taking a diversified route from the regular route, the respondent is entitled to intercept the vehicles, this Court is not able to find any merit either in the goods detention notice or in the compounding notices, hence, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned notices are set aside and the respondent is directed to release the goods along with the vehicles - Writ petitions are allowed
2015-VIL-256-GUJ
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs INDIAN PETRO CHEMICALS LTD
Gujarat Sales Tax Act – Section 41- Interest under section 54(1)(aa) on refund arising from appellate order – HELD - The principles of compensatory measure may apply where the legislature is silent about entitlement of interest on refund of the tax amount, which is already paid by the Assessee - Interest can be awarded even if not expressly barred by the statute or that the taxing statute is silent about the same – Appeal dismissed
Also Attached: Analysis of IPCL Order
2015-VIL-255-CAL-CE
M/s SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, DURGAPUR
Central Excise - Provisional assessment – Transaction Value - Permission to clear goods upon provisional assessment as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Quantity/turnover discounts based on achievement of the target - Not possible for the petitioner to determine the correct transaction value of the concerned excisable goods at the time of and place of removal thereof – Denial of permission to use provisional assessment method – HELD - Since the quantity/turnover discounts are based on and linked to achievement of the target and are allowed on varying rates depending upon the slab which a particular dealer attains in terms of the relevant scheme, it is not possible to quantify the discount at the time of clearance of a particular consignment from the factory or the place of removal. Consequently, the petitioner company is unable to determine the correct transaction value of the concerned excisable goods at the time of and place of removal thereof which in turn makes it impossible to assess actual excisable duty payable. Hence, it appears to be a fit case where Rule 7 of the CER, 2002 should be invoked and brought into play - The normal transaction value is not available for such removals at that time as the assessee at that time cannot determine the quantity of discount being extended to the buyers. This can be done only at a later stage, precisely at the end of discount scheme period offered to the dealers which is usually after four months. As per circular dated 30th June, 2000, discount of any type made known prior to the clearance of the goods but quantified subsequently and passed on to the customers is an admissible deduction from the transaction value and as such the assessment for such transactions may be made on a provisional basis. The said circular is binding on the department – There no legitimate ground exists for the department to disallow the petitioner company to pay excise duty on provisional basis on the concerned goods as per Rule 7 of the CER, 2002 – Writ petition succeeds
2015-VIL-320-CESTAT-CHE-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM Vs K.G. DENIM LTD & VICE VERSA
Central Excise – Rule 11 of CCR 2004 - Transitional provision - Whether the credit balance lying in the Cenvat account, the date of appellants opting for full exemption under Notification No.30/2004 shall lapse or available to the assessee for payment of duty and pre-deposit to them - Whether the consequential refund of pre-deposit sanctioned in cash is valid or not when the said amount was paid through cenvat credit - HELD – The appellant's case relates to the period prior to 9.7.2004 and the amendment to Rule 11 was inserted only from 1.3.2007. The said amendment cannot have any retrospective effect for the earlier period - The transitional provisions stipulated in sub-rule (1) is clear and unambiguous that any credit remaining unutilized prior to 10.9.2004 is to be allowed to the appellant and they are entitled to utilise the said credit. Therefore, Revenue relying on the sub-rule (3) of rule 11 that entire credit balance remaining in their cenvat account as on 9.7.2004 shall lapse is not justified, and valid and not in accordance with the Rules as existed during the relevant period. Further, it is evident that the credit lying in balance in the cenvat account is related to inputs which were utilized in the final products and already cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in Notification No.30/04 or any other provision prior to 1.3.2007, there is no lapse of credit and the sub-rule(3) cannot be applied retrospectively for the period prior to 9.7.2004 - Therefore, it is evident that the Notification No.30/2004 is a conditional one and cannot be considered as absolute exemption and Clause (ii) of sub rule(3) of Rule 11 is applicable only if the final product is exempted absolutely. Therefore, the sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 is not applicable in appellant’s case and the cenvat credit balance lying unutilised on 9.7.2004 i.e. the date of opting for exemption shall not get lapsed and the appellants are eligible to utilize the credit in accordance with CCR. Accordingly, the appellants have rightly utilized the credit for payment of pre-deposit as per the Tribunal’s interim order - Refund of pre-deposit sanctioned in cash - There is merit in the Revenue’s appeal against the granting of refund in cash by the original authority. In the present case, the appellant neither closed their unit nor their registration is cancelled and they are fully viable and functioning and producing Denim fabrics and clearing for domestic as well as for exports and also discharging service tax liabilities. Therefore, I am unable to accept the appellant’s contention that refund of pre-deposit and voluntary duty payment should be paid in cash only – The pre-deposit and amount voluntarily paid cannot be allowed by way of cash refund and said refund is to be allowed by way of re-credit in cenvat account – Appeal of assessee and revenue partly allowed
2015-VIL-322-CESTAT-DEL-ST
DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA PVT LTD Vs CCE & ST, NOIDA
Service Tax – Cenvat Credit – Credit availed prior to obtaining Service Tax registration – Denial of credit on the ground that Rule 4 (1) of the service tax Rules and Notification No.27/12-CE dated 18.06.2012 provides that the service provider has to statutorily required to be registered within 30 days from the commencement of the business activities, which has not been complied with by the appellant – HELD - No stipulation or embargo has been created in the Rule 5 of the rules that refund of cenvat credit can be denied in absence of Registration Certificate issued by the Authorities. It is for some other purpose, the requirement of registration has been provided in Rule 4 of the Service Tax rules as well as in the Notification dated 18.06.2012 and not for the purpose of Rule 5 of the CCR - Disallowance on account of non-registration of the service provider is not a valid ground for disallowance of the benefit of refund, to which, the appellant is legally entitled to - Notification dated 18.06.2012 only prescribed the procedure for filing the refund claim and is no way connected with filing of refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004. The said Notification having been issued in exercise of powers vested under Rule 5 of the said rules, where there is no specific prohibition been provided that refund has to be filed after registration of the service provider, the Notification dated 18.06.2012 will not override the provisions of Rule 5 of the rules for claim of refund of service tax by the service provider - The appellant is entitled for refund of service tax on the disputed input services – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-323-CESTAT-BLR-ST
RAMKY PHARMA CITY INDIA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX & CUSTOMS
Service Tax – pre-deposit - Development of ‘Pharma City’ - Services rendered for providing preferential location, ‘club or association service’, ‘renting of immovable property service’ and ‘short term accommodation service – HELD – Definition of ‘Taxable service’ covers only provision of preferential location but excludes development of a complex by a builder of a commercial complex and obviously, in the case of the appellant, the appellant has developed the complex. Pharma city is nothing but a commercial complex where Pharma industries have set up their units. The assessee relied upon the TRU letter dated 26.2.2010 to submit that in paragraph 8, the TRU has explained the service. However while going through the clarification, para 8.1 (b) covers the activities undertaken by the appellant and, in our opinion, the activity under consideration in this case is covered by the clarification taking a view that service tax is leviable - Prima facie appellant has no merit its submissions – Deposit of Rupees Two crores and fifty lakhs ordered - Partial stay granted
jharNotiGO2262
Jharkhand: Karasamadhana Scheme, 2015
delNoti330
Delhi: Regarding registration for e-commerce dealers
delNoti357
Delhi: Regarding extension of date for filing DP-I upto 31.08.2015