SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2015
List of updates in the month of March
2nd of Mar
Union Budget 2015-16: Analysis of key changes in Indirect Tax
[Download link: 20 pages documents containing all amendments in Service Tax, Excise & Customs]
Central Excise Circular
ceCir996: Recovery of arrears in installments and amendment of Garnishee Notice
ceCir997: Simplification of Registration Procedures in Central Excise and Service Tax
ceCir998: Withdrawal of prosecution filed in a court
ceCir999: Clarification regarding place of removal
stOrder01
Service Tax: Documentation, time limits and procedure with respect to filing of registration applications for single premises
2015-VIL-110-CESTAT-KOL-ST
M/s MACKINTOSH BURN LTD & M/s ENGINEERS PROJECTS (I) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, SHILLONG
Service Tax - Construction of border outpost – Erection, commissioning or installation service / ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ – Revenue contention that the activity of construction of border-fencing with road along Indo-Bangladesh Border, is chargeable to service tax under the category ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services’, as defined under section (39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Appellant submission that the activity of ‘Erection’ alone would not fall under the scope of the said service tax entry of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services’ and the essential character of the services rendered by the Appellant, is that of ‘erection’, therefore, the services/work rendered / undertaken under the Contract ought to be considered as the service of civil construction falling within the scope of the taxable entry of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ - Non-commercial activity – expression, ‘structure-pre fabricated or otherwise’ - Board Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dt. 17.09.2004 - HELD – Board Circular makes amply clear that even though ‘erection’ is a civil work, but in a composite contract for ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’, an erection charge would be taxed as part of the commissioning or installation Service. Thus, the legislators are fully aware of the situation that the activity of ‘erection’, though fall under the category of ‘Construction Service’, but in a composite contract, the charge collected on this account would also be taxed under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’. To add further, it could safely be inferred that it was not the intention of the legislature to tax the activity/service of ‘erection’ separately in relation to the objects of levy viz. plant, machinery or equipment, but it is a necessity to be taxed being carried out along with commissioning or installation service, and when the charges thereof are composite. Therefore, it would be incorrect to interpret that after addition of the expression, “structure-pre-fabricated or otherwise’ to the existing list of objects of levy of plant, machinery or equipment, it brought significant change in the said entry so as to result an interpretation that activity of erection of structure standing alone, would be leviable to service tax. On the contrary, the purpose for which the word ‘erection’ was inserted continued to be the same as was applicable to plant, machinery or equipment even after addition of the expression ‘structure-pre-fabricated or otherwise’ - The expression ‘Structure pre-fabricated or otherwise’, in most of the cases, would refer to mechanical structure- whether fabricated at site, or brought in pre-fabricated condition for erection, commissioning or installation, but it would also include civil structures necessary for erection, commissioning or Installation of ‘plant, machinery, or equipment’. Thus, fence, even though a structure, cannot be read in isolation but has to be read along with ‘erection, commissioning or installation’ and also with the objects of service tax levy i.e. Plant, machinery or equipment - The activity/service of erection of border fencing-structure standing alone would not be subjected to service tax under clause (39a) of Sec.65, but ought to be along with the activity of commissioning or installation, in a composite contract, and no such finding is recorded in the impugned order that other activities of commissioning or installations are involved in the present Appeals, therefore, the other alternative arguments including the issue of limitation, raised by the Appellants become academic, hence, not delved into – Appeal allowed [Para 50]
2015-VIL-111-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s JCT LIMITED Vs CCE, JALLANDHAR & LUDHIANA AND VICE VERSA
Central Excise - Conditional Exemption - Whether reversal of cenvat credit before utilizing would be amount to non availment of credit - Benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE - composite mill manufactured cotton yarn from cotton and used the same within the factory for weaving of fabrics – HELD - Benefit of the exemption notification is subject to the condition that no duty credit that is taken but the assessee during November and December 2005 had taken Cenvat credit in respect of certain inputs and during January to March 2006 had taken Cenvat credit in respect of certain inputs. However, the Assessee’s claim that this credit had not been utilised and had been reversed as soon as this irregularity was pointed out by the Department is not refuted by the Department. Since the credit taken was reversed without being utilised the assessee have to be treated as not having taken the Cenvat credit and would be eligible for the exemption benefit. In view of this, the impugned order denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/04-CE and confirming the duty demand on this basis against the Assessee is not sustainable and the same is set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-96-GUJ
STATE OF GUJARAT Vs NISHI COMMUNICATION
Gujarat Value Added Tax Act - Adjustment of carried forward input tax credit – levy of interest and penalty - Deletion of interest and penalty by tribunal – HELD - As the demand is confirmed and the adjustment is permitted but the interest and penalty imposed are deleted - Assessee had no surplus balance of input credit, which has been adjusted against the demand of tax upon re-assessment. Under these circumstances, the element of avoidance of tax could be said as lacking. Consequently, the deletion of interest and penalty on the part of Tribunal could not be said as unjustifiable – Revenue appeal dismissed
chhgNoti08
Chhattisgarh: Extending time-limit for Composition in FY 2014-15
chhgNoti08
Chhattisgarh: Period of completion of assessment proceedings - Extension in time limit
FCP0203
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
3rd of March
2015-VIL-99-BOM
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MAHARASHTRA Vs M/s NEW STANDARD ENGINEERING CO. LTD
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Interpretation of Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section 36 - Whether the onus lies on the revenue to establish, for invoking the said Explanation-I, that there was gross or willful neglect on the part of the assessee – Penalty – HELD - The basic burden about concealment of the transactions or inaccurate furnishing of particulars of the transaction is on the Revenue and in case in the assessment it is found that the tax paid by the assessee is less than 80% of the tax assessed, the presumption with regard to failure to disclose such transaction of sale or purchase would arise. In the present case there is no evidence on record to show that the assessee in fact had failed to disclose any transaction of sale and purchase neither it was pointed out before the first Appellate Authority or for that matter before the second Appellate Authority - What emerges is that the books of accounts had been submitted had not been objected to and were accepted. It further comes on record that that the company had been not faring well financially and had been incurring heavy losses resulting in erosion of capital. Thus it appears that the lesser payment of taxes is not attributable to a neglect by the company or for that matter a willful one at that - Thus, the observations appearing in the judgment of the Tribunal can hardly be said to hold that the onus lies on the Revenue the question No.1 as has been framed as a matter of fact appears to have been erroneously framed as it does not appear to be the purport of the Tribunal's judgment to hold that the onus in the circumstances of the case lies on revenue and the narration was with respect to the circumstances - Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty imposed on assessee under Section 36(2)(c) read with explanation I of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-98-BOM
M/s JITENDRA R. GANDHI Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 57 and 55 of the Act - Revisional jurisdiction of Administrative Asstt. Commissioner – Exemption – Brass sheet / Copper sheet – HELD - Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the powers pursuant to Section 57(1) had proceeded with the revisional proceeding and has passed order in the same. The revision is an independent power of an authority calling for and examining record and orders passed by an officer subordinate and to pass such order as he may think just and proper. Appeal by the assessee had been filed since him being not satisfied by certain other disallowances. As such, orders in respect of certain other disallowances in the appeal pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolhapur would be hardly a matter which concerns the matter in revision. There is no decision by the appellate authority in said appeal which has been filed by the assessee aggrieved by other disallowances and much less there is any matter pending before higher authority to which to revisional authority is subordinate - It is not disputed that the list of products under the eligibility /entitlement certificate does not make reference to sheets or other products by strips, rods circles etc. of brass like the one the case of aluminum appearing in the list under the eligibility certificate. Moreover, in the absence of copper sheets being listed, the contention that brass sheets being its alloy qualify for exemption from levy of sales tax under the eligibility / entitlement certificate cannot be sustained. As such there does not appear to be any substance in the contention with regard to claim for exemption from levy of sales tax for brass sheets. As such, the second question also stands answered in the affirmative – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-97-DEL-CE
SNE INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II
Central Excise - Restoration of appeal - Non compliance of pre deposit condition - Assessee instead of depositing the amount in cash or through account PLA (under the Rules), sought to claim adjustment of amounts lying to its credit in its CENVAT credit account – HELD - It is a matter of record that the duty liability was discharged in the present instance along with interest, though beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. In these circumstances, the limited issue was whether the denial of credit facility altogether was warranted. The CESTAT had no occasion given the diversion of opinion of two of its members and the final opinion of the third member, which varied with both the members to the extent that he directed deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs, to consider the order on merits. In one sense, the order of the third member by default becomes the order of the Tribunal on the question of pre-deposit. Further, the appellant’s contentions were never considered on the merits after it complied with one member’s order of deposit - We are of the opinion that interest of justice will be best served if the appeal is restored to the file of the CESTAT and on the merits, the CESTAT would, of course take into consideration the diverse views of the Madras and Gujarat High Courts on the issue, and render its verdict on the merits of the issue raised - Matter remanded
2015-VIL-112-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s BALMER LAWRIE VAN LEER LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR
Central Excise – Valuation – Assessable value - Inclusion of charges for loading, unloading, transportation and warehousing – HELD - The goods are not sold and these are cleared from the factory, but these are transported and stored in Hyderabad in transporter's warehouse. As and when appellant gets the order, they direct transporter/warehouse owner to deliver the said goods to the customer's place. Thus, the act of sale takes place on premises of the customer and for this purpose appellant is charging Rs. 65 per drum as freight, loading, unloading charges - No merit in appeal – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-113-CESTAT-CHE-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI Vs RUCHIKA GLOBAL INTERLINKS
Service Tax - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Input service - Business Auxiliary Service - Common input services used for trading as well as taxable service – HELD – Credit allowed on various services viz. Testing and Analysis, C&F services, repair and maintenance services etc - Availment of credit on common input services – HELD - Respondents holding centralised registration and not maintained separate accounts of input services for the trading activity as well as for the taxable service. I find from the records and findings of the OIO, there is no dispute on the fact that respondents are carrying out both trading activity and taxable service under BAS as commission agents – Assessees are not eligible for the entire credit availed on the common input services - Since the department rightly demanded the excess credit which is in excess of 20% of the total service tax payable, the respondents paid the excess amount and they are not eligible to take re-credit in cenvat account nor they are eligible for refund. The adjudication order rejecting the refund and the interest amount is upheld and LAA order allowing credit is liable to be set aside - Partly allowed
2015-VIL-114-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s UNIVERSAL PHARMACY & M/s UNIVERSAL AYURVAID Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
Service Tax - scientific or technical consultancy service - Sale of all assets and liabilities on going concern basis - Lump sum consideration as well as royalty received - Scientific or technical consultancy service – HELD - We find that for services to get covered under the said service category, there has to be a scientific or technical institution or organisation and they should have rendered the services in a one or more disciplines of science or technology as an institution; or scientists or technocrats, it is on record that the appellants herein are manufactures of pharmaceutical goods and had their own set up, which they have sold to Universal Medicaments Pvt. Ltd - Factually appellants being manufacturers; not rendering any advice or consultancy - Impugned orders are set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
Article
Union Budget: Date of effect of new rates
FCP0303
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
5th of Mar
2015-VIL-104-KAR
M/s KOLLAMOGRU HARIHARA C A BANK LTD Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Agricultural implements – Rate of tax on Agricultural tree climbing apparatus – HELD - A perusal of the photographs and the description of the product establishes that this product is used by the agriculturists to climb the trees by gripping with its short bottom grippers to the earth for the collection of crop harvest and to spray the pesticides. In the modern technological era, these products are new inventions to suit the present day farming in view of the shortage of skilled agricultural labourers. The product (a) is a kind of commonly used agricultural implement, regarded in common parlance according to the sense of agriculturists, ordinary traders and merchants as agricultural implements - The narrow interpretation of the expression “agricultural implement” given by the Authority for Clarification is not sustainable - Accordingly, the product (a) is an agricultural implement falling under Serial No.1 of First Schedule to the Act exempted from tax under Section 5(1) of the Act
2015-VIL-118-CESTAT-MUM-ST
SHRIRAM OOS TOD MAJOOR SEVA SANGH Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX
Service Tax - Classification of service – Labour contractor – Agreement for cutting and transporting of sugar cane through labourers from producer-members, supplying sugar cane to the factory - sugar cane cutting and transportation – Revenue seeks to classify as Manpower recruitment or supply agency service - HELD - The service brought under the tax net under the 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' envisages supply of labour per se. In the instant case, we notice that there is no supply of labour per se to the sugar factory. The work undertaken is harvesting of sugar cane and transporting the same to the sugar factory for which labour is employed. The sugar cane belongs to the sugar factory in terms of the agreement of sale executed between the farmer and the sugar factory. Therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant is one of procuring or processing of the goods belonging to the client which is classifiable under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and not under 'Manpower Recruitment of Supply Agency Service'. On the supervision charges paid to the appellant for the said activity, they have already discharged service tax liability under 'Business Auxiliary service' - In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the impugned order classifying the service under the category of ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service'. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal
2015-VIL-117-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s MAHALAXMI EXTRUSIONS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT
Central Excise – Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices as mentioned under Rule 9 of Rules 2004 and the input utilized in the manufacture of final product - Duty paying valid document - Appellant purchased the Brass Ingots from the Dubai Company, who placed the orders to M/s Mitesh Impex, a 100% EOU, supplied the goods to the appellant in DTA as per the agreement with the Dubai company - Invoices mentioned the appellants name as ‘Delivery to’ – Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that Cenvat Credit is available only to the person, to whom the goods have been sold by the manufacturer and not to any other person – HELD - In the Cenvat Scheme, ownership of input is not relevant factor and the assessee would entitle to avail cenvat credit on the basis duty paying documents prescribed under Rule 9 of Rules 2004 - Rule 9 of Rules 2004 provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of an invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer - In the present case, the appellant availed credit on the basis of invoice issued under Rule 9 of the said Rules. There is no dispute that the input received in the factory of the appellant. In any event, the manufacturer of input supplied the goods in DTA. Thus, there is no scope to use the documents by the overseas company. So, the denial of cenvat Credit is not justified - There is no dispute that the entire consignment was received by the appellant. So, there is no reason to deny the cenvat credit to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief
apNotiGO78
Andhra Pradesh: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Exempting from payment of tax on Textiles, Sugar and Tobacco Products – Rescinded
apCir716
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act & CST Act – Audits and Assessments - Rule 59 of APVAT Rules 2005 - Procedures to be followed
harPN040315
Haryana: Public Notice regarding furnishing of details by dealers
Guest Column
Cenvat Credit cannot be denied at the end of the recipients of the goods, on the premise that higher duty has been paid by the manufacturer - Analysis of CESTAT, Mumbai order in the case of CCE, PUNE-I Vs PEFCO FOUNDRY & OTHER
FCP0403
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
7th of Mar
2015-VIL-105-MAD
HERITAGE PRINTERS Vs THE JOINT COMMISIONER (SMR) OF COMMISSIONER TAXES
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Work of printing annual reports - Items printed for their exclusive use on works contract basis – No commercial value – Tax liability under the Act – HELD - The work executed by the assessee related to printing of materials and such printed materials are meant for particular customers, who placed orders and it cannot be sold in the open market like any other goods - The transaction in question does not call for any liability under the Act - The mere fact that in the execution of the contract for work, the paper owned by the assessee stands transferred to the contractee incidentally would not lead to the inference that the transaction is only a sale and not a works contract – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-120-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s FORDER TECHNIK INDIA PVT LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-I
Central Excise – Installation and erection of heavy storage racks in the premises of various clients for storage of industrial engineering goods – Appellant job worked relevant goods in piecemeal and brought the same from job workers to the site for installation and erection at the premises of its clients - Assembly of different components through welding process, the racks are embedded to earth and becomes heavy storage rack – Whether appellant in manufacturer or not – HELD - There is nothing on record to show that appellant cleared the goods in piecemeal with the intention to cause evasion of duty - It is common sense that a mere standing rack on the earth without being embedded thereto cannot accommodate heavy equipments for the storage in its bins. Such proposition alone calls for holding the goods as immovable property - The appellant although was principal manufacturer of manufactured rack components, that having been embedded to earth upon welding to fulfill contractual obligation and such racks became inseparable without causing damage thereto when detachment is contemplated, that rules out appellant’s liability under Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant was not mere supplier of goods. It had concurrent liability of embedding the supplied goods duly to earth to call the same as heavy storage racks - Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-119-CESTAT-CHE-ST
CCE, COIMBATORE Vs M/s CBAY SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT LTD
Service Tax – Refund - Service provided in Coimbatore - Foreign exchange received in Mumbai – Jurisdiction of Coimbatore division to entertain the refund application – HELD - Conception of the adjudicating authority is erroneous in law because wherever foreign exchange is realized makes no difference to law since that has come to India and that establishes the export of service from India - There is no question of treating the Mumbai unit of the respondent as well as Coimbatore unit to be distinct. Respondent provided service in Coimbatore and taxable event occurred thereat. The authority of Coimbatore has jurisdiction over the issue of refund for which he should rightly entertain the refund application – Appeal allowed
karBill61
The Karnataka Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 2014 - Amendment in Scetion 21
Summary for the month of February: List of updates in the month of February, 2015
Madhya Pradesh Investment Promotion Scheme, 2014 [in Hindi | 1.35Mb]
9th of Mar
2015-VIL-108-ORI
M/s MANISHA ENTERPRISES Vs THE STATE OF ORISSA
Full bench order - Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 – Conflict of opinion in State of Orissa vrs. M/s Sahoo Traders and Tilakraj Mediratta vrs. State of Orissa – HELD - Both the decisions have dealt with different subjects, different texts and different provisions of the Act. The consequence that followed so far as the assessee is concerned in both the cases are different. Contextually also both the cases are different - Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, as contained in Section 5 (2)(A)(a)(i) and Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) and decisions in the case of State of Orissa vrs. M/s Sahoo Traders and Tilakraj Mediratta vrs. State of Orissa, we are of the considered view that there is no conflict of opinion in the decisions rendered by this Court in both the aforesaid cases - The Reference is answered accordingly
2015-VIL-106-KAR-CE
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-I Vs M/s ARACO AUTOMATIVE INDIA PVT LTD
Central Excise – Payment of differential duty – Failure to pay interest thereon – Expression ‘due date’ under Rule 173G(1)(d) – Whether due date in the present case would be the date of supplementary invoice and not clearance of goods – HELD - The Parliament, after taking note of this loophole has amended the law by inserting Section 11AA in the Central Excise Act, where it is provided that the person, who is liable to pay duty shall in addition to the duty be liable to pay interest at the rate specified in Sub-Section (2) where such payment is made voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11AA of the Act. Therefore, this provision is prospective in nature. It has no application to the period prior to 08.04.2011. The period which is the subject matter of this appeal is anterior to the amendment. During the said period, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there was no provision of levying of interest on duty paid after determination of the dispute. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed
2015-VIL-121-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s VOLTAS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III
Central Excise - Penalty u/s 11AC – Payment of duty with interest before issuance of SCN - Adjudicating Authority was required to levy the penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty confirmed instead of to the extent of 100% - HELD - As per the proviso to Section 11AC in case the duty and interest has been paid within 30 days of the adjudication, the penalty is leviable to the extent of 25% only. But instead of following the provisions of the law, both the lower authorities have confirmed the penalty to the extent of 100%, which shows that the order has been passed without application of mind. If both the lower authorities have applied their mind, matter need not have travelled till this Tribunal. Appellant has paid duty along with interest before the issuance of the show-cause notice. Therefore, penalty is restricted to 25% of the duty confirmed – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-122-CESTAT-AHM-ST
M/s GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD Vs COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-I (APPEAL)
Service Tax - Storage and Warehousing Services - Appellant received HCN (Hydro Cynic Acid) from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd through pipe line and partially utilised in their factory for manufacturing of their final product. The balance quantity was supplied to M/s Gujarat Alkali and Chemicals Ltd. The appellant received consideration for supply the HCN from M/s GACL known as ‘incineration charges’ - Show Cause Notices proposing demand of Service Tax alongwith interest and penalty under the category of “Storage and Warehousing Services” – Interest & penalty – Extended period – HELD – We find from the letter dtd 7.11.2011 of the Manager of the appellant-company addressed to the Dy. Commissioner, that on account of situational problem and commercial experience the appellant company are sharing the common expenses incurred for usage of storage tank to store HCN received from M/s RIL and other expenses - ‘Storage and Warehousing Service’ defined under Section 65(102) of Finance Act 1994 means Storage and Warehousing includes storage and Warehousing Services for goods including liquids and gases - It is evident from the definition that the Service Tax is leviable on Storage and Warehousing Service for goods including liquids and gases - It is evident from the appellant’s own letter that the appellants were storing HCN which were supplied to GACL - Appellant collected the consideration known as ‘incineration charges’ from M/s GACL. So, the activities rendered by the appellant would come within the definition of Storage and Warehousing Services and the demand of service tax is sustainable – Extended period - We do not find any material in respect of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax - Appellant is a State Government undertaking and entered into agreement for sharing the common expenses with M/s GACL. There is no gain on the part of the appellant. In our considered view, the demand of tax for the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. Similarly, imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not warranted - The impugned order is modified in so far as the demand of service tax for the extended period and imposition of penalty under Section 78 are set aside – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-107-MAD-ST
SIDDHARTH SURYANARAYAN Vs UNION OF INDIA
Service Tax – Validity of Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 providing for an exemption in respect of services provided by performing artist or folk or classical art forms of music, dance or theatre and as the same benefit is not extended to other performing artistes namely film actors it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch – HELD - The principles of Article 14 of Constitution of India are sought to be applied to claim relief by the writ petitioner, while, in our view, the two categories are clearly different and distinguishable and cannot be treated at parity. The mere fact that there is an element of drama or acting both in case of theatre and in case of films does not mean that the two activities are identical, taking into consideration the circumstances in which films are made and theatre is performed. In fact we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner would perform at the rates at which theatre artistes perform. It is towards the object of Article 229 of the Constitution of India that a salutory endeavour has been made to give support to native art and culture and encourage them as they suffer from financial constraints. This is not the position of films - Petition is completely misconceived and without any merit – Hence, dismissed
GUEST COLUMN
Subsequent reversal of Cenvat credit initially availed but not utilized, tantamount to non-availment of Cenvat credit - Analysis of the judgment of Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of JCT Limited Vs CCE, Jallandhar and Ludhiana and vice-versa 2015-VIL-111-CESTAT-DEL-CE
Budget Speech - Tax Proposal [in Hindi | file size: 547 Kb]
Rajasthan Budget Notification [Attached]
10th of Mar
2015-VIL-110-BOM
VICHARE AND CO. PVT. LTD. Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Maharashtra Value Added Tax – Refund - Grievance of the parties like the Petitioners is that the returns though furnished and submitted have not been scrutinised and verified in terms of the law and the admissible refund is also not granted – HELD - Such Petitions and which we have noted, are filed possibly every week - We only desire that none of such applications as are noted by us and in the Petitions are kept pending by the department/Respondents. If the returns are furnished and submitted, then, they deserve to be scrutinised. If they should be scrutinised expeditiously and early and equally the claims for refund in pursuance thereof, then, the only direction that we issue is that the Respondents process such cases and as expeditiously as possible - In the presence of the Commissioner of Sales Tax as an undertaking given to this Court all the returns and which are subject matter of the Petitions on today's board and equally those pending with the department would be taken up for scrutiny and verification periodically and as far as the Petitioners are concerned, the returns would be processed and the requisite orders would be passed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We accept these statements made by AGP and in the presence of the Commissioner of Sales Tax as an undertaking given to this Court. We expect the Respondents to abide by the same and take requisite steps
2015-VIL-109-ALH
M/s RESIDENCY FOOD & BEVERAGES LTD Vs TRADE TAX TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW
U.P. Trade Tax Act – Request for substitution appellant's name as ‘successor manufacturer’ - Exemption to certain goods - Section 4-A amended by U.P. Act no. 28 of 1991. The word ''manufacturer' defined under section 2(ee) was also amended - Amendment retrospective or prospective - Whether the amend to sub-section (2-B) of Section 4-A by U.P. Act No.11 of 1997 is retrospective or prospective in nature – HELD - Reconstitution of a partnership firm will not mean that the machinery in its possession are old machineries, purchased by the erstwhile firm. Its application for exemption is to be considered on the basis of first sale, irrespective of the person constituting the firm in the eligibility certificate issued under section 4-A - Amendment has to be applied retrospectively, otherwise, the object of amendment will stand defeated. So construed, there is no scope from the conclusion that the revisionist herein will be covered by the phrase "successor manufacturer" and would thus, be entitled to benefit of tax exemption for the remaining period under the eligibility certificate. The questions of law are answered accordingly. The view taken by the Tribunal is illogical, irrational, leading to consequences never intended by the legislation and cannot be accepted - The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The State Level Committee or whoever be the Competent Authority, is directed to issue the eligibility certificate to the revisionist for remaining period, treating it to be successor manufacturer and extend all benefits flowing out of such exemption to the revisionist – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-123-CESTAT-AHM-CE
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-II
CE – Irregular Cenvat Credit availed but not utilised – Credit reversed before issue of the SCN – Imposition of Penalty and interest – HELD - We noticed that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/ Strategic Engineering Pvt Ltd () after considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The credit taken but not utilized till reversal, could not compel the assessee to pay interest. So, the demand of interest on the unutilised cenvat credit cannot be sustained – Penalty – Penalty - It is seen from the record while the input cenvat credit should have been taken only on the duty on the goods as mentioned in the invoice but instead of this, the credit was taken on the full value of the goods. In some cases, credit taken on the basis of Central Excise invoices or bills of entry is more than the amount of Central Excise duty/CVD mentioned in the Central Excise Invoices/bills of entry. Further, cenvat credit has been taken on cenvated capital goods/input some job work under Rule 4 of the cenvat credit rules, which had not sent back within the stipulated period, but still the cenvat credit had not been reversed - We find that the amount Rs 74,00,000/- and Rs 28,00,000/- cannot be treated as a mere erroneous availment of credit. Hence imposition of penalty is warranted. However, considering the facts and circumstance of the case the quantum of penalty should be reduced – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-124-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s U.V. BOARDS LTD Vs CCE, CHENNAI-II
CENVAT credit - input service credit – Admissibility of cost towards guarantee service to provide guarantee by the banker in favour of the appellant – HELD - Availing of the banker’s service in the business world is inevitable. Therefore, banking and financial services provided to the appellant through a guarantor may not be ruled out. Usually when guarantee is provided that has always been supported by a guarantor. It was left open to examine by the authorities below from the banker to ascertain the amount of service tax involved. Without such examination mechanical disallowance of CENVAT credit is unwarranted - Appreciating the need of business to avail bank guarantee, appeal is allowed and stay application is disposed of
2015-VIL-126-CESTAT-KOL-ST
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI Vs M/s THE MAHALAXMI UDYOG
Service Tax – Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - Even though in the two Work Orders, under which the Respondent had rendered services to M/s. BHEL, it was specifically mentioned about the applicability of service tax, the Respondent had not paid the service tax by observing necessary formalities of registration etc. under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder. The plea of the Respondent that they were unaware of the provisions of law, cannot be acceptable in view of the specific mention of the liability of service tax under the Work Orders - In this scenario, the setting aside of the penalty by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without recording reasons and analyzing the facts, is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned Order is set aside - I find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, penalties under Sections 77 and 78 would suffice the present purpose; and therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not warranted. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78, are upheld and the penalty imposed under Section 76, is set aside - The Appellant be given an opportunity to exercise their option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act – Partly allowed – Matter remanded
2015-VIL-125-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s JAI BHARAT MARUTI LTD & M/s HAMMATSU PIPE CO. LTD Vs C.S.T., NEW DELHI
Service Tax - Consulting Engineering Service – Demand under reverse charge mechanism – Transferred of technical know how - HELD - It is evident from the impugned order, the demand on the appellants M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. has been confirmed in terms of the reverse charge mechanism under Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules. It is no longer res-integra that the levy of Service Tax on the recipient of Service under reverse charge mechanism was not legally sustainable prior to 18.4.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act 1994 - It is seen that the period involved in this case is 1998-1999 to 2002-03 and therefore the appellant cannot be required to pay the impugned service tax under the reverse charge mechanism even if the service received by them is held to be classifiable under Consulting Engineering Service – Appeal allowed
mahaCir4T
Maharashtra: Combined Application for New Registration under the MVAT Act, CST Act & The Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Acts
rajBudgetHL2015
Rajasthan Budget Highlights
11th of Mar
2015-VIL-112-MAD
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs BATA INDIA LIMITED
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act – Exclusion of tax component for the purpose of determining the taxable turnover - Assessee collected maximum retail price, inclusive of tax. The assessee showed the price and tax separately in its accounts and claimed deduction of the tax component from the total turnover in accordance with Explanation (1A) to Section 2 (r) of the Act – HELD - By virtue of the said Explanation (1-A) to Section 2 (r), the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exclusion of the tax component from the taxable turnover, if the sale price includes the tax component, but shown separately for the purpose of determining the taxable turnover with reference to books of accounts – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-111-RAJ
POOJA TRADING COMPANY Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Denial of input tax credit - Failure to prove the genuineness of purchase transaction – Burden to prove genuineness of transaction – HELD - Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the stand taken by the petitioner in the reply filed has been rejected by the Assessing Authority without consideration by merely recording its ipse dixit. There is no finding recorded by the Assessing Authority regarding the collected tax being deposited by the selling dealer in respect of the purchase transactions entered into by the petitioner - the involvement of the petitioner in alleged first sale in the series of sales, which is found to be suspicious and bogus, is presumed without there being any justifiable reason available on record. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, without considering the submissions of the petitioner and the material placed on record in their entirety and objectivity, the finding recorded by the Assessing Authority discarding the purchase transactions in question as not genuine, is not sustainable in the eyes of law - The impugned assessment order is set aside - The writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-113-BOM-CE
ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED Vs THE UNION OF INDIA
Central Excise – The Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Valuation - Assessable value of cement cleared captive consumption – Determination of assessable value under Rule 4 or Rule 8 - Maintainability of writ petition challengeing show cause-cum-demand notice – HELD – Once revenue has clarified that irrespective of what has been alleged in the show cause notice and the understanding of the department of the legal position, the Adjudicating Authority will hear the petitioners and at such hearing, allow it to raise all objections, including relying on the circulars of the department, then, we need not express anything with regard to the rival contentions. Suffice it to state revenue fair concession even extends to the petitioners being allowed to argue that the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Limited will not assist the Revenue in any manner. That decision apart, the case of the present petitioners must be considered in the light of the legal provision viz. Rule 8 and the circulars which bind the department. Adjudicating Authority will bear in mind the clear language legal provisions, if any. There is nothing by which the petitioners cannot expect a fair adjudication - Once we have clarified as above and additionally that we express no opinion on the rival contentions, then the writ petition need not be kept pending. It is, accordingly, disposed of
2015-VIL-127-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s KOBAIN ELECTRONICS PVT LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, VAPI
Central Excise - Input Credit - Whether credit on certain capital goods and inputs is admissible to appellant’s Unit-III for the documents where the name of unit No. I & II was mentioned – Allegation capital goods and inputs were not available in the factory – HELD – The copy of such verification report was also not made available to the appellant and appellant did produce copies of RG-23 Part-I & II of the credit taking registers to establish that capital goods and inputs were received in the factory of the appellant. The details of the raw material consumption were also made available by the appellant. It is not coming out of the discussion of the adjudicating authority as to why the records maintained by the appellant are not acceptable. The statutory CENVAT taking records are the only authentic documents to establish that capital goods and inputs were received by the appellant, when manipulation of records or diversion of inputs/ capital goods are not alleged in the show cause notice. Under the above facts and circumstances appellant has brought on record the fact of receipt and utilisation of capital goods and inputs in the factory premises of the appellant. Minor procedural lapses can not be made the basis of denying the CENVAT credit when the name of other units of the appellant in the documents was also condoned. Extended period is also not invokable in this case - In view of the above observations appeal filed by the appellant is allowed
2015-VIL-128-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s KLA INDIA PUBLIC LTD Vs C.C.E. MEERUT-I
ST – Denial of refund claim for being time-barred – Re-submission of claim after rectification of deficiencies – HELD - There is no doubt that the time limit is to be computed with reference to the date on which refund /rebate claim was initially filed and not from the date on which refund/rebate claim was re-submitted after removing defect - In the present case, we have perused the application with assessee had filed on 28.2.2008. In that application they have not even mentioned the amount of refund which they sought to claim - it does not contain the classification of various input (taxable) services in respect of which the refund was claimed - The claim was also not accompanied with any documents showing payment of service tax and other documents as per Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - It is thus evident that what was filed on 28.2.2008 can by no stretch of imagination be called a refund claim (defective or otherwise). In these circumstances it can not be held that the appellants had filed a ‘refund claim’ (even a defective one) on 28.2.2008 and that what they did on 16.6.2008 was to re-file it after removal of defects. Thus it has to be held that the appellants filed the refund claim for the first time only on 16.6.2008 which is clearly beyond the prescribed time limit - No infirmity in the impugned order - The appeal is dismissed
2015-VIL-129-CESTAT-DEL-ST
CCE, ALLAHABAD Vs M/s SANGAM STRUCTURALS LTD
Service Tax - Benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST – HELD – The period involved in the present case is from January 2005 to July 2005. The CBEC circular dated 27.7.2005 which has been heavily relied upon by the primary adjudicating authority, as well as Revenue in their appeal was issued on 27.7.2005 which is almost at the end of the period involved in the present case. Further, it is seen that the condition of notification No. 32/2004 is that the said exemption ‘shall not apply in such cases where credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing such taxable service has been taken under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 or the Goods Transport Agency has availed of the benefit under the notification of the Government of India No. 12/2003-ST’. There is no evidence that any such credit or the benefit of 12/2003-ST had been availed – The conditions prescribed by the CBEC circular dated 27.7.2005 seem to go beyond the requirement of the exemption notification. It is settled law that CBEC circulars cannot restrict or expand the amplitude of an exemption notification nor can they add/subtract conditionalities thereto/there from – Revenue appeal dismissed
rajOrder239
Amendment in Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-2014
rajCir22
Rajasthan: Application for issuance of Awarder Identification Certificate (AIC)
rajCir23
Rajasthan: Regarding levy of electricity duty on consumption of self generated energy by captive power generating plants other than DG sets
hpDraftNoti23
Himachal Praddesh: Draft amendments in SCHEDULE 'A' and SCHEDULE 'D' - Regarding Motor Spirit & ATF
bihNotiSO21
Bihar: Increase in surcharge on Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel Oil from 10% to 20%
Telangana Budget 2015-16: Budget Speech
dndNoti987
Daman & Diu: Designate Indian Overseas Bank as authorized bank for payments of taxes
12th of Mar
2015-VIL-116-JHR
M/s TATA STEEL LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Inter-State sale - Movements of the goods is within the erstwhile State of Bihar - In in absence of any evidence about the transactions by the petitioner within the erstwhile State of Bihar whether the respondent-State can presume it that they were the transactions covered by the words ‘Inter-State Sale’ – Amount of 8% of tax realized by coercive methods - HELD - Dispatches of the goods in question now shall be treated as intra-state sale and there shall be no presumption for those dispatches of the goods for inter-state sale. It appears that the whole disputes have been brought to an end by the good office of the respondent as well as on the petitioner side, otherwise lot of issues have been involved that there is no purchaser of the goods when the goods are moved to stockyard. There is all fairness on the part of the State also that they are now ready to treat these dispatches of goods as intra-state sale instead of inter-state sale - The State may opt either to refund or set off/adjust all the excess amount of tax, towards the liability to pay the tax by this petitioner towards VAT or CST or both – Petition allowed
2015-VIL-114-MAD-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I Vs M/s PETER & MILLER PACKERS
Central Excise - Repacking and despatching of goods for M/s IOCL – Assessee ineligible for SSI exemption as they are repacking products of IOC with the brand name 'SERVO' belonging to IOC – Failure to pay excise duty – suppression of fact - Ignorance of law – Extended period – Revenue appeal against Tribunal order for invoking the larger period – HELD - On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has primarily acted upon the fact that even IOC, which was under Excise Control for generations, was unaware of the relative changes in law and, therefore, the stand of the respondent/assessee, a bulk repacking unit that it had no knowledge of the change of law has to be accepted. In fact, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the ignorance of law as a primary reason and, accordingly, held that demand invoking the larger period could not be sustained - The element of mens rea is one of the components that will be relevant for the purpose of invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In the present case, merely pleading ignorance of law, the assessee cannot wriggle out of the duty liability for the larger period. The Tribunal has been kind enough to remand the matter for de novo adjudication on a claim of Modvat credit and that has been allowed. However, the fact remains that duty liability has to be worked out for the larger period if the ingredients of Section 11A has been made out - In this case, IOC, which is a public sector undertaking and admittedly coming under the Excise Control for generations, as observed by the Tribunal, should have, at the time of supply of bulk goods, informed the assessee that on repacking, duty liability has to be discharged. In this case, correct information was not disclosed to escape payment of duty - The main ground on which the Tribunal granted the relief being ignorance of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said proposition is not acceptable in law. The statement recorded from the persons and the finding of the Commissioner in the earlier and later orders clearly show that it is a case where proviso to Section 11A could be invoked - Penalty imposed under Section 11AC is justified. Since this Court has held that the duty demand and the penalty are justified due to suppression of materials by the assessee, the consequential payment of interest on delayed payment of duty stands attracted automatically and the Revenue is justified in invoking Section 11AB directing payment of interest – Revenue appeal allowed
2015-VIL-130-CESTAT-CHE-CE
M/s 6 NUMBER SCENTED TOBACCO COMPANY Vs CCE, SALEM
Central Excise - Excess stock of branded chewing tobacco - Seizure and imposition of redemption fine – HELD - In absence of any reconciliation statement of the excess goods found, it was not open to the appellant to challenge that mere absence of the partner or the staff shall not bring the appellant to the ambit of adjudication. Therefore, excess branded chewing tobacco found by investigation can be inferred to be unaccounted stock with the object of removal thereof without payment of duty. Appellant’s only plea all along was that mere unaccountal of the stock found does not make the appellant liable to duty or penal consequence. Adjudicating authority had every reason to believe that the appellant’s goods were liable to confiscation and redeemable on payment of redemption fine. Therefore, both seizure and imposition of redemption fine is confirmed - release the goods on payment of redemption fine - The present case being the case of tobacco product which has higher margin in the market, there shall be no interference to the adjudicated fine since the appellant did not come out to show the extent of margin earned in dealing with Tobacco products – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-131-CESTAT-AHM-ST
M/s METRO MOTORS Vs CCE, DAMAN
Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service – Refund of amount deposited during investigation – refund denied on the ground of limitation – HELD - In respect of the deposit made under Section 35F of Central Excise Act 1944, the provisions of Section 11B can never be applicable, since it is not a payment of duty but only pre-deposit for availing the right of appeal - Deposits by the appellant during the course of investigation and as such have to be considered as deposits. The part of the amount so deposited has not been found by the Commissioner to be payable. As such, the appellants are entitled to the excess amount deposits by them. The law on the point that such deposits are not hit by the barred by limitation - Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-115-BOM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I Vs AMBE INTERNATIONAL
Service Tax – Export of service – Rebate claim - Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that no appeal lies to it in respect of rebate claims made under the Finance Act, 1994 – Application of section 35B of the Central Excise Act in instant rebate claim – Maintainability of appeal in Tribunal - HELD - various sub-sections of section 86 would enable the Appellate Tribunal to deal with the Appeal and what the Tribunal has noted in this case is only sub-section (7) of section 86 - The Tribunal has clearly missed and omitted from consideration sub-section (2A) of section 86. In this case, it is the Committee of Commissioners which objected to the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and directed the Central Excise Officer to appeal on its behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against that order. This Appeal was clearly maintainable and should have been entertained and decided on merits. The subject Appeal therefore could not have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction - The Appeal being competent and maintainable, we set aside the impugned order
Andhra Pradesh Budget 2015-16: Budget Speech [Download link | File size: 577 Kb]
triNoti11
Tripura: Amendment in Schedule II - Regarding Medicine & Drugs
apCir92
Andhra Pradesh: Regarding cancellation of e-Way Bills
cbecPR: Press Release - Details of indirect tax revenue (provisional) collections during April-February 2015
PUNJAB NOTIFICATIONS
punNotiSO09: Amendments of Schedules 'B' and 'E' - Amendment in rate of tax on Natural Gas, ATF, Iron & Steel & PVC
punNotiSO10: Rate of Advance tax on Iron & Steel
punNotiGSR4: Increase in number of stages of taxable person upto three in case of Iron & Steel
punNotiSO11: Amendment in Rahat Scheme
13th of Mar
2015-VIL-117-JHR
ACC LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Jharkhand Industrial Policy - Capital Investment Incentive Subsidy to mega units - Incentive Subsidy on the amount paid towards additional incremental sales tax - Exemption from Sales Tax and other incentives for undertaking expansion / diversification / modernization – Installation of LTPA Clinkering Plant at one unit for supply of clinker to another Cement unit – Units falling under different category – HELD – The word "Unit", in the context of Industrial Policy, connotes an industrial project as a whole which undertakes expansion/diversification/ modernization and not merely one part of the project. There is sufficient indication and intrinsic evidence in Policy of 2001 to establish that the industrial project as a whole is considered as a Unit for the benefit of the policy -In this case also, may be ACC was having its two different units for manufacturing of cement one at Chaibasa and other at Sindri, but it was only one industrial project which had sought expansion / diversification / modernization under Policy of 2001 and claimed different incentives - ACC Unit at Sindri falls in category 'A' (Least Backward) whereas Chaibasa Unit falls in category 'C' (Most Backward) but that aspect again cannot be said to be a ground to deny ACC, the Incentive Subsidy on the amount paid as additional incremental sales tax to the Government on the sale of cement by its Sindri Unit falling in category 'A' (Least Backward). Admittedly, this package is not on the sale of the cement outside the State. It is a combined package of various incentives to ACC in terms of its sanction letter No.2318 dated 21.07.2003 - ACC is justified in claiming additional incremental sale tax on the sale of cement produced by it both from Chaibasa and Sindri Units - ACC is entitled to get Incentive Subsidy on the amount paid to the State Government as additional incremental sales tax on the sale of cement produced both by Chaibasa and Sindri Units as one Industrial Project and not by Chaibasa Unit only. On filing of an application by ACC in the prescribed form for Incentive Subsidy on incremental Sales Tax qua both the units, needful shall be done at the end of the State without any delay - Sales Tax Incentive – It cannot be said that the promise to pay incentive on the Sales Tax on the sale of cement from Sindri Unit is against the Industrial Policy as held by learned Single Judge, rather, ACC is within its legitimate right to claim the same on the basis of principle of legitimate expectation. Doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such legitimate expectation. It is well settled that doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded on the principles of reasonableness and fairness – Assessee petition allowed
2015-VIL-134-CESTAT-MUM-CE
M/s PREMIER CONVEYORS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I
Cenvat Credit - Input service – Denial of input credit on the premise that the process of repairing, reconditioning etc. cannot be treated as manufacturing activities - Denial of credit on CHA service on the premise that the service has been availed by the appellant beyond the place of removal – HELD - It is not disputed that the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question have been cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Therefore, the duty paid at the time of clearance amounts to reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs cleared "as such" or the activity of repairing, reconditioning etc. does not amounts to manufacture as per the decision in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises - Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to avail input credit on the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question. Further, in case of export, the place of removal is the port from where the goods have been exported. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to take input service credit on the CHA service. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take credit on input service in question – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-133-CESTAT-AHM-CE
AIMS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN
Central Excise - Valuation – Whether appellant is required to add the value of the valve supplied during repairs & maintenance of the gas cylinders - Appellant is also taking CENVAT Credit of the valves used in the maintenance & repairs – HELD - After perusal of the representative invoices it is not coming out whether VAT is paid on the sale of valves as claimed by the appellant. Even if it is accepted that while providing the services there is sale of valves the same will amount to clearing of inputs as such on which CENVAT Credit is required to be reversed at the time of clearance as per CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. As the factum of payment of VAT/Sales Tax is not coming out of the copies of invoices relied upon by the appellant, the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for such verification. Appellant is required to produce all the records before the adjudicating authority that VAT/Sales Tax is paid on the valves sold to the customers during the course of providing services – Appeal allowed by remand
2015-VIL-132-CESTAT-BLR-ST
WEBEX COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE
Service Tax – Pre-deposit - Classification of service - Telecommunication service or Business Support Service – Appellant provides audio conferencing services, web conferencing services, web based applications, servers and other infrastructural facilities to its customers located both in India and abroad – Facilities procured from foreign vendors for rendering the conferencing services – HELD – Revenue contention that Service providers in this case are not licensed by the Indian Telegraph Authority and therefore the service provided by them is not Telecommunication service. Therefore it has to be classified as Business Support Service. We are unable to accept this concept of classification - We cannot say that just because the foreign service provider has not been licensed by Indian Telegraph Authority and therefore he is not providing Telecommunication Service at all. The correct way of interpretation is to say that he is providing Telecommunication service but the Indian definition of Telecommunication service does not include services provided by services providers who are not licensed by Indian Telegraph Authority. We are unable to accept the theory that the service itself comes under a different category in such a situation. When the definition of Telecommunication service under Section 65(109a) clearly covers the activities undertaken by the appellants and clearly covered by the Telecommunication services, to take a stand that it has to be classified under Business Support Service which does not cover these activities is not correct. In any case a more specific heading which covers the issue is always to be preferred to the one which is general in nature. That being the position, the argument that the service is classifiable under Business Support Service is not acceptable - Appellant has made out a case for complete waiver. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal - Stay granted
apOrder91
Andhra Pradesh: Regarding shifting of checkpost
upNoti292:
Uttar Pradesh: Amendment in Schedule-IV - Regarding Diesel oil & Furnace oil
Kerala Budget: Budget Speech [Download link | File size: 352 Kb]
Bihar Budget: Budget Speech & Budget Highlights [Download link | File size: 207Kb]
Jharkhand Budget: Budget Speech [Download link | File size: 1.42Mb]
Assam Budget: Budget Speech [Download link | File size: 174 Kb]
Karnakata Budget: Budget Speech & Budget Highlights
16th of Mar
2015-VIL-09-SC-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Vs M/s BLUE STAR LTD
Central Excise Act - Clearance to EOUs - Limitation – HELD - The Tribunal has noted that there was in fact a disclosure of the fact in CT(3) certificate which was submitted by the respondent to the Department. It is noted that no clearance could have taken place without the knowledge of the officer as to the ultimate destination of the goods and the fact that they were cleared without payment of duty in terms of the exemption notification which was specified in the application. On that basis, the Tribunal has held that proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of the Act will not get attracted and thus, the show cause notice was beyond the period limitation as specified under Section 11(A)(1) of the Act - Going through the material on record, the Tribunal is justified in taking the aforesaid view - No merit in this appeal - Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-08-SC-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Vs M/s ADDISONS PAINTS & CHEMICALS LTD
Central Excise - Valuation – Place of removal - Cost of carton used as packing material – HELD - The test is whether packing done in order to put the goods in marketable condition and whether the goods are capable of reaching the market without the type of packaging concerned - The value of the carton boxes could not be included for the purpose of calculating the assessed amount - Also under Section 4(a) the value is to be the normal price at which such goods are ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-07-SC-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Vs M/s CLASSIC STRIPS PVT LTD & ANR
Central Excise - Classification of printed trade advertising material – HELD - The process of manufacturing undertaken by the respondent i.e. printing is done by using thermocopied machine and therefore, it would fall under the head 49.01. By no stretch of imagination, such goods can be classified under the head 94.05 as no lamps and lighting fittings or search lights or spotlights are used by the respondent for the purpose of illuminated signs or illuminated name plates and sign boards. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal - On the facts of these cases, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed
2015-VIL-119-P&H
M/s SURBHI ARMOURING INCORPORATION Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Validity of Section 29(7) of the Act - power to amend assessment without opportunity of hearing - Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - principles of natural justice – HELD - Section 29(7) of the PVAT Act nowhere envisages personal hearing to be provided to the dealer before granting of prior permission by the Commissioner. The grant of permission is an administrative function and cannot be termed to be quasi judicial in nature. The prior permission of the Commissioner has been incorporated to safeguard the interest of the dealer so that the designated officer, where he is of the opinion that action is required to be taken, seeks approval of the higher officer of the rank of Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The dealer is provided with an opportunity of hearing at the time when the designated officer after getting approval from the Commissioner proceeds to amend the assessment order. Under the circumstances, the provision in question cannot be termed to be unreasonable, unconstitutional and ultravires - In view of the above, the approval given by the Commissioner and the notices issued by the concerned authority for amending the assessment order cannot be faulted – Petition dismissed
2015-VIL-118-BOM
M/s AUTO INDIA Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX & ORS.
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Denial of benefit of entry J-8 in the context of assessment for the period 1995-96 on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the condition of filing returns as contemplated under entry J-8 which has been introduced on 6.3.1996 with retrospective effect i.e. subsequent to the assessment period – HELD - If that Entry has come into force as in the case of the present dealer at a later date, but is given effect to from the prior date, then, compliances with certain conditions can be made later on. If one is concerned with only condition No.VI then, we have already indicated as to how in several orders of the Tribunal itself, this condition is considered and held to be capable of substantial compliance. In the present case on the admitted facts, the Tribunal found that the condition is capable of substantial compliance. The later observations of the Tribunal with regard to the alleged delay need not detain us. If the provisions are read in their proper perspective and in the above background, then, the conditions in this Entry and particularly condition No. VI can be held to be capable of substantial compliance. If that is how the Tribunal as also we conclude, then the question of law referred for the opinion of this Court will have to be answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. It is answered accordingly – We are pained and anguished to note that despite the Revenue not taking an extreme position and stand and rather agreeing to the interpretation of this condition still the Tribunal found it fit to refer the above reproduced question for opinion of this Court by terming it as a question of law. It could have answered that issue on the basis of its own orders – Answered in favour of assessee
2015-VIL-135-CESTAT-DEL-ST
M/s KEHEMS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD Vs C.C.E. INDORE
Service Tax - Franchise Service – Right to use know-how – HELD - During the relevant period, to satisfy the definition of ‘franchise’ all the four limbs of the definition of franchise had to be satisfied. In the present case, neither in the show cause notice nor in the Primary Order or the impugned order, it has been brought out as to whether there was any grant of representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol as the case may be. Thus this limb of the definition is clearly not satisfied. There is also nothing on record to show that the last limb of the definition is satisfied in the present case – The impugned order not sustainable and therefore allow the appeal
2015-VIL-136-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I Vs GLOBAL MARKETS CENTRE PVT LTD
Service Tax – Export of service - Refund under Notification No. 5/2006 CE(NT) - Denial of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services – Formula for refund - HELD – We feel it’s not necessary to go into the admissibility of any particular services since in our opinion as already stated the Commissioner has shown the use of every input service in providing the output services - Maximum refund - Cenvat credit on inadmissible input services must obviously be deducted, but in the present case all the input services are used for providing output services. Therefore this objection has no relevance. The second amount which is sought to be deducted is the input credit on account of domestic service tax liability. We find no logic in deducting this amount. The formula does not allow for such deduction and by its very nature, the formula has already factored this amount in the manner it has been formulated. If Revenue's contention is accepted, the word "Total" in the formula would become irrelevant. Therefore, the grounds of appeal relating to this order-in-appeal are rejected and the impugned order-in-appeal is upheld – Sanction of refund - We note from the records as shown to us by both sides and as agreed by the Ld. Counsel, in this case certain records namely Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account had not been submitted to the adjudicating authority. We are not very clear as to what the adjudicating authority wants to examine from these Accounts but, at the same time, in our view these accounts could indicate the export turnover of services which the adjudicating authority may have liked to correlate with the Service Tax returns where such turnover figures ought to have been given - Matter remanded – Appeal partly allowed
FCP1303
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
17th of Mar
2015-VIL-11-SC
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, HYDERABAD Vs M/s DESAI BEEDI COMPANY
Supreme Court: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Section 3 - Inter-State sales - transactions effected by Branch office - The assessee had purchased `Beedi' leaves by participating in the auction conducted by the Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh (for short, "the seller"). After the purchase, the assessee had dispatched the said `Beedi' leaves to the head office in the State of Maharashtra – Claim of exemption by the branch office on the ground that the transaction is in the nature of inter-State sale – Denial of exemption – HELD - The events of sale of goods by the seller and the movement of goods from the State of Andhra Pradesh to another State are not inextricably connected and independent of each other. There is no incident of direct sale between the seller and the head office of the respondent in the State of Maharashtra. It is the branch office that purchases the goods and receives them subsequent to payment made by it to the seller and thereafter, transfers it to the head office of the respondent-Company in the State of Maharashtra. The incidence of sale is complete once the purchaser, that is, the branch office renders the payment for the goods. Once the sale transaction concludes in the State of Andhra Pradesh only, the mere transport of goods from branch office in Andhra Pradesh to the head office in Maharashtra would not result in an inter-State sale - Therefore, the sale or purchase of the `Beedi' leaves in the present case do not occasion the movement of the goods outside the State in order to qualify as an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST ACT and therefore, is exigible to tax under the Act - Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside – Revenue appeal is allowed
2015-VIL-120-BOM-CE
RAYMOND LIMITED Vs THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NASHIK
Central Excise - Cross utilisation or cross availment of credit - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the credit of Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Articles) paid on the inputs was always allowed to be utilised for payment of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles and Textiles Articles) and for no other purpose – HELD - Credit of specified duties allowed in respect of inputs insofar as it relates to the additional duty of excise in terms of the 1978 Act shall be utilised only towards payment of duty of excise leviable under 1978 Act on the final products or as the case may be on the inputs. Similar is the position with regard to the 1957 Act. We do not find that at any stage the manner in which the Appellants wished to avail of these credits on inputs was ever permitted. That is the position and which is prevailing for further periods and though reliance is placed on some of the Notifications all that these Notifications clarify is that even if the inputs have not been actually used in the manufacturing of such final products but if the inputs have been used and received in the factory of production on or after 1st March, 1997, the credit can be availed. This is the position even with regard to the further Notifications and which are to be found in the Central Excise Manual of 1997-98 from page 27 of the compilation. Thereafter, even the Notification dated 28th February, 1999 does not alter this position. All that the Cenvat Credit Rules or the Central Excise Rules prevalent clarify is that credit of specified duty insofar as it relates to duty paid under the 1957 and 1978 Acts can be availed of and subject to the restrictions. The position remains the same even under the Notifications subsequently issued. We do not see how this position is altered just by non-reference or even deletion of paras 2(a) and (b) of the Notification No. 21/99-CE(NT) dated 28th February, 1999 - The words “any duty of excise on any final products” cannot be read in such a manner as to enable cross utilisation. This sub-rule does not support the argument that in payment of additional duties under the 1957 Act, the credit thereof can be obtained so as to enable payment of duty of excise specified under the 1978 Act – All throughout it has been clarified by the legislature that availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 shall be utilised only towards duty of excise leviable under the said Acts. That means the respective Acts - Therefore, it is not as if the word “respectively” having been inserted that the position prevailing prior to the said insertion or introduction was not the same but different and distinct - We have elaborated on this aspect in the foregoing paragraphs and by pointing out that right from inception any cross utilisation was impermissible. The word “respectively” being inserted or introduced thus does not make any difference – Imposition of penalty - There is no justification for imposition of the penalties. Merely because the orders have been challenged and right up to this Court does not mean penalties were imposable. The Penalties on the Appellant in each of these Appeals are therefore set aside - Appeals fail on merit
2015-VIL-10-SC-CE
M/s SANJAY INDL CORPN Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
Central Excise – Manufacture - Demand - cutting larger steel plates into smaller size and shapes as required by the customers – HELD - Even as per the Department, there were certain doubts relating to excisability of the process of profile cutting. In view thereof, if the appellant also had nurtured this belief that the process carried out by him does not amount to manufacture and did not pay the excise duty, we can safely infer that this conduct of the appellant was a bona fide conduct and cannot be treated as contumacious or willful suppression. Thus, on the facts of this case, proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act would not be attracted. The imposition of penalty upon the appellant is unwarranted - Duty confirmed & Penalty set aside - Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-137-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s BAIN CAPITAL ADVISORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I
Service Tax - Export of Service - Denial of refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit accumulated in their Cenvat Credit account under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 on account of the fact that services rendered by the appellant do not qualify under Rule 3 (1) (iii) read with Rule 3(1) (ii) of the Export of Service Rules 2005 and for the period April 2010 to March 2011 – HELD - Cenvat Credit during the period April 2010 to March 2011 has been denied for want of invoices which have been verified by us and found to be proper. Therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled for the said Cenvat Credit. We further find as contended by the Ld. AR that the adjudicating authority has not considered the issue that input service on which the Cenvat Credit has been availed by the appellant do qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, for the limited purpose we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact whether the input services on which Cenvat Credit has availed by the appellant do qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit 2004, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement - The adjudicating authority shall examine the documents to ascertain the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit on input services - Matter remanded
Guest Column
Union Budget 2015-16: Post Budget Memorandum - Key concerns on Union Budget 2015
Uttarakhand Budget: Budget Speech & Budget Highlights [Download link]
FCP1603
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
18th of Mar
2015-VIL-121-RAJ-LB
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs M/s INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
Larger Bench - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 – Penalty under Section 78 – Incorrect or incomplete declaration form – requirement of mens rea - HELD - The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty, in terms of Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 - The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section(2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994 - The amendment to Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. D.P. Metals authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78(2), and not to adjudicate as to whether the mens rea was present in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78, for imposing penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994 - The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section(2) of Section 78 of the Act
2015-VIL-122-MAD
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs Tvl. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Expression ‘does not sell the goods so manufactured’ occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 3 as including not only intra state but also export sale - Assessee had purchased raw materials against Form XVII declarations and used the same in the manufacture of chemicals and made export sales in addition to domestic sales - Assessing Officer arrived at the proportionate value of purchases made against Form XVII which were used in the manufacture of chemicals exported and assessed the same at 1% under Section 3(4) of the – HELD - No tax can be collected without the authority of law - Export is also a sale as contemplated in the first part of Section 3(4) of the Act and hence could not be assessed to tax under Section 3(4) of the TNGST Act, 1959 – No question of law arise - Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-123-KAR-CE
Central Excise Act, 1944 - Irregular availment of Cenvat credit – Reversed without utilisation - Penalty under Section 11AC - HELD - To attract levy of penalty as per the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act the revenue has to prove that the assessee has availed the Cenvat credit wrongly by reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, which is not forthcoming in the present case - In view of the same, the issue involved in this appeal is mainly related to the facts of the case and the Revenue having failed to establish the case of imposing penalty under Section 11AC, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and in the circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
2015-VIL-138-CESTAT-KOL-CE
Central Excise - Whether the nearest time, in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, could be the time subsequent to the time & date of clearance/removal of the goods under assessment from the factory to depots – HELD - issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of S.C.Enviro Agro India Pvt Ltd case - Under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the value of the goods under assessment shall be the transaction value of the goods sold from the depot at the time nearest to the time of removal – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-139-CESTAT-CHE-ST
M/s THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY
Service Tax - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Contractor provided the services in the premises of Thermal Power Station and the Operation and Maintenance service were rendered to the Thermal Power Station for collecting Dry Fly Ash, which has no relation to the manufacturing activity of cement – HELD - Prime facie, it is not clear whether the Fly Ash Handling System installed in the Thermal Power Station is the applicant's property - In view of that, we direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 - Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of the balance amount of tax along with interest and penalty is waived and stay recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal. - Partial stay granted
2015-VIL-124-JHR-ST
M/s EXMAN SECURITY SERVICES PVT LTD Vs THE UNION OF INDIA
Service Tax – Section 87 - Demand without adjudication – Disputed amount – HELD - It ought to be kept in mind by tax imposing and levying authority that a small error committed by the assessee in writing in letter cannot be encashed by the mighty State specially when the assessee is handicapped because during the raid several registers, which is having details of the accounts, have been seized - Tax imposing and levying authority should prove the liability of the assessee to make the payment of the tax. This authority should rely upon the proof of the liability to pay the tax rather than the admission being made by the assessee, hurriedly - Letter written by the assessee, hurriedly, after the raid is carried out at his premises, in absence of documents is not shifting, the burden of proof - If this mistaken calculation, is corrected by him, later on that does not give power to the respondents-authorities to straightway issue notice under Section 87 of the Act, 1994 – Writ petition allowed
Maharashtra: Economic Survey 2014-15 [Download link | Files size 1.95Mb]
Maharashtra Budget: Budget Speech & Budget Highlights [Download link]
Haryana Budget: Economic Survey 2014-15 and Budget Speech [Download link]
19th of Mar
2015-VIL-12-SC
M/s M P AGENCIES Vs STATE OF KERALA
Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Classification of "Ujala Supreme" and "Ujala Stiff and Shine" – HSN Code – Application of decisions under the Excise Act in Sate Act – HELD - It is pertinent to state here that the question of manufacture is not relevant for the purposes of 2003 Act. What is really relevant is the classification based upon the HSN number. The decisions rendered by the CESTAT have decided on the classification which is founded upon the HSN number. It has been laid down that after devolution with water the goods continue to remain classified under the same HSN number. This means that the goods remain in list "A" of the Third Schedule. It may be noted that the position would have been totally different had the goods in question been separately and specifically itemized in SRO number 82/ 2006 dated 21st January 2006. The goods which are specifically mentioned in any of the entries of the said SRO, would be chargeable to tax @ 12.5%. But that is not the lis here, for the Revenue has included the goods in the residuary Entry 103 and the said entry, by no stretch of reasoning, can be made applicable - The High Court, we are disposed to think, has missed the issue in entirety and, therefore, we are obliged to dislodge the impugned judgment and orders. However, if any assessee-appellant has paid the amount of VAT to the State Government, they will not be entitled to get any refund of the said amount - Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and orders are set aside with the stipulation that none of the assessee-appellant would be entitled to refund – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-126-P&H
HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Failure on part of State to constitute VAT Tribunal – HELD - The respondents shall not invoke the bank guarantee without the leave of the Court. No further coercive action shall also be taken without the leave of the Court
2015-VIL-125-BOM-CE
CEAT LIMITED Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III
Central Excise - Whether the Tribunal justified in passing a detailed order at the stage of considering a stay application filed by the assessee and virtually concluding the issue and whether the Tribunal applying the test that prima facie an arguable case something which merits attention of the Tribunal and not a case which will ultimately succeed – HELD - The Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant has not made out any prima facie case extensively dealt with the arguments as if it is called upon to decide the Appeal finally. That it was not called upon by the parties to do so nor was it expected of the Tribunal at the interlocutory or interim stage. All these observations and the entire attempt, is unsustainable in law - In order to find out whether there is an arguable or prima facie case all that the Tribunal was called upon to consider is whether there is any point or issue which is bonafide raised and which requires an answer. If, the provisions of the Act, Cenvat Credit Rules, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court were pressed into service, by the Tribunal at an interlocutory stage, then, definitely there was something arguable and in favour of the assessee. We do not then see how a very unreasonable and arbitrary condition of pre-deposit of the entire duty demand could have been imposed on the Appellant. That has completely taken away the right of the Appeal guaranteed to the Appellant assessee - The power to grant a stay or waiver of the condition of pre-deposit is discretionary. The discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The Tribunal should not act as per its whims and fancies, but apply settled principles of law even at the interlocutory stage - While we allow the Appeal, we take due note of the arguments of Revenue that this was not a case of complete waiver but a partial one. Considering that the duty demanded was for the period 16th March, 1995 to 2nd June, 1998, and it is being confirmed, after all attempts to evade payment that we should not allow the assessee to get away, but direct him to deposit at least a substantial sum. In the given facts and circumstances it is not the assessee who should be blamed. If a show cause notice dated 27th September, 2007 was adjudicated by a final order passed on 1st November, 2013, then, the period spent in such adjudication, or the delay which has occasioned or occurred, is not solely attributable to the assessee. That the assessee has a right to challenge the order of adjudication, cannot be held against it – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-141-CESTAT-CHE-CE
CCE, PUDUCHERRY Vs M/s THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD
Central Excise - Abatement of Trade discount – HELD - In view of aforesaid factual matrix, it is not necessary to dilate the issue further except ordering that Revenue appeal is dismissed in view of reaching of trade discount issue to finality by Tribunal. We order accordingly - Cryptic order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) - in the present case and innumerable difficulties we faced to trace different past orders with the issues involved therein, before parting with this order, we may state that an order of an appellate authority to meet judicial scrutiny should be in clear terms, stating what is the matter in controversy before him, the points for his decision, the facts in issue, evidence tested, law applicable and reasons for the decision as well as his decision thereon. This is mandate of section 35(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and similar provision enacted in Customs Act, 1962. Any deviation to such process, makes an order cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-140-CESTAT-MUM-ST
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I Vs M/s RELIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD
Service Tax - CENVAT credit – Canteen facility to employees of a smaller organization having less than 250 workers – HELD - It shows that the legislation appreciates the need of canteen service for the workers at the place of work. Only to avoid the hardship for an essential need, the legislation have provided, that atleast in factories having employees more than 250, should provide, that does not mean that the service was not required for any industrial service or organization having less than 250 workers. Even the employees of a smaller organization having less than 250 workers will also be hungry and required to be provided with canteen facility for the employees. Therefore, I hold that the ruling in the case of IFB Factories Ltd. (supra) per incuriam, as the provisions of Factories Act, have been wrongly interpreted, with respect to the provisions of input service. In view of my findings, I hold that the Respondent-assessee is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of outdoor catering service and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
2015-VIL-142-CESTAT-DEL-ST
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD Vs C.C.E. & S.T., RAIPUR
Service Tax – Classification of service – Abatement of free supply – HELD - As regards the contention that as the service was rendered under a work contract, the same is not liable to service tax prior to 01.06.2007 when works contract service [section 65(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994] was introduced, it is to state that the classification of service is to be determined as per the definitions of various taxable services prevalent during the relevant period and merely because the classification changes with the introduction of a taxable service under which an existing service gets more specifically covered in no way means that the said service was not necessarily taxable during the period prior thereto - Denial of 67% abatement - By the adjudicating authority on the ground that value of free supplies was not included in the gross amount charged is no longer sustainable in the light of the CESTAT Larger Bench judgment in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication
punNotiSO8
Punjab: Amendment in PVAT Schedule A
Punjab Budget 2015-16: Budget Speech
20th of Mar
2015-VIL-129-GAU
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM
Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 – Can an internal letter of an Assessing Officer to the Commissioner seeking clarification on exigibility of a good to taxation or on the rate of tax be construed as a reference for computing limitation under the Act – HELD - Internal request made by the Assessing Officer to the Commissioner for clarification in the absence of any statutory backing cannot be construed to be a “reference” in law. The power to make a reference must be traced to a valid source of law which is not available in the AGST Act. Section 19(3) or section 73A of the AGST Act cannot be construed to be provisions providing for a “reference” - The limitation period prescribed for completion of assessment or re-assessment is for a definite purpose. An assessee cannot be subjected to assessment or re-assessment proceeding for an indefinite period. If the contention of the respondents, as advanced, is accepted, it would lead to a situation where an Assessing Officer would have the liberty to seek clarification from the Commissioner in the garb of reference thereby extending the limitation for framing assessment for an indefinite period and the Commissioner can also without any limitation of time provide the clarification whereafter the extended limitation of 2 years would commence from the end of the year in which the clarification is received by the Assessing Officer. This will certainly lead to an absurd situation and confer unfettered limitation on the Assessing Officers while framing assessment or re-assessment - Impugned notices are clearly unsustainable being beyond the period of limitation – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-127-MAD
L&T VALVES LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act – Section 39(A) - Taxability of Export Sales – Refund the tax paid under protest pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench in Tube Investment of India (2010-VIL-62-MAD) – HELD - Reading of Section 39(A) makes it clear that pending the exercise of the powers of appeal, revision or review, the appropriate appellate authority or revising or reviewing authority may on application made by the assessing authority, stay the refund to the assessee of any amount overpaid in pursuance of the order. The provision mentioned by the respondent applies only after the matter has gone out of the department. Once the matter has taken up, unless and otherwise there is an order enabling the respondent not to refund the amount, the respondent will have to refund the amount. Rule 32(2) referred to by the petitioner has been framed pursuant to the rule making power under Section 53 of the Act. Hence, the contention of the revenue that there is no provision for refund of amount and more particularly, there is no time limit mentioned in the Section, cannot be accepted. Pursuant to Rule 32(2) of the Act, which has got a legal sanctity, entire amount due to the petitioner, will have to be refunded - respondent to pay the amount lying with them together with interest, as contemplated under Rule 32(2) of the Act - Petitions are allowed
2015-VIL-128-BOM-CE
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs M/s HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
Central Excise - Penalty under Rule 173Q – Non-payment/Short-payment of duty due to industrial unrest – Duty paid before issue of SCN - HELD - The veracity of explanation for delayed payment of duty has not been disputed by the Revenue - There does not appear to be an element of deliberation or for that matter intentional delayed payment of duty - The delay is attributable to disturbance in industrial relation. In the prevailing situation that the balance in PLA accounts could not be maintained covering the duty liability. This is not alleged to be intentional or deliberate - It is to be further taken into account that the duty payment had been made even before the issuance of show cause notice, which, to a large extent, goes to show that the aberration had occurred unintentionally and further that on realisation, there had been immediate action by making payment of duty - Assessee cannot be held liable for penalty under Rule 173Q - Appeal stands dismissed
2015-VIL-144-CESTAT-DEL-CE
M/s VEECON IPA GASTEENIK LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II
Central Excise - Appellant cleared their goods to units in SEZ and paid the duty inadvertently - suo moto credit of duty paid – HELD - Considering the fact that in this case the appellant have taken the suo moto credit with intimation to the department on 26.11.08. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued on 30.8.12 is barred by limitation as show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief
2015-VIL-145-CESTAT-CHE-ST
WIPRO LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY
Service Tax - Information Technology, Software Services - whether non-payment of service tax on the importation of service which was later returned as defective to the foreign service provider is correct and permissible under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder – HELD - Since the purchase and cancellation entries were made within the time limit for making payment, the assessee was not liable to make any payments against these defective softwares and the claim of the assessee in this regard is acceptable - demand of tax is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of demand of tax along with interest and penalty – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-143-CESTAT-DEL-ST
CCE, PANCHKULA Vs DULI CHAND NARENDER KUMAR EXPORTS PVT LTD
Service Tax - Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand subsequent to amendment in section 35A(3) – HELD - Under section 85(4) the language is used in wider context, it does not restrict the type of order which the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass. Rather it states that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such order as he thinks fit. This scope of remand is included in the provision of laid down in the section 85(4) - Therefore, the appellate authority has the power to remand a matter to the lower authority – Appeal dismissed
rajNoti240
Rajasthan: Voluntary Amnesty Scheme For Entry Tax, 2015
apCir356
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act, 2005 –Section 4(7)(d) and Rule 17(4) -Builders of Residential Apartments, houses, buildings, Commercial Complexes - Unregistered Builders to be Registered
apCir45
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act & CST Act – Transporter registration and declarations to be filed at Border Check posts - eWay bills for Interstate movement -Certain clarifications
Himachal Pradesh 2015-16: Budget Speech
FCP1903
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
22nd of Mar
2015-VIL-147-CESTAT-DEL-ST-LB
M/s LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD & M/s KEHEMS ENGG PVT LTD Vs CST, DELHI / CCE&ST, INDORE / CCE, RAJKOT
Service Tax – Larger (Special) Bench reference pertaining to works contract - Classification of taxable services i.e., whether components of a composite transaction amounting to supply of labour/rendition of service(s), under a works contract ought to be classified only under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) - inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f 01-06-2007; or are also comprehended within the ambit of existing (as on 01-06-2007) taxable services such as Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS); Construction of Complex Service(COCS); or Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) - interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act. CICS; COCS & ECIS are distinct, extant services defined and enumerated to be taxable services, prior to introduction of Works Contract Service (WCS) – Determination of Value Rules, 2006 - HELD - The President and the learned Member (Judicial) Ms. Archana Wadhwa concluded that a composite contract, involving transfer of property in goods and rendition of services, cannot be vivisected and services components thereof subject to the levy of service tax, on classification of the services under taxable services such as “Commercial or Industrial Construction”; “Construction of Complex” or “Erection, Commissioning or Installation” prior to 01.06.2007; and that service components in a works contract are taxable only under Works Contract Service defined and enumerated in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Hon’ble Members (Technical), Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sh. P.R. Chandrasekharan and Sh. R. K. Singh (by distinct concurring orders), concluded to the contrary, that service elements in a composite contract could be subject to service tax prior to 01.06.2007 as well, if these are appropriately classifiable under “Commercial or Industrial Construction”; Construction of Complex” or “Erection, Commissioning or Installation”, as the case may be - In view of the majority opinions recorded, the reference is answered as: Service elements in a composite (works) contract (involving transfer of property in goods and rendition of services), where such services are classifiable under “Commercial or Industrial Construction”; “Construction of Complex” or “Erection, Commissioning or Installation” (as defined), are subject to levy of service tax even prior to (01.07.2007) insertion of sub-clause (zzzza) in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994
23rd of Mar
Video Seminar on GST [PART - I]
Goods and Services Tax (GST) - Need and Necessity - Please click video link http://www.vatinfoline.com/showiframe.php?page=video
2015-VIL-132-BOM
SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Local Body Tax – Octroi - Whether the Sodexo Meal Vouchers are goods for the purposes of levy of Octroi and LBT & Whether a Municipal Corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is entitled to levy and/or collect Octroi or Local Body Tax (LBT) on Sodexo Meal Vouchers in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder – HELD – The printed vouchers are sold to the customers for the value which is printed on the said vouchers. In turn, the customers hand over them to a user who uses the same for acquiring food and beverages. Even going by the scheme of the Petitioner, the said vouchers are sold by the Petitioner to its customers. Therefore, the said vouchers which are printed on paper are the goods within the meaning of the said Municipal Corporations Act. After the vouchers are brought within the limits of the Municipal Corporations Act, the same are capable of being sold. The said vouchers which are capable of being sold, delivered and possessed have its own utility - The stand taken by the Pune Municipal Corporation is that the said vouchers will fall in the category of printed material which attracts Octroi of 2% in terms of the Octroi Rules. For the reasons recorded above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view that the said vouchers are not the goods for the purposes of levy of LBT and Octroi. The same are the goods which are capable of being used, consumed or sold within the Municipal Corporation limits. Therefore, the challenge in these Petitions by the Petitioner must fail - The Writ Petitions are rejected
2015-VIL-131-BOM
M/s OM AGENCIES Vs THE ASSISTANT SALES TAX (VAT-ADM), WARDHA
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Refund claim – The petitioner grievance is, as assessment for the period from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2008 is not being finalized, the exact amount to be returned to the petitioners has still not been crystallized and, therefore, cannot be technically used to claim set off against later demand - Benefit of provisions governing set off contained in Section 48(6) of the – HELD - The provisions of Section 48 deals with set off, refund etc. Section 49 is on refund of tax on declared goods sold in the course of interstate trade or commerce and, therefore, not relevant here. Section 50 deals with refund of excess payment. Subsection (2) thereof enables dealer to adjust such refund against the amount due as per any return for any period contained in the said year. However, it is not necessary for us to consider the question of refund of excess payment in present facts. Subsection (6) of Section 48 states that where any dealer becomes entitled to refund after the appointed date, whether under any earlier law or under this Act, i.e. under 2002 Act mentioned supra, then such refund must be first applied against the amount payable under any earlier law or 2002 Act. If any balance amount is left, that amount can only be refunded to dealer. Thus, Section 48(6) of the 2002 Act casts obligation upon the respondents to appropriate the excess amount paid by the dealer in any previous year towards its demand in subsequent year. This obligation imposed by Section 48(6) is being violated in present matters - This conduct defeats legislative intent behind incorporating Section 48(6) in statute and denies advantage of a beneficial provision meant for assessee to it - The amount found refundable to the petitioners shall then be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Section 48(6) noted supra. The consequences of such appropriation can be examined in appeals which are preferred by the petitioners challenging subsequent levy of tax, interest and penalty for the year 2008-09 – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-130-P&H-CE
M/s P.P. OXIDE Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FARIDABAD
Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – Bogus invoice – suppression of fact - Whether demand can be created on the basis of statement of third party who has not been allowed for cross examination – Penalty - HELD - Adjudicating Authority had disallowed the credit and imposed penalty against the appellant only by drawing inferences and placing reliance on inadmissible and inadequate evidence - Matter could be disposed of by remitting the case to the CESTAT to consider the plea of the appellant that the appellant had made the payment of invoice price by cheque and thereafter it had manufactured finished goods and paid duty thereof, as also the demand of duty on goods by taking into account the evidence if any to be produced by the appellant - Appeal is allowed – The impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted for fresh adjudication
2015-VIL-146-CESTAT-DEL-CE
CAIRN INDIA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR-II
Central Excise - Levy of cess - Whether education cess and secondary and higher education cess is leviable on the oil cess collected in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Oil Industries Development Act, 1974 – HELD - In terms of the provisions of Section 91 read with Section 93 of the Finance Act, 2004 and Section 136 read with Section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007, for the purpose of charging education cess and secondary and higher education cess, the excise duty would include only those cess levied as duty of excise, which are levied by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Since the oil cess is levied by the Ministry of Petroleum, even though it is collected by the Ministry of Finance as excise duty, the same cannot be included in the duty of excise for the purpose of education cess - The impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-148-CESTAT-AHM-CE
M/s PERSONNA COSMETICS & SHRI HAKIM THANAWALA Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., VAPI
Central Excise - demand of duty on shortage of finished goods was confirmed on the basis of the statement of person claiming to be Director of the firm – HELD - It is strange that the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the assessee and conducted stock verification and recorded the statement without verifying the identity of a person. In the present case, it is the responsibility of the Revenue to identify the person while recording the statement. It is seen that no statement of any employee of the appellant firm was recorded - Demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the Appellant No.1 cannot be sustained. But, the Appellant No. 2 had given a misleading statement to the Central Excise officers and therefore, penalty is warranted – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-149-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
Service Tax - Business Support Service - CENVAT Credit on capital goods - Appellant received inputs such as structural steel – Passive Telecom Infrastructure - HELD - There is no denying the fact that the resultant output service provided by them is 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' i.e. Business Support Service. Therefore, there is direct nexus of the output services and the credit taken on the goods procured such as steel, racks, bolts etc. which are excisable and were cleared under Central Excise invoices showing payment of Central Excise duty. The payment of Central Excise duty on these goods and their assessment has not been questioned at the end of the supplier. Without use of these duty paid towers/parts as inputs, the Business Support Service in the firm of Passive Telecom Infrastructure could not have been provided. The appellant availed credit under Rule 3(1)(i) which allows Cenvat credit on any inputs or capital goods received by the provider of output service. The appellant received inputs such as structural steel for providing 'Passive Telecom Infrastructure' - Merely because the tower parts etc. are assembled together, it would be totally unreasonable to suggest that Cenvat Credit on them is not admissible despite Rule 2(k)(ii). This Rule has to be interpreted as it stands - Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit. In turn, the question of penalties does not arise- Impugned order is set aside – Assessee appeal allowed
hpNoti28
Himachal Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act, 2010 - Amendment in Schedule-II
apCir29
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act, 2005 –VAT Returns –Input Tax Credit eligible to claim in the Returns-Sub-Rules 4 to 12 of Rule 20- March Returns to be filed along with VAT 200B or 200F
apCir357
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act, 2005 – Section 47 - State to state movement and Transit Pass system –Not surrendering Transit Passes at Exit CPs within Five days from the date of Entry- Blocking of Vehicles
24th of Mar
2015-VIL-135-ORI
M/s BALAJI TOBACCO STORE Vs THE SALES TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK-I
Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Audit assessment - whether the Taxing authority has jurisdiction to make audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act after completion of the assessment under Section 43 of the said Act for the self-same tax period – HELD - Section 43 cannot be read into Section 42 by the State when the Legislature in its wisdom excluded Section 43 from the provisions of Section 42 of the OVAT Act. Consequentially, no assessment under Section 42 can be made after completion of the assessment under Section 43 for the self-same tax period - in case of an assessee, if the Revenue authorities decide not to exercise the power conferred under Section 41(2) of the OVAT Act read with Rule 41(2) of the OVAT Rules to make audit assessment for particular tax period and choose to proceed to complete the assessment under Section 43 of the OAVT Act, it is thereafter not permissible to assess the petitioner under Section 42 of the OVAT Act - audit assessment under Section 42 cannot be made after completion of the assessment of escaped turnover under Section 43 of the OVAT Act read with Rule 50 of the OVAT Rules for the self-same tax period(s) – Writ petition allowed
2015-VIL-150-CESTAT-MUM-CE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD
Central Excise – Majority Order - Valuation – Place of removal – Demand of differential duty on the ground appellant had collected additional amounts from the buyers which were shown in the invoices as ‘other charges’, over and above the selling price towards handling, transportation or facilitation. On such additional amounts recovered, the appellant had not discharged any excise duty liability – Interest – Penalty - HELD - In respect of goods sold and delivered at ONGC, Nhava Depot, the said place should be taken as the 'place of removal' and the cost of transportation from the refineries to the 'place of removal' should be included for determination of assessable value – Additional amount collected from customers were meant to recover the additional cost that the appellant was incurring in transporting the goods from warehouse to depot, storing the goods in the depot and for the investment made in the storage tanks and pipelines upto the jetties - Such charges are includible in Transaction value as ONGC, Nhava Depot is the place of removal – Limitation - The fact that the appellant was collecting extra amount in the invoices issued from the depot was clearly suppressed from the Revenue and this is a very important aspect. Since there was suppression of the actual sale price from the Revenue, the ingredients of proviso to Section 11A are satisfied and, therefore, extended period of time is invokable. Similarly, penalty under Section 11AC is also leviable as there is a clear cut suppression of facts which are very material in determining the assessable value - Assessee appeal dismissed by Majority
2015-VIL-134-DEL-CE
MAHALAKSHMI CABLE INDUSTRIES Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Central Excise – Section 11B - Refund of amount paid under protest – Limitation - Appellant had paid excise duty during the period between 22.2.1999 and 28.8.1999. The amounts were deposited towards excise duty payable. The adjudication order for the relevant period was made on 23.6.2004 pursuant to a show cause notice. Thereafter, the assessee-appellant applied for refund of the amount deposited - It was contended that the amounts had been paid under protest and under directions of the audit party – HELD - The assessee/appellant’s contention is that the amount deposited in February and August, 1999 were really by way of protest since they were pursuant to a demand and under the directions of the excise authorities. As to whether this was really so in the facts of the case was in fact determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The occasion for the Commissioner (Appeals) to go into the matter was because the Assistant Commissioner did not consider it necessary to address the question whether the refund application was made within time. It was apparently assumed that the show cause notice culminated in the Order in Original and the refund application was made within six months if it were to be reckoned from that date. In a sense, there was an assumption that the application was within the stipulated time and that the second proviso did not come into play. On appeal, however, the Commissioner went into the materials and rendered the finding of fact. That finding of fact has not been upset by the CESTAT. The appellant’s attempt to have that order rectified in miscellaneous proceedings too was unsuccessful - In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that in fact no question of law arises in the facts of this case. What the appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact. We are clear that the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an enquiry - The appeal has no merit; the same is accordingly dismissed
2015-VIL-133-KAR-ST
M/s MADURA COATS PVT LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA
Service Tax – Denial of Refund - despite there being a direction by the competent authority to refund the service tax deposited by the appellant, the same has not been refunded by the respondent – authority, even though the stay application filed by the respondent along with the appeal challenging the order of refunding the amount to the appellant has been dismissed – HELD - If the contention of the revenue is accepted that since the appeal is pending before the Tribunal the refund should not be directed, then it is not understood that why at all the respondent had filed an application for grant of stay before the Tribunal - The respondent was fully aware that it was liable to refund the service tax deposited by the appellant in terms of the order dated 28.12.2011 and for that reason it had filed the stay application and once the stay application had been rejected, the order dated 28.12.2011 ought to have been implemented, as it is a fact that the order dated 10.9.2012 rejecting the stay application had become final. In such view of the matter, though the observations of the learned Single Judge that the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. may not be interfered with but, in our view, the writ Court ought to have allowed the writ petition and directed refund of the service tax deposited by the petitioner/appellant - Appeal as well as the writ petition are allowed and direct that the order of refund be implemented
2015-VIL-151-CESTAT-MUM-ST
RAYMOND WOOLEN OUTERWEAR LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NASIK
Service Tax – Refund - Whether the appellant is eligible for claiming refund of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents @10% of the FOB value for the entire period i.e October to December, 2008 or whether the Revenue is correct in granting refund to the appellant @2% of the FOB value for the period October 2008 to 06/12/2008 and subsequently @10% of the FOB value as provided in Notification no. 33/2008-ST – HELD - On a perusal of Notification no. 33/2008-ST we find that the said notification does not indicate that the words ‘ten percent' shall be effective in the Notification 41/2007-ST from the date when it was issued. Secondly, we find that the benefit which has been sought to be given to the appellant is in respect of the exports which were made prior to the Notification came into existence, which in the case in hand, were eligible as per notification 41/2007-ST. In our considered view, the benefit of Notification no. 33/2008 can be claimed by the appellant from 07/12/2008 which is not in dispute as the Revenue has granted the said benefit to the appellant - Benefit of Notification no. 41/2007-ST was already in existence and was granted to the appellant and benefit of Notification 33/2008 was also granted to the appellant as on the date when it was enacted - Impugned order of the first appellate authority is correct and legal and does not require interference – Appeal dismissed
telNotiGO31
The Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Adaptation to the State of Telangana
wbNoti13FT
West Bengal: amendments in the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 26R - Deduction from turnover of sales for sale of Superior Grade Kerosene Oil (PDS) to Oil Marketing Companies
Chhattisgarh Budget 2015: Budget Highlights
25th of Mar
Video Seminar on GST [PART - I]
Goods and Services Tax (GST) - Need and Necessity - Please click video link http://www.vatinfoline.com/showiframe.php?page=video
2015-VIL-13-SC-CE
M/s MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
Central Excise - Demand by way of differential duty – Process of Electro Deposition anti-rust so that the shelf life of the bumpers, grills, etc – Activity amounts to manufacture or not – Reversal of Modvat Credit - Revenue contention that process of ED coating which led to value addition, would, in fact, amount to "manufacture" and that therefore, the "input" would not be the same input so as to qualify under sub-rule(ii) on a mere reversal of MODVAT duty – HELD - Mere value addition does amounts to manufacture - The inputs procured by the appellants in the present case, continue to be the same inputs even after ED coating and that Rule 57F(ii) proviso would therefore apply when such inputs are removed from the factory for home consumption, the duty of excise payable being the amount of credit that has been availed in respect of such inputs under Rule 57A – Revenue argument cannot be accepted for two basic reasons. First, we would be adding words to Rule 57F(1) to the effect that value additions made to inputs covered by sub-rule (ii) would also suffer duty even if there is no manufacture. Second, sub-rule (3) and (3A) apply to an entirely different factual scenario, as has been conceded by learned counsel for Revenue, and it is only after all the conditions under the said sub-rules are met that duty attributable to inputs contained in partially processed inputs would then become dutiable – Appeal is allowed and the judgment of CEGAT is set aside
2015-VIL-15-SC-CE
HINDUSTAN
SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
Central Excise Act –
Valuation - Captive consumption of yarn – Payment of excise duty on the basis
of the costs, which according to the appellant is the cost of production of the
yarn – HELD - Section 4(1)(b) of the Act stipulates that in a case like this,
the value has to be determined in such a manner as may be prescribed. This
manner is prescribed in Rule 6 (b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules,
1975 - A bare reading of Rule 6(b) manifestly points out that in those cases
where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are consumed by
assessee himself, namely, in case of the captive consumption, the value of
comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other
assessee is to be taken into consideration - Since the appellant itself is
selling same very yarn in the open market, as per the aforesaid provision the
said market value would clearly become the value of the comparable goods
produced by the assessee itself - Appellant is entitled to adjustment of the
costs which are incurred in the sale of the same product in the open market as
that cannot be included in the cost in respect of yarn which to be captively
consumed - In the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that no penalty is warranted
– Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-14-SC-CE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Vs M/s ADDISONS PAINTS & CHEMICALS LTD
Central Excise - Valuation of goods - Inclusion of cost of cartons in the assessable value of the final product – HELD - Goods are generally sold in the wholesale market at the "factory gate" - The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has categorically stated in his order that these containers were placed in paper cartons of various sizes for transportation "from the factory gate" for sale to individual customers or as stock transfers. Therefore, on the facts of this case, we find that the test laid down in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd would not be applicable - No merit in this case – Revenue appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-136-P&H-ST
M/s DELHI AIRPORT METRO PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, ROHTAK
Service Tax – Contract for design, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of Airport Metro Express Line, New Delhi - Revised ST-3 Returns - inadvertent error on Appellant part in not mentioning that it had claimed CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods – Validity of writ petition – Question of law - HELD – Petitioner had admitted that it had allegedly inadvertently not mentioned that it had claimed CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods and that it had inadvertently shown the same under the category of “input” in its returns. Whether it was an inadvertent error or not is not a question of law - Even the issue as to whether the relevant material was suppressed or not is not a pure question of law. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the petitioner has suppressed material with an intent to evade payment of duty. The petitioner contends that the fact of having availed of CENVAT duty was disclosed in the returns. It is necessary, however, to see whether the extent of disclosure in the returns was sufficient compliance. It would be necessary to ascertain whether the extent of disclosure would have enabled the assessing authority to determine whether in law the petitioner was entitled to CENVAT credit or not. There are various issues of fact which would be required to be considered. Even assuming that there was a disclosure of the fact of the petitioner having availed the credit, it would be necessary to ascertain whether there were other relevant facts which were necessary to be disclosed and whether the non-disclosure thereof constituted suppression – There is no reason to interfere at this stage in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction when the issue can be raised before the appellate Tribunal. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to challenge the order by filing an appeal before the Tribunal – Writ petition dismissed
Meghalaya Notifications
megNoti22: Revision in rate of tax on Diesel
megNoti23 & megNoti24: Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products including Motor Spirit) Taxation Act - Withdrawal of exemption granted to Oil companies
megNoti203 & megNoti2: Amendment in Schedule I & V: Regarding Tobacco products
apNotiGO100
Andhra Pradesh: Refund the Tax paid on purchase of all components used in the construction and erection of Water Treatment Plants under the Scheme “NTR Sujala Pathakam”
rajCir22 & rajCir24
Rajasthan: Facility to create sub-user for issuance of Declaration Forms for Import/Export of Notified Goods
2015-VIL-06-MSTT
M/s SUJATA PAINTERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act – Work Contract - Levy of VAT on service tax – Sale Price – Turnover - HELD – On plain reading of section 2(25) and 2(33), service tax cannot be read into sale price since the definition of ‘sale price’ and ‘turnover of sales’ is not as wide as in Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the decision in Central Wines cannot be stretched to include service tax into the sale price - The service tax is leviable on service value. It has no relation with the goods. It is independently leviable on value of service under the Finance Act. So on plain reading of the inclusive part of the definition of ‘sale price’ u/s.2(25), the service tax could not form the part of sale price - The service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it would not be liable to VAT under MVAT Act - Determination order of the Commissioner is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside – Value of goods supplied in execution of work contract is determined in accordance with the rule 58 of the MVAT Rules. The VAT is levied on the value of goods supplied in execution of works contract. In addition, the assessing authority added service tax into the sale price so determined. The said is not permissible as the service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive and service tax would not be a part of sale price – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-137-DEL
B. R. FIBRES (P) LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX
Central Sales Tax Act – Section 6 – C Form - Whether the Tribunal fell into error in rejecting the assessee’s contention that the goods in question were inter state sales within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act - material to prove that the movement of goods was caused by and was the result of the contract of sale – HELD - In the present case, the assessee was able to substantiate its contention that 20 of the transactions were, in fact, inter state sales. This was because each one of them had the necessary supporting document in the form of GRs. However, in the case of 6 transactions, there is no material to show that the movement of goods was caused by and was the result of the contract of sale. The assessee counsel contends that this Court must consider the facts in totality of circumstances i.e. 20 out of 26 transactions are undisputed and that given the factual compulsion i.e. the inability to use a formal carrier the assessee should not be prejudiced. Though this submission is attracted, the Court is at the same time aware that there is no presumption either way that an inter state sale claimed by the assessee is one per se - Tender of a C Form by the selling dealer raises a fundamental presumption that the purchasing dealer is a registered dealer. However, that is as far as the presumption can be taken. As to whether the transaction itself was covered by an inter state sale or otherwise is a burden that the assessee has to discharge, that it did so in other 20 cases but was unable under these 6 cases precisely underscores or highlights the burden placed upon it. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the substantial question of law sought to be urged by the assessee has to be answered against it and in favour of the revenue – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-152-CESTAT-MUM-ST
M/s BHARAT FORGE LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III
Service Tax - Demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism - remuneration paid to the Overseas Commission Agent – HELD - Appellant is not liable to tax on reverse charge basis prior to the period 18.4.2006. Thus, the demand fully set aside along with penalty and interest. So far the demand in appeal No. ST/133/09 is concerned, we hold that the demand prior to 18.4.2006 is set aside. The appellant shall only be liable to pay the demand of Service Tax subsequent to 18.4.2006 along with interest as per Rule. In the facts and circumstances granting the benefit of Section 80, we set aside all the penalties including under Section 78
Tamil Nadu Budget: Budget Speech [Download link]
Jammu & Kashmir Budget: Budget Speech [Download link] & Budget Highlights [attached]
Guest Column
EXPORT & IMPORT – SIMPLIFIED BY GOVERNMENT
26th of Mar
2015-VIL-138-KAR
M/s SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Activity of laying down civil foundations, installation of electrical components for wind turbine generator (WTG), erection and commissioning of WTG - integrated single composite contract – HELD - A contract has to be read as a whole and the purpose for which the contract was entered into by the parties has to be ascertained from the terms of the contract. The intention of the parties is to enter into an agreement for the installation, erection and commissioning of WTGs - The perusal of the offer letter, with the terms and conditions of the work orders entered into by the assessee, proves that the assessee has executed a single integrated contract which cannot be segregated. The scope of work and the insurance clause specifically establishes that the assessee has entered into an agreement for the installation, erection and commissioning of the WTGs, which includes labour work also - Thus it is clear that in a works contract involving transfer of goods and labour, tax is payable under Section 15(1)(b) on the total consideration of the works contract. If the labour contract is an individual contract involving only labour, no tax is payable. In the case on hand, the assessee has segregated the activities as per the work orders executed against the offer for erection and installation of WTGs. It is not the case of receiving labour related charges for executing pure labour work without transferring any property in goods. The entire contract, if perused as a whole, is in the nature of composite single integrated contract, though designed as it is four separate work orders. All the segregated activities are related to the very same project with the very same customer involving transfer of goods and labour - The contract executed by the assessee is a composite, single, integrated contract and all the four activities mentioned in the work orders as individual activities are intrinsically linked with each other and the main object is for the installation and commissioning of WTGs as per the offer letter - Accordingly, the revision petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed
2015-VIL-139-MAD-ST
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II Vs M/s BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD
Service Tax - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on ‘Outdoor catering Service’ provided in the factory for its employees treating them as ‘Input Service – HELD – Matter settled by Ultratech Cement Ltd 2010-VIL-71-BOM-ST - Appeal is answered in favour of the assessee
tnNotiGO45
Tamil Nadu: Reduction in rate of tax on Cellular Telephone (Mobile Phone) and Cardamom, exemption in respect works contract relating to sizing of yarn
Goa Budget: Budget Speech [Download link]
apCir26
Andhra Pradesh: APVAT Act & CST Act – Invoice matching system- Purchase, sale Invoice details effected to VAT dealers to be filed along with monthly Returns-Certain clarifications
FCP2503
FROM THE CORRIDOR OF POWER - Updates from various Union Ministries, PMO & Cabinet
27th of Mar
2015-VIL-140-RAJ
M/s INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES
Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Freight charge – Inclusion in sales turnover - Delivery of diesel by Road through containers by the assessee to the Railways at the delivery point - Whether freight by road forms part of the sales turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax and freight is required to be included in the sales turnover and thus sales tax is required to be levied – HELD - As per terms and conditions in the contract, the seller was required to deliver the goods at the destination after taking into consideration the transit risk and all other liability in transit - at destination on the corporation selling price to the general trade on the date of delivery for each supply and when there is a specific reference of delivery at consignees' storage/ consumer pumps, it prescribes that price built up will be ex-depot price plus delivery charges/octroi/local levies/ Surcharges, Transportation charges at actual Sales Tax and any other levy as applicable from time to time, it will be the responsibility of the assessee and it was the duty of the assessee to deliver the goods at the destination. The Tax Board has rightly come to the conclusion that the freight is includable in the sale price - According to the conditions of the rate contract the sale price of the petroleum products includes the actual delivery charges, freight and the transit risk of the goods is upon the assessee and as such, the amount received by the assessee from the purchasers towards delivery charges and freight falls within the definition of Sec. 2(36) of the Act - Assessee being unable to lead any evidence of the freight being charged separately and having been paid separately, the Tax Board has rightly come to the conclusion that the freight is part of the turnover and sales tax is leviable on the part of the freight – Appeal dismissed
2015-VIL-16-SC-CE
Central Excise – SSI Exemption – Affixing of brand name - Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.1993 – HELD – Reading of Para 4 of amended Notification No. 59/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 it becomes clear that amendment was brought to deny the benefit of Notification to those SSI units which have been making use of branded good for another person irrespective of whether the brand name owner himself is SSI unit or not. It was also made abundantly clear here that the requirement of affixation or brand name by the SSI unit was immaterial. That was the purpose for substituting the word "affixing" by the word "bearing" - After this amendment in para 4 it was not necessary that there has to be affixation of the name or mark on the goods - The impugned order of the Tribunal is untenable and not in accordance with law - While giving its decision the CEGAT has gone by the unamended para 4 without taking into consideration the amended para and the implication thereof - non-payment of duty by the respondent was bona fide act, having nurtured a belief that it was not liable to pay the excise duty on the goods - Penalty under the provisions of Sec.11A(C) is set aside – Appeal partly allowed
2015-VIL-153-CESTAT-DEL-CE
Central Excise – Area based Exemption - benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE - Compounded levy scheme for induction furnace units – HELD - The only basis for denial of the exemption benefit is that this production capacity has not been achieved by some additional machinery and in this regard the Commissioner has rejected the appellant’s claim regarding purchase of some additional machinery and equipment on the ground that the claimed purchase of machinery/equipment by the appellant from outside the State of Uttaranchal is not recorded in the register maintained at the Commercial Tax Department check post - However, this finding of the Commissioner is contrary to the order dated 24/3/07 of the Deputy Commissioner, Uttaranchal Commercial Tax Department. On going through this order, it is clear that the Commercial Tax Department has accepted the appellant’s claim regarding purchase of components of furnace from outside the state and has decided to impose penalty only on the ground that the procedure prescribed in this regard was not followed. The DC has clearly mentioned that the purchases of the assessee have been found recorded in their books of accounts - In view of this, the ground on which the Commissioner has rejected the appellant’s claim regarding purchase of the induction furnace components is not correct. Moreover, it is also seen that the increase in the capacity had been achieved by increasing the height of the crucible and this fact has not been disputed. Once it is accepted that the increase in the capacity of crucible was achieved by increase in its height, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Uttaranchal, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE cannot be denied – Assessee appeal allowed
2015-VIL-155-CESTAT-CHE-ST
M/s ROCA BATH ROOM PROUCTS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM
Service Tax – Cenvat credit – Defective invoice - Invoice number does not contain the address and registration number of the service provider – HELD - Entire averment of learned counsel is verifiable from the appeal folder. When that is examined in terms of para 4.5 of Adjudication order, that establishes truth of averment. Therefore, in absence of spurious transaction made, claim for Cenvat credit should not be denied. Accordingly, appellant succeeds for which appeal is allowed and stay application is disposed
2015-VIL-156-CESTAT-CHE-ST
M/s MATS ENGINEERING PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI
Service Tax - The precise dispute in this appeal is whether the service tax paid on receivable is adjustable against future liability. Tax having been deposited before arise of liability that does not given rise to the presumption of unjust enrichment by appellant also rules out realization of such tax from the service recipient. Accordingly, adjustment of such tax against future liability is undeniable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed
West Bengal Notifications & Circulars
wbNoti448T: Amendment in West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute Rules), 1999
wbNoti447FT: Appointed dates under West Bengal Finance Act 2015
wbNoti435L: West Bengal Finance Act 2015
wbNoti1275FB: Amendment in Department Notification No. 908-F.T. dated 13/04/2005 - Regarding Motor Spirit
wbCir01: Regarding Settlement of Dispute
30th of Mar
2015-VIL-18-SC
M/s SELVAM BROILERS (P) LTD Vs STATE OF KERALA
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1961 – Interpretation of Exemption notification – HELD - Entry 24 of the notification SRO No.1727 of 1993 contemplates two categories of dealers, (i) a poultry farmer and (ii) hatcheries. What is exempted under the notification is the turnover from sales of chicks and chickens by both types of dealers. It is not specified that if a poultry farmer imports or effects inter-State purchase of chicks and chickens, it would be ousted from the purview of the notification and thus, not be entitled to the benefits of the notification. In our considered opinion, language of the notification is clear and precise. The plain reading of the entry in the notification herein neither reflects any ambiguity nor creates confusion as to contents of the notification and therefore, we need not look into the object and purpose of the notification which prompted the State authorities to frame and issue the aforesaid notification – Revenue is not justified in disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee with respect to the sale of chicks and chickens brought from outside the State – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-17-SC-CE
M/s RALSON (INDIA) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I
Central Excise – Exemption to compounded rubber – Withdrawal of exemption notification and reintroduction of same – Demand for interim period – HELD - As we find that the compounded rubber was rescinded by Notification dated 1.3.94 and reintroduced in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28.3.1994 - Since the decision to withdraw the exemption vide Notification dated 1.3.94 was an inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in nature - Even during the interim period from 1.3.94 to 24.4.94, the manufacturers shall continue to get the exemption – Appeal allowed
2015-VIL-154-CESTAT-AHM-CE
COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-II Vs SIT FLEXIBLE HOSE PVT LTD
Cenvat Credit – Eligibility to cenvat credit for the Job Work done on the raw material supplied - The appellant reversed the cenvat credit from their cenvat account which was subsequently held to be admissible – Whether cash refund is required to be allowed to assessee for certain amount which were debited from the cenvat credit account – HELD - It is observed from the facts available that the present respondent debited certain amounts from their cenvat account. Subsequently, the credit reversed by the assessee was held to be admissible and was accordingly allowed in the cenvat account to the appellant. The credit so allowed was availed by the assessee and the same also started utilising the credit in the payment of central excise duty. It is also observed that at no stage Revenue insisted the assessee to pay the amount in cash. The case laws relied upon by the First Appellate authority in OIA pertains to the situations where liability was insisted by the Revenue to be paid from PLA and assessee was prevented from utilising cenvat credit. As the facts of the relied upon the case laws are different that the present facts the same can not be pressed into service to sanction the refund in cash - The order passed by the First Appellate Authority is required to be set aside and appeal filed by the Revenue is required to be allowed
2015-VIL-141-KER-ST
M/s MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA
Service tax – Pre-deposit - Whether the mandatory pre-deposit provisions of 7.5% for pursuing a remedy before the Tribunal as introduced vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 6 August 2014 will be applicable for a dispute/litigation that had arisen prior to the said amendment – HELD - In that view of the matter, the petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2012, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he would have an efficacious alternate remedy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, together with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against him. At the time of filing the appeal, he will not be required to make any payment as a pre-condition for the hearing of the waiver application by the Tribunal. I, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, of approaching the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal against order. It is made clear that the appeal to be filed by the petitioner would be governed by the statutory provisions, as they stood prior to the amendment introduced with effect from 16.08.2014
2015-VIL-157-CESTAT-DEL-ST
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs CCE & ST, JAIPUR
Service Tax - Security Services - Appellant is providing security services to banks and various private institutions against a consideration. Revenue is of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant of security service is commercial in nature therefore they are liable to pay service tax – HELD - In appellant’s own case in similar set of facts where the appellants has provided security service, this Tribunal has granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit on the premise that the amount of remuneration towards service tax has been deposited by the police into consolidated funds of the State and the income of State is not liable to tax as per Article 289 of the Constitution of India and accordingly waiver of pre-deposit was granted. In these circumstances, the pre-deposit is not required to be asked from the appellant for consideration of their appeals - Impugned orders are set aside - Appeals are remanded to decide the issue on merits without insisting any pre-deposit
Guest Article
Union Budget 2015 - Changes in Service Tax with Effective Dates and its Impact
karCir23
Karnataka: Instructions ragerding Input Tax Credit Matching Status Module under electronic uploading of Purchase and Sales Statement (e-UPaSS)
triNoti62
Tripura: Amendment in TVAT Schedule II - Regarding 'Medicine and drugs'
nagaNoti89
Nagaland: Enhancement in rate of tax on Diesel & Petrol
Delhi Budget 2015 - Budget Speech [Vote on Account] [Download link]
stCir182
Service Tax: Extension of e-payment deadline and of banking hours on 31st March, 2015
goaNoti4797
Goa: Extension in the period of assessment for the financial year 2011-12 by six months
nagpurTN
Trade Notice by Nagpur Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax: Clarification regarding new rate of Service Tax @ of 14%
telOrderGO22
Telangana: Purchase Tax on sugar cane – Purchase Tax payable to the Government by the sugarfactories and by the Khandasari units for 2014-2015 season – Passing on the PurchaseTax to the Cane suppliers, as incentive
31st of Mar
Video Seminar on GST [PART - II]
Goods and Services Tax - OVERVIEW OF DUAL GST MODEL IN INDIA - Please click video link http://www.vatinfoline.com/showiframe.php?page=video
upNoti437
Uttar Pradesh: Extension in time limit for completion of assessment or re-assessment in respect of cases of the assessment year 2011-12
mpNoti08
Madhya Pradesh: Entry Tax - Exemption of various concessions upto 31.03.2016
mpNoti09
Madhya Pradesh: Central Sales Tax Act - Exemption of various concessions upto 31.03.2016
mpNoti14
Madhya Pradesh: Draft Notification - Amendment in MPVAT Schedule I and II - Change in rate of tax w.e.f. 01.04.2015
megNoti33
Meghalaya: Exemption from VAT on materials for construction of rural toilets under Swachh Bharat and water purification plants and solar panels
wbCir02
West Bengal: Change in the Jurisdiction of Central Registration Unit
wbOrder282
West Bengal: Authorisation of officers to exercise the power and perform duty as required by or under the provision of the rule 5A(1)(b) of the WBVAT Rules, 2005
karNotiFD40
Karnataka: Budget Notification - Change in rate of tax on certain items
harNotiS59
Haryana: Amendment in rate of tax on Liquor
apCir268
Andhra Pradesh: Clarification regarding rate of tax on Cell Phone Chargers
jharNotiSO77
Jharkhand: Set up and erection of check-posts and barriers
mahaCir4A
Maharashtra: Internal Circular - Grant of Administrative Relief to Developers and Assessment of refund claim in return
MAHARASHTRA NOTIFICATIONS
mahaNotiCR39-(1): Amendment in MVAT SCHEDULES A and C
mahaNotiCR39-(2): Maharashtra VAT SCHEDULES C - Notifies types of paper for the purpose schedule entry
mahaActXVI: Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2015