More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Service Tax - Renting of immovable property, advertisement rights, Taxability of revenue sharing agreement - Appellant had rented out its property for shops, offices, restaurants and food plazas - Appellant entered into an agreement with advertising agency to display advertisements in its mall, for which the appellant received 40% to 50% of the charges - Whether the revenue share received by the appellant from M/s. Noel Media & Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for granting advertisement rights in the Citi Centre Mall is liable to service tax under the 'Sale or Space or Time for Advertisement' Service - HELD - The activity of the appe... [Read more]

Service Tax - Renting of immovable property, advertisement rights, Taxability of revenue sharing agreement - Appellant had rented out its property for shops, offices, restaurants and food plazas - Appellant entered into an agreement with advertising agency to display advertisements in its mall, for which the appellant received 40% to 50% of the charges - Whether the revenue share received by the appellant from M/s. Noel Media & Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for granting advertisement rights in the Citi Centre Mall is liable to service tax under the 'Sale or Space or Time for Advertisement' Service - HELD - The activity of the appellant as per the MoU would not be exigible to service tax. The purpose of a contract is the joint intent of the parties and it must be determined from the entirety of the contract. The MOU involved revenue sharing between the parties, and both parties had their own responsibilities and rights. This was in the nature of a self-service arrangement to maximize their own individual share of the revenue, and not a service provided by one party to the other. An activity carried on by a person for his own benefit cannot be termed as a 'service rendered' - The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the revenue share received under the MoU – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Permanent establishment, Installation of software by Indian subsidiary - Appellant imported customized software from foreign suppliers for use in relation to the purchase of diamond processing machines. The Indian subsidiary of the foreign suppliers provided installation and maintenance services – Dept raised demand of service tax under the category of "Information Technology Software Service" under RCM contending that the Indian subsidiary cannot be considered a permanent establishment of the foreign suppliers - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism when the ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Permanent establishment, Installation of software by Indian subsidiary - Appellant imported customized software from foreign suppliers for use in relation to the purchase of diamond processing machines. The Indian subsidiary of the foreign suppliers provided installation and maintenance services – Dept raised demand of service tax under the category of "Information Technology Software Service" under RCM contending that the Indian subsidiary cannot be considered a permanent establishment of the foreign suppliers - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism when the foreign supplier has an Indian subsidiary providing installation and maintenance services – HELD - The Indian subsidiary should be considered a permanent establishment of the foreign supplier. Since the services were provided through the Indian subsidiary, the appellant cannot be fastened with the liability to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism – Further, the appellant had a bona fide interpretation that they were not liable to pay service tax as the suppliers were providing services through their Indian arm having a fixed establishment in India - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case as there was no wilful suppression of facts by the appellant - The appeal of the appellant is allowed, both on merits and on the ground of limitation [Read less]

The Sec.16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act is read down to the extent that in case of non-payment of tax by supplier, before denying the ITC benefits, the purchaser should be given an opportunity to prove their bonafides by tax invoices and other documents.

Central Excise – Area-based exemption, Refund of excise duty - Non-speaking order - Appellant availed the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and/or Notification No. 01/2010-CE and filed refund claims for the periods September 2014 to November 2014 and December 2014 to March 2015 – Rejection of refund on the ground that the refund claims exceeded the admissible refund over and above the value addition norm under Notification No. 01/2010-CE, as the appellant commenced commercial production after the issuance of the said Notification – HELD - The appellant had themselves opted to avail the exemption under Notif... [Read more]

Central Excise – Area-based exemption, Refund of excise duty - Non-speaking order - Appellant availed the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE and/or Notification No. 01/2010-CE and filed refund claims for the periods September 2014 to November 2014 and December 2014 to March 2015 – Rejection of refund on the ground that the refund claims exceeded the admissible refund over and above the value addition norm under Notification No. 01/2010-CE, as the appellant commenced commercial production after the issuance of the said Notification – HELD - The appellant had themselves opted to avail the exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE and even filed appeals before the CESTAT against the orders of the jurisdictional Commissioner regarding the fixation of special rates under the said notification - the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adequately addressed the appellant's objection regarding the absence of a speaking order by the original authority. The Commissioner's reasoning that the original authority had no role to play with respect to the CESTAT's directions to the jurisdictional Commissioner for a de novo decision was not valid, as it did not absolve the original authority from issuing a speaking order. The original order having been issued in contravention of the principles of natural justice, should have been set aside by the Commissioner and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration following the principles of natural justice - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority with a direction to consider all the submissions of the appellant and pass a speaking order, while following the principles of natural justice – The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax - Discrepancy between the taxable values declared in the ST-3 returns and the commissions reported in the financial statements - Whether the appellant was liable to pay the differential tax along with interest and penalties based on the discrepancy between the taxable values declared in the ST-3 returns and Financial Statements - HELD - The original authority noted that the appellant had agreed to pay the differential tax amount along with interest, and the first appellate authority had also recorded this acquiescence. However, the appellant has now resiled from their earlier position of acquiescence - It does ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Discrepancy between the taxable values declared in the ST-3 returns and the commissions reported in the financial statements - Whether the appellant was liable to pay the differential tax along with interest and penalties based on the discrepancy between the taxable values declared in the ST-3 returns and Financial Statements - HELD - The original authority noted that the appellant had agreed to pay the differential tax amount along with interest, and the first appellate authority had also recorded this acquiescence. However, the appellant has now resiled from their earlier position of acquiescence - It does not appear that the Original Authority has made a mistake in recording the acquiescence as the appellant has not filed an application for rectification of mistake before the said Authority or even resiled on that position before the Commissioner Appeals – Further, it is shocking to see the appellant's submissions in their Appeal Memorandum, which show a lack of respect for the First Appellate Authority—an office with significant responsibility in the scheme of quasi-judicial dispute resolution - Averments grounded on relevant facts and supported by appropriate case law, presented in a dignified and measured language, are without doubt more persuasive and credible than relying on rhetoric or attempting to obscure weak arguments or hide facts by immoderate language against the earlier authorities when litigating the matter up the appeal ladder – Since the appellant has now resiled from their earlier position of acquiescence, issues of fact and law were not examined earlier due to the appellant accepting to pay duty and the perceived lack of supporting evidence, needs to be addressed. The matter hence needs to be examined afresh - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the original authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the law – The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - CENVAT credit on service tax paid for collection of receivables - Whether the services availed for the collection of receivables from their buyers qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and are therefore eligible for CENVAT credit - HELD - The cost of any input service that forms part of the cost of the final product would be eligible for credit. The respondent was incurring costs in getting the financial services, i.e., the collection of receivables, through a private company offering "cash management services," and this cost goes into the final product manufactured by... [Read more]

Central Excise - CENVAT credit on service tax paid for collection of receivables - Whether the services availed for the collection of receivables from their buyers qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and are therefore eligible for CENVAT credit - HELD - The cost of any input service that forms part of the cost of the final product would be eligible for credit. The respondent was incurring costs in getting the financial services, i.e., the collection of receivables, through a private company offering "cash management services," and this cost goes into the final product manufactured by the respondent. It is fallacious for the revenue to assume that the expenses are not included in the costing of the final product, as any prudent manufacturer or businessman would consider all the expenditure incurred in arriving at the price of the product - The services availed by the respondent for the collection of receivables from their buyers qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The order of the Commissioner, which had dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Eligibility for refund of service tax, CENVAT credit on input services, admissibility of Swachh Bharat Cess credit, export turnover calculation – Rejection of refund on the grounds that the input services had no nexus with the output services, the Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) paid on input service invoices issued prior to 03.02.2016 was not admissible, some export invoices were of prior period though realized during the period in question, and there was an error in calculation as the turnover excluded only from export turnover and not from total turnover - Whether the input services used by the appellant have a... [Read more]

Service Tax - Eligibility for refund of service tax, CENVAT credit on input services, admissibility of Swachh Bharat Cess credit, export turnover calculation – Rejection of refund on the grounds that the input services had no nexus with the output services, the Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) paid on input service invoices issued prior to 03.02.2016 was not admissible, some export invoices were of prior period though realized during the period in question, and there was an error in calculation as the turnover excluded only from export turnover and not from total turnover - Whether the input services used by the appellant have a nexus with the output services provided, thereby making the appellant eligible for CENVAT credit and refund – HELD - The eligibility of a particular service for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules is inextricably linked to the eligibility of such service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, even if the credit on a particular service is held to be not eligible for refund, the revenue has to take recourse to Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules to recover the wrongly availed credit. The Revenue is not permitted to decide the nexus of the input service to the output service while deciding a refund claimed under Rule 5 – Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority have not discussed the nexus of the services from the angle of whether the services were used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee, as required under the amended definition of "input services" w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Therefore, the matter is remanded on this issue to the original authority to allow the credit if the appellant can establish with evidence that the disputed services are not used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee – The appeal is allowed by remand - Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) paid on input service invoices issued prior to 03.02.2016 – HELD - The Appellant is eligible for refund of SBC paid on input service invoices issued prior to 03.02.2016. The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of WNS Global Services, wherein it was held that when it comes to substantial benefit, in the absence of a specific embargo in the rules, the benefit should not be denied to the assessee - Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services used in export of services, where the export proceeds were realized after 21 months from the date of invoice – HELD - As per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, export is complete only upon receipt of foreign exchange, and the rule does not prescribe any time period for receiving the consideration against the exported service. Once the consideration is received, the service qualifies as export, and the appellant becomes entitled to the refund as claimed - Whether the reduction of export turnover without corresponding reduction in the total turnover for the purpose of refund calculation is correct – HELD - The appellant has rightly adopted the formula prescribed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, even though the refund is claimed under Notification 39/2016-ST, as the notification does not prescribe any formula. The reduction of export turnover without commensurate reduction in the total turnover is not tenable in law. [Read less]

GST - Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Rejection of appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation, as the appeal was filed with a delay of 305 days - Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned considering the circumstances and reasons provided by the petitioner - HELD - The sufficiency of the cause for the delay in filing the appeal had not been categorically discussed by the Appellate Authority – The petitioner could not file the appeal within the stipulated time due to the reason that the order under-challenge was not communicated to the petitioner within the stipulated period - Whi... [Read more]

GST - Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Rejection of appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation, as the appeal was filed with a delay of 305 days - Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned considering the circumstances and reasons provided by the petitioner - HELD - The sufficiency of the cause for the delay in filing the appeal had not been categorically discussed by the Appellate Authority – The petitioner could not file the appeal within the stipulated time due to the reason that the order under-challenge was not communicated to the petitioner within the stipulated period - While procedures are handmaid to justice, they should not be treated as the master of it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the valuable right of the petitioner deserves to be decided after hearing the rival submissions on merits - The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits, upon the petitioner depositing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- with the Department – The petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Confiscation of gold bars, gold jewelry/ornaments, Penalty under sections 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, Admissibility of statements under section 108 of the Customs Act - Whether the statements made by the appellant under section 108 of the Customs Act can be considered as relevant evidence to hold the appellant as the owner of the gold bars - HELD - The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant evidence as the mandatory procedure under section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act was not followed. Unless the person who made the statement is examined as a witness bef... [Read more]

Customs - Confiscation of gold bars, gold jewelry/ornaments, Penalty under sections 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, Admissibility of statements under section 108 of the Customs Act - Whether the statements made by the appellant under section 108 of the Customs Act can be considered as relevant evidence to hold the appellant as the owner of the gold bars - HELD - The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant evidence as the mandatory procedure under section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act was not followed. Unless the person who made the statement is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence, the statements recorded under section 108 cannot be treated as relevant – In the present case, since the mandatory procedure was not followed, the Commissioner could not have drawn the conclusion that the appellant was the owner of the gold bars based on the statements recorded under Section 108 - The appellant had produced various documents and affidavits to establish that the seized gold jewelry/ornaments were either brought on approval basis for marketing or were manufactured out of gold procured from legitimate sources. The Commissioner had rejected these documents and affidavits without valid reasons and without calling the deponents for cross-examination - The Department failed to establish that the appellant had any connection with the importation of the gold prior to the actual import. Accordingly, the gold jewelry/ornaments could not be confiscated under the Customs Act - Since the gold bars could not be held liable for confiscation and the gold jewelry/ornaments could not be confiscated, the penalties under sections 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act could not be imposed on the appellant - The impugned order is set aside in so far as it imposed penalties under sections 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act on the appellant – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of one-time seals with RFID tags - Appellant imported one-time seals with RFID tags and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8523 59 10 as "proximity cards and tags". The Customs authorities re-classified the goods under CTI 8309 90 30 as "other seals" - Whether the one-time seals with RFID tags imported by the appellant are correctly classifiable under CTI 8523 59 10 as "proximity cards and tags" or under CTI 8309 90 30 as "other seals" – HELD - In determining the essential character of a goods, what needs to be seen is what the goods is intended to be and how it is sold and bought in... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of one-time seals with RFID tags - Appellant imported one-time seals with RFID tags and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8523 59 10 as "proximity cards and tags". The Customs authorities re-classified the goods under CTI 8309 90 30 as "other seals" - Whether the one-time seals with RFID tags imported by the appellant are correctly classifiable under CTI 8523 59 10 as "proximity cards and tags" or under CTI 8309 90 30 as "other seals" – HELD - In determining the essential character of a goods, what needs to be seen is what the goods is intended to be and how it is sold and bought in the market, rather than the additional functions it may perform. While the RFID tags provide additional functionality in terms of tracking and monitoring the container, the primary purpose of the goods is to seal the container, which is the essential character. The fact that the RFID tags have a higher value compared to traditional seals does not change the essential character of the goods. Therefore, the classification of the goods under CTI 8309 90 30 as "other seals" is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs – Recovery of dues from Auction purchasers, liquidation of company - Appellants were purchasers during the course of official liquidation of various assets a 100% EOU - Whether the Department can recover customs or excise duties from the auction purchasers of the assets of the liquidated company – HELD – the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated 07.03.2002 directed winding up of M/s. Varun Seacon Ltd. which was operating as 100% EOU. The High Court directed that the purchaser shall be liable to pay all statutory dues, if any, due and payable on the subject properties of the company for the peri... [Read more]

Customs – Recovery of dues from Auction purchasers, liquidation of company - Appellants were purchasers during the course of official liquidation of various assets a 100% EOU - Whether the Department can recover customs or excise duties from the auction purchasers of the assets of the liquidated company – HELD – the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated 07.03.2002 directed winding up of M/s. Varun Seacon Ltd. which was operating as 100% EOU. The High Court directed that the purchaser shall be liable to pay all statutory dues, if any, due and payable on the subject properties of the company for the period after the date of the winding-up order, and the payment of such dues for the pre-liquidation period shall be settled as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - As per the High Court's order, only sales tax is to be paid by the purchaser, and all other dues for the pre-liquidation period, including any excise duties or Customs duties, shall be considered settled as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 – The Department has not shown any non-obstante clause in the relevant fiscal legislations that can prevail over the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and allow the Department to bypass the official liquidator - The auction purchasers cannot be held liable for the arrears incurred by the previous licensee or industry, and that the dues of the Government do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore, the notice issued to the appellants demanding the arrears of tax or duty foregone by the previous owner is without jurisdiction and set aside - The appeals filed by the appellants are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - BAS, Commission income, Indenting Agent – Providing of support services in respect of imports from foreign suppliers and selling locally to customers directly, as well as selling such goods on 'high seas sale' basis - The appellant received commissions on account of providing these services to their foreign suppliers – Demand of service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Whether the services provided by the appellant and the receipt of commission earned by them for such services in the form of commission on 'high seas sales' and indenting commission charges, are liable for levy o... [Read more]

Service Tax - BAS, Commission income, Indenting Agent – Providing of support services in respect of imports from foreign suppliers and selling locally to customers directly, as well as selling such goods on 'high seas sale' basis - The appellant received commissions on account of providing these services to their foreign suppliers – Demand of service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Whether the services provided by the appellant and the receipt of commission earned by them for such services in the form of commission on 'high seas sales' and indenting commission charges, are liable for levy of service tax - HELD - The appellants act as indenting agent and provides the service of selling the goods directly to the customers of such foreign entities, including sale on high seas sales basis, for which they only get commission/indenting commission. There is no evidence of an arrangement between the appellants and the foreign entities wherein the appellants are empowered to make any obligation on behalf of the overseas entity or to bind overseas entity to any contractual obligation - The content in the agreement clearly provide that no services were provided by the appellants to the end customers on behalf of the overseas entity. Thus, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has acted as an intermediary in the dealings between the overseas entities and their customers in India - The services provided by the appellant to the overseas entities qualify as export in terms of Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. As per the CBIC Circular, the accrual of benefit from the services provided by the appellant and their use for the benefit of foreign entity would qualify for export, and there does not involve service of BAS - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Target Plus Scheme, Actual User, Despatch of imported material under the scrip to job worker for manufacture of final product - Appellant had obtained a duty credit certificate under the Target Plus Scheme and utilized it to import 'PTC Thermistors'. The appellant then sent the imported goods to job-worker on a job work basis for manufacturing the electronic mosquito repellent machines - Department alleged that the appellant had violated the conditions of Customs Notification No. 73/2006, which exempted goods imported against a duty credit certificate under the Target Plus Scheme, by sending the imported goods to... [Read more]

Customs - Target Plus Scheme, Actual User, Despatch of imported material under the scrip to job worker for manufacture of final product - Appellant had obtained a duty credit certificate under the Target Plus Scheme and utilized it to import 'PTC Thermistors'. The appellant then sent the imported goods to job-worker on a job work basis for manufacturing the electronic mosquito repellent machines - Department alleged that the appellant had violated the conditions of Customs Notification No. 73/2006, which exempted goods imported against a duty credit certificate under the Target Plus Scheme, by sending the imported goods to a job worker instead of using them for its own manufacturing - Whether the appellant's act of sending the imported goods to a job worker for manufacturing the final products is a violation of the conditions of Customs Notification No. 73/2006 – HELD - The dispatch of the imported goods by the appellant to the job worker for manufacture is not violative of the condition (3) of the exemption notification No.73/2006. The Tribunal in the decision in M/s. Silver Line Plastpack Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Bhavnagar, held that "own use" also means "use by utilizing the facilities of the job worker," and the Customs notification does not prohibit the processing of the imported goods into finished final goods by the job worker - The condition (3) of the notification does not place any embargo on the manufacturer-importer utilizing the services of a job worker to manufacture the products using the imported goods – Further, the Public Notice No.113 (RE-2007)/2004-09 clarified that the beneficiary (Manufacturer Exporter or Merchant Exporter) can utilize the full value of the duty credit scrip for its "own use," and job workers can be used for the conversion of imports permitted under the scheme into any possible resultant products - the appellant's act of sending the imported goods to a job worker for manufacturing the final products is not a violation of the conditions of Customs Notification No. 73/2006 – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Assessees claimed that they have already made payments/deposits equal to 10% of the duty demand, which should have been treated as pre-deposit - Whether the payments/deposits already made by the assessees should be considered as satisfying the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F, or whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in insisting on the pre-deposit being made again – HELD - The fact that there were some payments made by the assessees was not disputed. There is candid admission by the authorities that these p... [Read more]

Central Excise – Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Assessees claimed that they have already made payments/deposits equal to 10% of the duty demand, which should have been treated as pre-deposit - Whether the payments/deposits already made by the assessees should be considered as satisfying the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F, or whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in insisting on the pre-deposit being made again – HELD - The fact that there were some payments made by the assessees was not disputed. There is candid admission by the authorities that these payments were neither considered nor appropriated during the adjudication process. When such payments have been made, the same cannot be kept in the custody but are required to be taken towards some logical end - The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to verify the payments made by the assessees and, if found to be in order and meeting the criteria under Section 35F, to decide the appeals on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit - The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to Commissioner (Appeals) to call for reports from the respective Adjudicating Authorities and if the payments were found to be in order, the Commissioner (Appeals) could then take up the matter on merits – The appeals are disposed of [Read less]

GST – Evasion, Rejection of bail application - The petitioners are accused of facilitating the onboarding of certain companies with online payment aggregators for receiving online gaming revenues without payment of GST. The prosecution alleged that the companies had collectively received transactions towards online gaming services, resulting in GST evasion - The petitioners were arrested on 12.09.2025 and their bail applications were rejected by the lower court - Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail considering the gravity of the alleged GST evasion – HELD - Under the Section 132 of the CGST Act, where the amo... [Read more]

GST – Evasion, Rejection of bail application - The petitioners are accused of facilitating the onboarding of certain companies with online payment aggregators for receiving online gaming revenues without payment of GST. The prosecution alleged that the companies had collectively received transactions towards online gaming services, resulting in GST evasion - The petitioners were arrested on 12.09.2025 and their bail applications were rejected by the lower court - Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail considering the gravity of the alleged GST evasion – HELD - Under the Section 132 of the CGST Act, where the amount of tax evaded exceeds Rs. 5 crores, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, and attracts imprisonment up to five years. Given the massive scale of the alleged tax evasion, the statutory rigour attendant to large-scale tax frauds was applicable - the prima facie evidence, including the petitioners' own admissions, search and seizure, and the documentary and electronic material, provided a strong basis for the prosecution's case. There was also a real risk of the petitioners tampering with evidence and fleeing the jurisdiction considering the involvement of multiple payment aggregators, numerous UPI IDs/VPAs, and foreign connections - The gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged evasion, the propensity to tamper with evidence, and the risk of absconding were relevant factors in rejecting bail – Further, the petitioners had approached the Court with unclean hands by concealing the true scale of evasion - The bail applications are dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise – Sections 9D and 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Manufacture of scented supari – Allegation of clandestine removal – Admissibility of statements – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Scented Supari – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant had deliberately indulged in clandestine manufacture of excisable goods from unaccounted raw material and cleared finished product without cover of tax invoice – Additional Commissioner confirmed demand of excise duty – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Additional Commissioner – Whether statements made under Section ... [Read more]

Central Excise – Sections 9D and 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Manufacture of scented supari – Allegation of clandestine removal – Admissibility of statements – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Scented Supari – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant had deliberately indulged in clandestine manufacture of excisable goods from unaccounted raw material and cleared finished product without cover of tax invoice – Additional Commissioner confirmed demand of excise duty – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Additional Commissioner – Whether statements made under Section 14 of the Act can be considered as relevant, if procedure contemplated under Section 9D of the Act has not been followed – HELD – Bare perusal of Section 9D of the Act make it evident that statement made under Section 14 of the Act during course of inquiry shall be relevant for purpose of proving truth of facts contained in them only when the person who made statement is examined as a witness before adjudicating authority and adjudicating authority had to form an opinion that said statement should be admitted in evidence. Provisions of Section 9D of the Act have been held to be mandatory and failure to comply with procedure would mean that no reliance can be placed on statements recorded under Section 14 of the Act. Order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding clandestine removal of goods is based on statement of Director and Supervisor of Appellant made under Section 14 of the Act. Aforesaid persons were not examined before adjudicating authority, therefore, their statements would have no relevance. Finding regarding clandestine removal of goods based on said statements cannot be sustained. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Manufacture of relays – Entitlement of exemption – Appellant manufactures Relays and uses them captively in manufacture of Control Panels – Appellant cleared Control Panels without payment of duty by availing benefit under Exemption Notification No.12/2012-CE – Appellant claimed exemption for captive consumption of relays under Notification No.67/95-CE – Department denied exemption on ground that final products (Control Panels) were also cleared under an exemption Notification 12/2012 and therefore, proviso to Notification 67/95-CE barred captive exemptio... [Read more]

Central Excise – Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Manufacture of relays – Entitlement of exemption – Appellant manufactures Relays and uses them captively in manufacture of Control Panels – Appellant cleared Control Panels without payment of duty by availing benefit under Exemption Notification No.12/2012-CE – Appellant claimed exemption for captive consumption of relays under Notification No.67/95-CE – Department denied exemption on ground that final products (Control Panels) were also cleared under an exemption Notification 12/2012 and therefore, proviso to Notification 67/95-CE barred captive exemption – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of duty – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order passed by Adjudicating Authority – Whether Appellant is entitled to benefit of captive consumption exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE in respect of relays manufactured and used captively in manufacture of control panels, when such panels are cleared without payment of duty under Notification No.12/2012-CE – HELD – There is no dispute that relays are manufactured within factory of Appellant and are used within factory of production for manufacture of control panels. Relays fall within scope of “all goods falling under First Schedule to Tariff Act” as mentioned in column (1) of Table to Notification No.67/95-CE and do not fall in list of excluded inputs. On a plain reading of main body of Notification, relays clearly satisfy the conditions for captive exemption. Captive exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE is a part of scheme to avoid cascading duty on in-house intermediates. Scheme cannot be lightly defeated merely because some final clearances avail a separate benefit under a general exemption notification. Appellant is entitled to benefit of captive consumption exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE in respect of relays manufactured and used captively in manufacture of control panels – Appeal allowed - Discharge of obligation – Whether Appellant has discharged obligation under Rule 6 of the Rules so as to fall within proviso (vi) to Notification 67/95-CE – HELD – In Appellant’s earlier proceedings on an identical issue, this Tribunal had granted relief after being satisfied that Appellant was operating within Rule 6 framework and there was no case of improper availment of credit. On doctrine of consistency and judicial discipline, it would not be open to this Tribunal now to ignore that settled factual and legal position in Appellant’s own case in absence of any new material. Appellant had discharged obligation under Rule 6 of the Rules to fall within proviso (vi) to Notification 67/95-CE. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. [Read less]

Service Tax – CHA Service, taxability of reimbursable expenses - Whether the reimbursable expenses collected by the appellant from its clients should be included in the gross value for the purpose of charging service tax on the CHA service provided by the appellant – HELD - The appellant had incurred the certain expenses on behalf of his customers and since payments were made on behalf of the client, the appellant was collecting these reimbursable charges on actual basis by raising separate bills - The issue of levy of service tax on reimbursable expenses by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value... [Read more]

Service Tax – CHA Service, taxability of reimbursable expenses - Whether the reimbursable expenses collected by the appellant from its clients should be included in the gross value for the purpose of charging service tax on the CHA service provided by the appellant – HELD - The appellant had incurred the certain expenses on behalf of his customers and since payments were made on behalf of the client, the appellant was collecting these reimbursable charges on actual basis by raising separate bills - The issue of levy of service tax on reimbursable expenses by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value of Service) Rules, 2006 is no longer res integra - In view of the settled legal position, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Exemption from service tax, SEZ Act, overriding effect, services provided to SEZ units – Appellant provided rent-a-cab services to a SEZ unit for employee transportation without collecting service tax, believing these services were exempt under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 - Department issued a show-cause notice alleging that the appellant had wrongly availed the exemption, as the services were not consumed within the SEZ - Whether the appellant is eligible for exemption from service tax for the rent-a-cab services provided to the SEZ unit – HELD - The SEZ Act is a self-contained Act that p... [Read more]

Service Tax - Exemption from service tax, SEZ Act, overriding effect, services provided to SEZ units – Appellant provided rent-a-cab services to a SEZ unit for employee transportation without collecting service tax, believing these services were exempt under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 - Department issued a show-cause notice alleging that the appellant had wrongly availed the exemption, as the services were not consumed within the SEZ - Whether the appellant is eligible for exemption from service tax for the rent-a-cab services provided to the SEZ unit – HELD - The SEZ Act is a self-contained Act that provides exemptions on taxes, duties, cess, drawbacks, and concessions on imports and exports of goods and on the supply of services to the developers and units within an SEZ for carrying on authorized operations. Section 51 of the SEZ Act provides for the overriding effect of the SEZ Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law, which would include the Finance Act – The Section 26(1)(e) of the SEZ Act states that every developer and entrepreneur shall be entitled to exemption from service tax on taxable services provided to a developer or unit to carry on the authorized operations in an SEZ. The situs of rendering the services is not relevant in connection with carrying on the authorized operations, so long as the taxable services are provided to a developer or unit in an SEZ. Therefore, the said taxable services would be exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act as per the provisions of the SEZ Act and the rules framed thereunder - The appellant is eligible for exemption from service tax for the rent-a-cab services provided to the SEZ unit as per the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act and the exemption provided by Section 26 of the SEZ Act – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Application of period of Limitation in refund of service tax paid on non-taxable service under mistake of law – Appellant-assessee, made a deposit of amount during an investigation by the Department even though the services rendered were exempt from service tax - Department subsequently issued a closure letter confirming that no tax liability existed. The appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation - Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited despite the refund applicati... [Read more]

Service Tax – Application of period of Limitation in refund of service tax paid on non-taxable service under mistake of law – Appellant-assessee, made a deposit of amount during an investigation by the Department even though the services rendered were exempt from service tax - Department subsequently issued a closure letter confirming that no tax liability existed. The appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation - Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited despite the refund application being filed beyond the statutory six-month period – HELD - When the tax is paid under a mistake of law or without legal authority, the Department is duty-bound to refund the amount, irrespective of procedural technicalities. The limitation period prescribed under Section 102(3) of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be interpreted in a rigid manner to defeat the substantive right of the taxpayer, especially when the Department itself acknowledged the absence of any tax liability – The appellant acted promptly and filed the refund claim shortly after the closure of the investigation, which established the non-taxable nature of the services. Denying the refund would amount to unjust enrichment of the Government and violate the constitutional mandate under Article 265 that no tax shall be collected except by authority of law - The appellant’s claim for refund is legitimate, and it is both legally and equitably appropriate to allow the refund along with applicable interest, thereby upholding the principles of fairness, natural justice, and statutory entitlement – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Demand of tax – Bar of limitation – Appellant is registered with department for providing services under category of Manpower Supply Agency Service and Work Contract Service – After audit, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax – Additional Commissioner confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Additional Commissioner – Whether demand made in respect of receipts from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is barred by limitation or not – HELD – Entire issues for... [Read more]

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Demand of tax – Bar of limitation – Appellant is registered with department for providing services under category of Manpower Supply Agency Service and Work Contract Service – After audit, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax – Additional Commissioner confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Additional Commissioner – Whether demand made in respect of receipts from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is barred by limitation or not – HELD – Entire issues for which the demand had been confirmed is in respect of interpretation of entries 12, 13 & 14 in Notification No.25/2012-ST. On basis of interpretation placed by them on these entries, Appellant claimed that services provided by them to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti are exempt from payment of service tax. Impugned order after considering the entries have concluded that these entries will not be applicable to case of Appellant. Since issue is being interpretational in nature, invocation of extended period of limitation for making demand cannot be justified. Demand made in respect of receipts from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is barred by limitation, as extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act could not have been invoked for making this demand – Appeal partly allowed - Demand of short paid service tax – Whether demand of service tax short paid vis-a-vis admitted liability as per ST-3 return during period 2015-16 is sustainable – HELD – As per order in original, an amount had been short paid by Appellant during period 2015-16 in comparison to their admitted liability as per ST-3 return. Appellant claimed that revenue had failed to give them the credit of amount deposited by them during period 2017-18. Payment made during period 2017-18 shall be appropriated to short payments made during period 2015-16 only after due verification of challans and their reconciliation with ST-3 returns for corresponding period. Demand of service tax short paid vis-a-vis admitted liability as per ST-3 return during period 2015-16 along with interest is upheld, but same need to be adjusted against payments claimed to be made by Appellant against challans to be submitted by them to adjudicating authority. Matter is remanded back to Original Authority for proper verification of challans and their reconciliation with ST-3 returns of Appellant. [Read less]

Service Tax – Collection of affiliation fee – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is an autonomous body under aegis of Ministry of Education conducts examination for secondary and senior secondary stages of education – Pursuant to an investigation, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of service tax on amount of Affiliation Fee collected by Appellant from schools – Additional Director confirmed demand of service tax – Whether demand of service tax on Affiliation Fee paid by schools to Appellant for issuance of affiliation certificate is justified – HELD – For certify... [Read more]

Service Tax – Collection of affiliation fee – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is an autonomous body under aegis of Ministry of Education conducts examination for secondary and senior secondary stages of education – Pursuant to an investigation, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of service tax on amount of Affiliation Fee collected by Appellant from schools – Additional Director confirmed demand of service tax – Whether demand of service tax on Affiliation Fee paid by schools to Appellant for issuance of affiliation certificate is justified – HELD – For certifying the schools as affiliated to Appellant, Appellant collected an amount towards Affiliation Fee. Affiliation accorded by Appellant was only a mechanism to identify educational institution enrolled with Appellant Board. Affiliation of schools to Appellant would not amount to any service and in absence of a service having been provided, amount collected as Affiliation Fee cannot be subjected to levy of service tax. Additional Director was not justified in confirming demand of service tax on Appellant. Impugned order passed by Additional Director cannot be sustained and is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Section 65(105)(m) of Finance Act, 1994 – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is engaged in business of providing stadium and open space for marriage and other commercial activities – After enquiry, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under taxable category of Mandap Keeper service – Commissioner confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether Appellant is liable to pay service tax under taxable category of Mandap Keeper service – HELD – Section 65(105)(m) of the Act defined Mandap Keeper service as services which are provide... [Read more]

Service Tax – Section 65(105)(m) of Finance Act, 1994 – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is engaged in business of providing stadium and open space for marriage and other commercial activities – After enquiry, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under taxable category of Mandap Keeper service – Commissioner confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether Appellant is liable to pay service tax under taxable category of Mandap Keeper service – HELD – Section 65(105)(m) of the Act defined Mandap Keeper service as services which are provided or to be provided by any person to a client in relation to official, social or business function. There is no specific evidence forthcoming in impugned order for claiming that Government had conducted various programmes or let out the stadium facility for conducting seminars and functions by other organizations on commercial consideration. Scope of conducting sporting activities or sports events in a stadium complex cannot be categorized as a official, business or social function for charging service tax thereon. Rent collected from players for using hostel cannot be subject to service tax under Mandap Keeper Services, since said activity cannot be treated as social, official or business function. There is no merit in impugned order passed by Commissioner in confirmation of adjudged demand. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Section 65(25b) of Finance Act, 1994 – Construction services – Tax liability – Appellant is engaged in construction of buildings and civil structures for various clients – Appellant had not paid service tax on amounts received towards construction of buildings for educational institutions by treating such activities as non-taxable – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether construction of buildings for ed... [Read more]

Service Tax – Section 65(25b) of Finance Act, 1994 – Construction services – Tax liability – Appellant is engaged in construction of buildings and civil structures for various clients – Appellant had not paid service tax on amounts received towards construction of buildings for educational institutions by treating such activities as non-taxable – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether construction of buildings for educational institutions such as schools and colleges is taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service – HELD – Section 65(25b) of the Act defines Commercial or Industrial Construction Service to mean construction of a building or civil structure used or to be used primarily for commerce or industry. Mere collection of fees does not make an educational institution commercial, so long as the surplus is ploughed back into institution and not distributed for private profit. Construction for organisations established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health or philanthropic purposes and not for profit would be non-commercial. Construction activity in present case is squarely outside scope of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and the levy fails at the threshold. Demand is liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Intellectual Property Right service - Service Tax liability on Royalty Income for usage of Registered Trademark - Appellant had developed a logo 'TTK' which was registered as an 'Artistic Work' under the Copyright Act, 1957 and was permitted to be used by the group concerns on the packaging, cartons, containers, labels, brochures, literature and advertising materials - Department of the view that the appellant is required to pay service tax on the royalty income received for permitting their group companies to use the 'TTK' logo as a trademark under Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service - Whether the dema... [Read more]

Service Tax - Intellectual Property Right service - Service Tax liability on Royalty Income for usage of Registered Trademark - Appellant had developed a logo 'TTK' which was registered as an 'Artistic Work' under the Copyright Act, 1957 and was permitted to be used by the group concerns on the packaging, cartons, containers, labels, brochures, literature and advertising materials - Department of the view that the appellant is required to pay service tax on the royalty income received for permitting their group companies to use the 'TTK' logo as a trademark under Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service - Whether the demand of service tax for the use of 'TTK' logo of the appellant by its group companies under Intellectual Property Right service is tenable – HELD - The exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as amended by Notification No. 03/2013-ST dated 01.03.2013, provides exemption on services provided by way of temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of a copyright, covered under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 relating to original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works - The issue is no more res integra and is settled in favor of the Appellant in their earlier decision involving the same Appellant for an earlier period - The 'TTK' logo is a registered copyright and not a trademark, and the definition of IPR service excludes copyright. Therefore, the service tax demand on the royalty income received by the Appellant for permitting the use of its registered copyright logo 'TTK' by its group companies is not sustainable – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Reversal of CENVAT credit on subscription and redemption of Mutual Funds, activity of trading of securities, Non-maintenance of separate account - Whether the activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds by the appellant can be considered as "Trading of Goods", which is an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, warranting reversal of CENVAT credit – HELD - The activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of securities. When the units of Mutual Funds are redeemed, the units cease to exist an... [Read more]

Service Tax - Reversal of CENVAT credit on subscription and redemption of Mutual Funds, activity of trading of securities, Non-maintenance of separate account - Whether the activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds by the appellant can be considered as "Trading of Goods", which is an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, warranting reversal of CENVAT credit – HELD - The activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of securities. When the units of Mutual Funds are redeemed, the units cease to exist and do not get transferred to a third party. Therefore, the investment activities undertaken by the appellant would be different from 'trading in securities' and cannot be considered as an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. The activity undertaken by the appellant would, therefore, not be an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act and proportionate reversal of credit is not required to be made - The impugned order cannot be sustained and set aside. The appeal allowed [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Section 2(30) and Section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Composite Supply vs. Mixed Supply - The applicant plans to provide sachets of instant Premix Tea as an introductory offer along with its various tea products - Classification of supplies where the applicant intends to provide sachets of its "Jivaraj Samaara Masala Instant Premix Tea" along with its other tea products as an introductory offer - Whether such bundled supplies would be considered as "Composite Supply" or "Mixed Supply" – HELD – The bundling of premix tea with other tea is not the perception of the customer as the customer does no... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Section 2(30) and Section 2(90) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Composite Supply vs. Mixed Supply - The applicant plans to provide sachets of instant Premix Tea as an introductory offer along with its various tea products - Classification of supplies where the applicant intends to provide sachets of its "Jivaraj Samaara Masala Instant Premix Tea" along with its other tea products as an introductory offer - Whether such bundled supplies would be considered as "Composite Supply" or "Mixed Supply" – HELD – The bundling of premix tea with other tea is not the perception of the customer as the customer does not expect any such bunching when he buys tea. The premix tea is not an ancillary commodity which is required to be supplied with the other tea. The premix tea and the other tea is not normally advertised as a package. It is only for testing the market that the applicants have decided to bunch it with the other tea. Further, the premix is not integral to the overall supply such that if it is removed the nature of the supply is affected - The various indicators to ascertain whether the supplies are naturally bundled, such as consumer perception, industry practice, and the nature of the supplies, are not present in the instant case. Therefore, the supply of Instant Premix tea with other tea will not constitute a composite supply - The bundled supplies would be considered as "Mixed Supply" and not "Composite Supply" as the premix tea and the other tea products are not naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business - Since the GST rate on all the tea products, including the premix tea, is 5%, the rate of tax for the "Mixed Supply" would also be 5% and any of the HSN codes of the supplies in the mixed supply can be used, as long as the tax rates are the same – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs – Regulations 5(2), 6(1)(o) and 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 – Demand of cost recovery charges – Sustainability – Commissioner appointed Appellant as Custodian of Imported goods and the goods to be Exported – Appellant submitted an application for waiver of payment of cost recovery charges in terms of Notification dated 12-9-2005 as it claimed to have achieved the requisite target – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant did not fulfill conditions set out in Regulations 5 and 6 of the Regulations – Commissioner confirmed demand of outstanding cost r... [Read more]

Customs – Regulations 5(2), 6(1)(o) and 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 – Demand of cost recovery charges – Sustainability – Commissioner appointed Appellant as Custodian of Imported goods and the goods to be Exported – Appellant submitted an application for waiver of payment of cost recovery charges in terms of Notification dated 12-9-2005 as it claimed to have achieved the requisite target – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant did not fulfill conditions set out in Regulations 5 and 6 of the Regulations – Commissioner confirmed demand of outstanding cost recovery charges under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the Regulations and imposed penalty upon Appellant under Regulation 12(8) of the Regulations – Whether demand of cost recovery charges could have been confirmed by Commissioner exercising powers under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the Regulations – HELD – Show cause notice had invoked provisions of Regulation 12 of the Regulations, which does not provide for realisation of cost recovery charge, but only provide for revocation of licence granted to custodian on account of various breaches as contained therein. Commissioner had not appreciated the legal provision as contained in the Regulations, which do not indicate machinery for realisation of cost recovery charge on account of being defaulted. Order passed by Commissioner is beyond scope of provisions of the Regulations, more so when he had decided not to cancel licence of Appellant and only imposed penalty. Commissioner committed an illegality in ordering recovery of cost recovery charges under aforesaid provisions of the Regulations. Direction to pay cost recovery charges in impugned order cannot be sustained. Impugned order passed by Principal Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Healthcare services – Tax liability – During verification of accounts, department found that Appellant have received certain amounts on provision of services, but have not paid service tax on amounts received – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under various taxable categories – Joint Commissioner confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Joint Commissioner – Whether consideration received for deputing doctors and managing another hospital under continuing cooperation and collaboration by... [Read more]

Service Tax – Healthcare services – Tax liability – During verification of accounts, department found that Appellant have received certain amounts on provision of services, but have not paid service tax on amounts received – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under various taxable categories – Joint Commissioner confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Joint Commissioner – Whether consideration received for deputing doctors and managing another hospital under continuing cooperation and collaboration by joining hands with other hospital are taxable separately as Management/Consultancy Service and Manpower Recruitment Service – HELD – Perusal of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between parties clearly showed that contracts between Appellant and various hospitals are on principal-to-principal basis and are in nature of sharing revenue. As per contracts, Appellant is required to provide knowhow and manpower and MOU Hospitals will provide infrastructure and funds. Revenue earned from patients is shared between Appellant and MOU Hospitals and no taxable service is being provided by Appellant to other hospitals. There is absolutely no stipulation of payment of any service charges by MOU hospitals to Appellant and the contract is purely for sharing of revenue. Service related to health care clinical management is exempt from Service Tax, as there is no element of service and it is like a hospital managing its own hospital. Receipts characterized as royalty/management fee are integrally connected with provision of healthcare services and do not constitute a separate taxable Management or Business Consultancy Service. Since reimbursement of salaries in respect of staff deputed by Appellant to MOU Hospital is made on an actual cost basis and employees continue to be on payroll of Appellant, it does not constitute a taxable Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. Impugned demand cannot be sustained. Order under challenge is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services – After scrutiny of documents, department viewed that Appellant had short paid service tax – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of short paid service tax by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether impugned order passed by Com... [Read more]

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services – After scrutiny of documents, department viewed that Appellant had short paid service tax – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of short paid service tax by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable – HELD – In present proceedings, Appellant have not stated that findings recorded in impugned order on issue of limitation are erroneous. Main contention of Appellant is that Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly distinguished the decisions quoted by them. Appellant had not challenged impugned order stating any other ground. Impugned order clearly distinguishes the decisions that Appellant relied in appellate proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant in his submissions had just placed on record certain decisions of this bench even without stating the facts and showing how these decisions are applicable in their case. Such blind reliance on some decisions without showing their applicability to facts in hand do not help case of Appellant. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained – Appeal dismissed [Read less]

Customs - BIS marking requirement, curable defect – Import of 'Alloy Tool Steel' accompanied by BIS NOC certificates but not have the required BIS marking printed or embossed on them - Adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of these goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance with the BIS marking requirement - Whether the absence of BIS marking printed/embossed on the imported 'Alloy Tool Steel' goods, as required under the BIS notification, renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the fact that permission was granted to affix the BIS... [Read more]

Customs - BIS marking requirement, curable defect – Import of 'Alloy Tool Steel' accompanied by BIS NOC certificates but not have the required BIS marking printed or embossed on them - Adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of these goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance with the BIS marking requirement - Whether the absence of BIS marking printed/embossed on the imported 'Alloy Tool Steel' goods, as required under the BIS notification, renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the fact that permission was granted to affix the BIS marking prior to clearance and the goods were cleared after affixing the mark – HELD - The absence of BIS marking was a curable defect. The object of the BIS rules to ensure that only goods of prescribed standard enter the Indian market was satisfied once the required marks were affixed under the supervision of Customs authorities prior to clearance. The Bombay High Court in Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. v. UOI and Prostarm Info Systems Ltd. v. UOI, has held that confiscation is not justified if the goods conform to the BIS standards and the defect is curable by affixing the required marking before clearance - In the present case, the foreign supplier had obtained BIS registration prior to the import, and the test report confirmed that the goods conformed to the relevant IS standards. Therefore, the confiscation order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of ‘Lauric Acid’, Demand invoking extended period of limitation - Appellant imported 'lauric acid' classifying the goods under tariff item 2915 7090 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus - Revenue of the view that lauric acid is classifiable under tariff item 2915 9090 and is assessable to duty as applicable for the goods at Sl. No.553 of Notification No. 21/2002 - Appellant agreed to pay duty and interest within the normal period of limitation, but contested the remaining demand as being time-barred - Whether the second SCN invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainab... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of ‘Lauric Acid’, Demand invoking extended period of limitation - Appellant imported 'lauric acid' classifying the goods under tariff item 2915 7090 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus - Revenue of the view that lauric acid is classifiable under tariff item 2915 9090 and is assessable to duty as applicable for the goods at Sl. No.553 of Notification No. 21/2002 - Appellant agreed to pay duty and interest within the normal period of limitation, but contested the remaining demand as being time-barred - Whether the second SCN invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainable, in the absence of any allegation of wilful suppression or misstatement of facts in the first SCN – HELD - The appellant has been clearing these products declaring them as “Lauric Acid” and classifying them under the tariff item 29157090 - The first SCN did not allege any wilful suppression or misstatement of facts on the part of the appellant nor invoked the provisions of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to cover the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. It is also settled that an importer, by classifying the imported goods under a customs tariff heading which he believes to be correct, cannot in itself lead to a conclusion of misstatement or wilful suppression of facts on the part of the importer, warranting invoking of the extended period of limitation - An importer's classification of goods under a tariff heading believed to be correct cannot lead to a conclusion of misstatement or wilful suppression of facts warranting invocation of the extended period of limitation - The second SCN invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable and set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Maintenance services, Sponsorship services – Service Tax demand on maintenance services received from abroad for imported software and incurring expenditure towards sponsoring of events. Accordingly, the revenue confirmed the demands under 'Maintenance Services' for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 and under 'Sponsorship Services' for the period 2012-13 - Appellant contended that no payments were made by the Indian branch for the maintenance of the software (SAP) and there was no contract for rendering the services between SAP Singapore and the appellant – HELD - Since there was no agreement between the appe... [Read more]

Service Tax - Maintenance services, Sponsorship services – Service Tax demand on maintenance services received from abroad for imported software and incurring expenditure towards sponsoring of events. Accordingly, the revenue confirmed the demands under 'Maintenance Services' for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 and under 'Sponsorship Services' for the period 2012-13 - Appellant contended that no payments were made by the Indian branch for the maintenance of the software (SAP) and there was no contract for rendering the services between SAP Singapore and the appellant – HELD - Since there was no agreement between the appellant and the service provider, the demand for maintenance services cannot be sustained. Relying on the decision in British Airways vs. CCE, the Tribunal held that the service being provided by a foreign-based company to a foreign-based head office, the service tax liability cannot be created against the non-consumer of the services – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Sponsorship services: The appellant contended that it had already paid service tax on the entire amount used in conducting the tournament, and the expenses for which service tax was demanded were towards hotel expenses of guests, and not for sponsoring any event – HELD - The revenue did not dispute the fact that the appellant had discharged service tax on the expenses incurred on sponsoring the event. The expenses on which service tax was demanded were payments made to various hotels for the stay of the guests and not for sponsorship of any event. Therefore, the demand for 'Sponsorship Services' cannot be upheld. [Read less]

The explanation to Entry No.234, relating to solar power-based devices and solar power generating systems, would apply irrespective of whether the contract is a works contract of immovable property or a composite supply of goods and services.

GST – Recovery of amount in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute, Pre-deposit requirement for filing Appeal - Whether the petitioners were required to make a further pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act before the appeal could be entertained, given that a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute had already been recovered from them prior to the filing of the appeal – HELD - In the case at hand a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute was recovered by the Respondent on the strength of an order which was later on dropped. However, a fresh order was passed based on the self-same show-cause notice - Since ... [Read more]

GST – Recovery of amount in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute, Pre-deposit requirement for filing Appeal - Whether the petitioners were required to make a further pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act before the appeal could be entertained, given that a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute had already been recovered from them prior to the filing of the appeal – HELD - In the case at hand a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute was recovered by the Respondent on the strength of an order which was later on dropped. However, a fresh order was passed based on the self-same show-cause notice - Since a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute had already been recovered from the petitioners prior to the filing of the appeal, the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) stood satisfied - The matter is remanded to the file of the appellate authority for considering and deciding the petitioners’ appeal on merits, without insisting on any further pre-deposit – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise – Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Violation of provisions – Demand of credit – Appellant No.1 is engaged in manufacture of TMT bars and had been availing CENVAT credit on raw materials procured for manufacture of its final products – Appellant No.1 imported steel melting scrap for use in manufacture and transferred same to Appellant No.2 for trading purposes – Appellant No.2 subsequently transferred material to Appellant No.3, who transferred scrap back to Appellant No.1 – Department alleged that transactions between Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were only paper transactions without actual moveme... [Read more]

Central Excise – Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Violation of provisions – Demand of credit – Appellant No.1 is engaged in manufacture of TMT bars and had been availing CENVAT credit on raw materials procured for manufacture of its final products – Appellant No.1 imported steel melting scrap for use in manufacture and transferred same to Appellant No.2 for trading purposes – Appellant No.2 subsequently transferred material to Appellant No.3, who transferred scrap back to Appellant No.1 – Department alleged that transactions between Appellant Nos.2 and 3 were only paper transactions without actual movement of goods, on basis of which, Appellant No.1 had availed CENVAT credit in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of credit – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand proposed in show cause notice – Whether Appellant No.1 has violated provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules – HELD – It is an undisputed fact that imported scrap had not been physically transferred from one party to another party, which is a precondition for availing CENVAT credit facility. It is not clear as to how CENVAT credit had been availed or transferred without receipt of goods involved physically. Transactions availing credit and transferring same have been carried out without receipt or dispatch of goods. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 though registered as dealers have not procured goods either from manufacturer or from dealer under cover of valid invoices. There is no acceptable or corroborative evidence demonstrating receipt or procurement of goods, which is essential for purpose of availing credit. There is no evidence to establish that any physical movement of goods actually took place. Mere creation of paperwork or paper trial to indicate movement of goods or mere endorsement of Bills of Entry is not sufficient to establish eligibility for credit. Above discussions clearly indicate that there is violation of provisions of the Rules, making Appellant No.1 ineligible to avail credit. Orders under challenge are upheld – Appeals dismissed [Read less]

In terms of Sec. 75(7) the amount of tax, interest or penalty demanded in the order referable to Sec. 74(9) shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice nor the demand can be confirmed on the grounds other than specified in the SCN.

Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Delay and Laches, Issue of recovery notice - Challenging to various orders related to VAT assessment including reassessment order and recovery notice - Whether the writ petition entertainable despite the delay – HELD - The petitioner had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition, even after the reassessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. Though there is no limitation for filing of writ petition but at the same time, it is a settled position that litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time - The petitioner is unable... [Read more]

Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Delay and Laches, Issue of recovery notice - Challenging to various orders related to VAT assessment including reassessment order and recovery notice - Whether the writ petition entertainable despite the delay – HELD - The petitioner had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition, even after the reassessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. Though there is no limitation for filing of writ petition but at the same time, it is a settled position that litigant should approach the Court within a reasonable period of time - The petitioner is unable to point out any ground whatsoever for explaining the delay in filing the present petition. Even after passing of re-assessment order on 30.03.2022, no steps were admittedly taken by petitioner – There is no merit in the argument by the petitioner that as business was closed since 2014, an opportunity should be afforded at this stage as prayed for - The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Classification of imitation zari thread or yarn made from lacquered coated polyester film/plastic film with aluminium metal – HELD – The metallic zari thread or yarn made from metallized polyester film/plastic film known by any name in trade parlance, would merit classification under HSN 56050020 and covered under serial no. 218AA of Schedule I of notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 from 27.07.2023 to 21.09.2025 and in terms of serial no. 353 of the Schedule-I of Notification No. 9/2025-CT(Rate) dated 17.09.2025 with effect from 22.09.2025 – Ordered accordingly

GST – Electricity Regulatory Commission, Exemption to Regulatory Bodies, Quasi-Judicial Functions - Whether the regulatory and adjudicatory functions performed by the KERC, a quasi-judicial body, would fall within the scope of "supply of goods or services" under the CGST Act, 2017, thereby making the receipts/fees earned by the Commission liable to GST – HELD - The regulatory and adjudicatory functions performed by the KERC, which is a quasi-judicial body established under the Electricity Act, 2003, would not fall within the scope of "supply of goods or services" under the CGST Act - The Court relied on the judgment of... [Read more]

GST – Electricity Regulatory Commission, Exemption to Regulatory Bodies, Quasi-Judicial Functions - Whether the regulatory and adjudicatory functions performed by the KERC, a quasi-judicial body, would fall within the scope of "supply of goods or services" under the CGST Act, 2017, thereby making the receipts/fees earned by the Commission liable to GST – HELD - The regulatory and adjudicatory functions performed by the KERC, which is a quasi-judicial body established under the Electricity Act, 2003, would not fall within the scope of "supply of goods or services" under the CGST Act - The Court relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar matter involving the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), which was upheld by the Supreme Court - The functions of the regulatory commissions are in the nature of a tribunal, which is expressly excluded from the ambit of "supply of goods or services" under Schedule III of the CGST Act. The fees/receipts earned by the Commission cannot be construed as "consideration" for any "supply of goods or services" in the course or furtherance of "business" as defined under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order and show cause notice demanding GST from the petitioner are invalid and unsustainable - The impugned order and show cause notice are quashed and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Restoration of GST Registration - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for six months. The petitioner claims he was unable to access the GST portal due to a dispute with his Chartered Accountant, and made continuous efforts to get the registration restored, but was unsuccessful - Whether the petitioner's GST registration should be restored despite the delay in filing returns and approaching the Court – HELD - The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the petitioner had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered Accountant, which led to the GST registratio... [Read more]

GST - Restoration of GST Registration - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for six months. The petitioner claims he was unable to access the GST portal due to a dispute with his Chartered Accountant, and made continuous efforts to get the registration restored, but was unsuccessful - Whether the petitioner's GST registration should be restored despite the delay in filing returns and approaching the Court – HELD - The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the petitioner had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered Accountant, which led to the GST registration being cancelled. Although under ordinary circumstances, the Court would not be inclined to condone the delay, the present case indicates that the petitioner is a bona fide trader who intends to continue his business and requires his GST registration to be restored for the said purpose - While the petitioner ought to have replied to the SCN, the cancellation of GST registration has prevented him from conducting his business. Considering the facts and circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction and directs the restoration of the petitioner's GST registration, allowing him to file all the GST returns along with the late payment fee and interest, if any – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Rectification of GSTR-3B, Payment of evaded tax - The petitioner contended that the disputed tax already credited into the electronic credit ledger with interest - Petitioner argued that the error in in GSTR-3B was rectified in the subsequent returns – HELD - There is a prima facie indication that the petitioner had evaded tax for the period 2017-18 and remitted the same in December 2018 along with interest – The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the initial notice �... [Read more]

GST - Rectification of GSTR-3B, Payment of evaded tax - The petitioner contended that the disputed tax already credited into the electronic credit ledger with interest - Petitioner argued that the error in in GSTR-3B was rectified in the subsequent returns – HELD - There is a prima facie indication that the petitioner had evaded tax for the period 2017-18 and remitted the same in December 2018 along with interest – The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the initial notice – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of diagnostic kits, Eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 45/2025-Customs - Applicant sought an advance ruling on the classification of two items - "miRCURY LNA SYBR Green PCR Kit (200)" and "miRCURY LNA SYBR Green PCR Kit (600)" and their eligibility for customs duty exemption under the relevant notification - HELD - As per Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, goods under consideration should be classified in accordance with the 'terms' of the heading or the relevant Section or Chapter Notes - The subject goods are rightly classifiable under Tariff Item 38221... [Read more]

Customs AAR - Classification of diagnostic kits, Eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 45/2025-Customs - Applicant sought an advance ruling on the classification of two items - "miRCURY LNA SYBR Green PCR Kit (200)" and "miRCURY LNA SYBR Green PCR Kit (600)" and their eligibility for customs duty exemption under the relevant notification - HELD - As per Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, goods under consideration should be classified in accordance with the 'terms' of the heading or the relevant Section or Chapter Notes - The subject goods are rightly classifiable under Tariff Item 38221990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers "Diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a backing, prepared diagnostic or laboratory reagents whether or not on a backing, whether or not put up in the form of kits, other than those of heading 3006". The goods are laboratory reagents in the form of kits, and therefore, fall squarely under the terms of Tariff Item 38221990. The Applicant's previous classification of the goods under Tariff Item 38229090 (for "Other reference materials") was erroneous, and a change in classification based on a fresh interpretation of the tariff heading is permissible under settled legal principles – Ordered accordingly - Eligibility for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 45/2025-Customs - HELD - The subject goods are not eligible for exemption from customs duty under Entry 102 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025, read with Entry No. 9 of List 3 of the said notification, which provides exemption to "Bovine Albumin" - The notification provides exemption only to Bovine Albumin imported in its isolated form, and not to composite laboratory reagents or kits containing Bovine Albumin as an ingredient. The express listing of specific diagnostic kits in List 3 of the notification indicates the exhaustive nature of the exemption, and the subject goods, not being specifically listed, are excluded from the benefit. [Read less]

GST - Recovery of tax amount beyond prescribed pre-deposit - Whether the authorities could have proceeded to recover the entire tax amount determined by the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, despite the fact that the time to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was still available – HELD - In terms of the provisions of Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, an appellant is required to put in a pre-deposit equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute before the first appellate authority and an additional 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute before the Tribunal. Upon such pre-deposits ... [Read more]

GST - Recovery of tax amount beyond prescribed pre-deposit - Whether the authorities could have proceeded to recover the entire tax amount determined by the order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, despite the fact that the time to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was still available – HELD - In terms of the provisions of Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, an appellant is required to put in a pre-deposit equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute before the first appellate authority and an additional 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute before the Tribunal. Upon such pre-deposits being made, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount are deemed to have been stayed. Therefore, the authorities could not have proceeded to recover the sum in excess of the cumulative sums required to be deposited by the appellant before the two authorities - The authorities are directed to refund to the petitioners any sum that they may have recovered in excess of the sum that was required to be deposited in terms of Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the Act – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Payment of outstanding tax in installments - Petitioner had applied for payment of the arrears in installments under Section 80 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which was rejected by the respondents - Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay the outstanding tax liability in installments under Section 80 of the Act – HELD - The respondents have rejected the petitioner's request for payment of tax in monthly installments based on Rule 158(3)(a) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, which provides that the taxable person should not have already defaulted on the payment of any amount under the Act, for which the recovery process is on - T... [Read more]

GST - Payment of outstanding tax in installments - Petitioner had applied for payment of the arrears in installments under Section 80 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which was rejected by the respondents - Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay the outstanding tax liability in installments under Section 80 of the Act – HELD - The respondents have rejected the petitioner's request for payment of tax in monthly installments based on Rule 158(3)(a) of the TNGST Rules, 2017, which provides that the taxable person should not have already defaulted on the payment of any amount under the Act, for which the recovery process is on - The respondents had not considered the fact that the petitioner had obtained an interim order from the Allahabad High Court staying the recovery proceedings - The matter is remanded back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Scope of Advance Ruling, E-way bill requirements for an unregistered person - The applicant sought an advance ruling on (i) whether it is compulsory to generate an e-way bill while moving goods from one godown to another godown in different cities within the same State, and (ii) whether it is compulsory to generate an e-way bill while selling goods from the applicant's godown to an unregistered person in Gujarat – HELD – The matters related to e-way bill do not find mention in the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the matters on which an Advance Ruling can be so... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Scope of Advance Ruling, E-way bill requirements for an unregistered person - The applicant sought an advance ruling on (i) whether it is compulsory to generate an e-way bill while moving goods from one godown to another godown in different cities within the same State, and (ii) whether it is compulsory to generate an e-way bill while selling goods from the applicant's godown to an unregistered person in Gujarat – HELD – The matters related to e-way bill do not find mention in the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the matters on which an Advance Ruling can be sought. The issues relating to e-way bill does not fall within the ambit of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act - The applicant's contention that the applicability of the e-way bill Rules notified under the CGST Act would be covered under Section 97(2)(b) is rejected because every Rule in the CGST Rules has been introduced through a notification, and if the applicant's reasoning is accepted, then an Advance Ruling would be required for any matter covered by the CGST Rules, which is not the intention of the legislature – The application is rejected as not maintainable – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017, Application to all pending proceedings - Whether the repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) through Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2024 would apply to all pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place – HELD - The repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without any saving clause would apply to all pending proceedings/cases, including those where orders-in-appeal were passed before the repeal but were not yet finalised due to appeals or challenges before the High Court - The omission of the Rules is prospective in nature but applicable ... [Read more]

GST - Repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017, Application to all pending proceedings - Whether the repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) through Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2024 would apply to all pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place – HELD - The repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without any saving clause would apply to all pending proceedings/cases, including those where orders-in-appeal were passed before the repeal but were not yet finalised due to appeals or challenges before the High Court - The omission of the Rules is prospective in nature but applicable to all pending proceedings where final adjudication has not taken place. the impugned actions of the respondents are quashed and set aside - The petitioners are entitled to refund and all pending applications for refund shall be processed accordingly - The writ petitions are allowed [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Scope of Supply, GST on subsidised meals provided by the employer to employees and contractual workers - The applicant has contracted with Canteen Service Provider (CSP) to operate the canteen within the applicant's premises. A specified percentage of the cost of the meals provided is deducted by the applicant from the salaries of its employees and from the amount paid to the contractor providing contractual workers on a monthly basis - Whether the subsidized deduction made by the applicant from the employees and workers towards the canteen facility provided by the CSP would be considered as a 'supp... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Scope of Supply, GST on subsidised meals provided by the employer to employees and contractual workers - The applicant has contracted with Canteen Service Provider (CSP) to operate the canteen within the applicant's premises. A specified percentage of the cost of the meals provided is deducted by the applicant from the salaries of its employees and from the amount paid to the contractor providing contractual workers on a monthly basis - Whether the subsidized deduction made by the applicant from the employees and workers towards the canteen facility provided by the CSP would be considered as a 'supply' by the applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The supply of food by the applicant to its employees is in the nature of a perquisite provided by the employer to the employee in terms of the contractual agreement entered into between them, and such perquisites are not subjected to GST as per the CBIC Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 - The subsidized deduction made by the applicant from the employees towards the canteen facility would not be considered as a 'supply' by the applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 - However, the subsidised deduction made by the applicant from the contractual workers towards the canteen facility would be considered as a 'supply' by the applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of the CGST Act. The contractual workers are not employees of the applicant, and the supply of food by the applicant to the contractual workers would be an outward supply made by the applicant in the course or furtherance of its business, which is subject to GST – The supply of food by the applicant to the contractual workers is a taxable supply, and the GST is to be paid on the amount recovered from the contractor as consideration for such supply - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Supply of services by a Domestic Tariff Areas supplier to a Unit or Developer of a Special Economic Zone – Endorsement of supply-related documents by the authorised officer of the SEZ in terms of Rule 30(4) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 - Whether the requirement of endorsement of the supply-related documents by the authorized officer of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 is applicable to periods prior to 21.09.2018 – HELD – The Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and the related Circular dated 12.09.2019 were prospective in nature and not applicable to the tax periods ... [Read more]

GST – Supply of services by a Domestic Tariff Areas supplier to a Unit or Developer of a Special Economic Zone – Endorsement of supply-related documents by the authorised officer of the SEZ in terms of Rule 30(4) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 - Whether the requirement of endorsement of the supply-related documents by the authorized officer of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 is applicable to periods prior to 21.09.2018 – HELD – The Rule 30(4) of the SEZ Rules and the related Circular dated 12.09.2019 were prospective in nature and not applicable to the tax periods from July 2017 to March 2018 - In the instant case, the impugned proceedings pertain to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 at a point in time, when neither the said notification amended Rule 30(4) nor the aforesaid Circular were in force – The Respondents erred in applying the prospective Rule and Circular to the earlier tax periods, which was contrary to the material on record and without jurisdiction or authority of law. The impugned order, summary, and notice are quashed - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Entitlement to export rebate on excisable goods - Rejection of claims for export rebate on excisable goods fully exempted from payment of duty - Petitioners had availed the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No.59/2008-CE and later claimed rebate on the duty paid - Whether the petitioners were entitled to the export rebate despite having paid duty on the final products that were fully exempted under Notification No.29/2004-CE as amended by Notification No.59/2008-CE – HELD - The issue is no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the judgment in Arvind Limited v. Union of In... [Read more]

Central Excise - Entitlement to export rebate on excisable goods - Rejection of claims for export rebate on excisable goods fully exempted from payment of duty - Petitioners had availed the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No.59/2008-CE and later claimed rebate on the duty paid - Whether the petitioners were entitled to the export rebate despite having paid duty on the final products that were fully exempted under Notification No.29/2004-CE as amended by Notification No.59/2008-CE – HELD - The issue is no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the judgment in Arvind Limited v. Union of India, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court - The petitioners could not be denied the claim of rebate on the ground that the payment of duty was at the will of the assessee, as the final products manufactured by the petitioners were exempted from payment of duty. The fact that the petitioners availed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.59/2008-CE and thereafter filed the rebate claims did not disentitle them from the export rebate - The treatment of the issue by the authorities is more technical rather than based on substance, and there is no valid rationale to deny the rebate claims. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the rebate as claimed – The petition is disposed of - Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the rebate amount – HELD - The liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application under Section 11B(1) of the Act, and not from the date of the order of refund. The respondent-authorities are to pay the interest to the petitioners in accordance with the law laid down in the Kamakshi Tradexim judgment. However, the petitioners shall not claim any interest on the amount deposited in the CENVAT credit account. [Read less]