More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Customs - Alteration of MRP by distributor, Duty evasion on imported cellular phones - The appellants are engaged in import of cellular phones under 'Celkon' brand, which are distributed to various dealers for sale - Department alleged that the appellants were resorting to evasion of Customs duty by declaring Retail Sale Price (RSP) less than Rs.2,000/- at the time of import and thereafter, altering the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the label affixed to individual unit of cellular phones subsequent to the clearance from the customs, which carried MRP higher than Rs.2,000/- - Whether the differential Customs Duty ca... [Read more]

Customs - Alteration of MRP by distributor, Duty evasion on imported cellular phones - The appellants are engaged in import of cellular phones under 'Celkon' brand, which are distributed to various dealers for sale - Department alleged that the appellants were resorting to evasion of Customs duty by declaring Retail Sale Price (RSP) less than Rs.2,000/- at the time of import and thereafter, altering the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the label affixed to individual unit of cellular phones subsequent to the clearance from the customs, which carried MRP higher than Rs.2,000/- - Whether the differential Customs Duty can be demanded from the appellants on account of alleged alteration of MRP by their distributor, who is a separate legal entity – HELD - The core issue is whether the appellants have discharged CVD wrongly on the imports made by them by mis-declaring their actual RSP or otherwise. The evidence relied upon by the department, such as photographs of the label on the outer package of cellular phones and statements of certain individuals, are not sufficient to establish that the appellants themselves had intentionally mis-declared the RSP at the time of import and later on replaced the label by showing higher MRP – The alteration, if any, to some extent in respect of some models has taken place in the premises of distributor, which is an independent legal entity. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellants were engaged in the day-to-day operations or activities of distributor or that there was any flow back from the distributor to the appellants - The provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 would not be applicable to the appellants as they are not the manufacturers of the goods. The demand of differential Customs Duty under the Customs Act in such cases, where the alteration of MRP has been done by the distributor, a separate legal entity, is not sustainable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act - Promissory Estoppel, Exemption from Octroi to developer of Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Refund of Octroi - Petitioner company was granted approval to set up an IT/ITES Sector specific SEZ - As per the Maharashtra Government's policy dated 12.10.2001, the developers of SEZs were entitled to exemption from all state and local taxes, including octroi – Petitioner aggrieved by denial of the Pune Municipal Corporation to grant the exemption and direction to pay octroi - Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the Octroi paid by it, based on the promise of exemption made in th... [Read more]

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act - Promissory Estoppel, Exemption from Octroi to developer of Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Refund of Octroi - Petitioner company was granted approval to set up an IT/ITES Sector specific SEZ - As per the Maharashtra Government's policy dated 12.10.2001, the developers of SEZs were entitled to exemption from all state and local taxes, including octroi – Petitioner aggrieved by denial of the Pune Municipal Corporation to grant the exemption and direction to pay octroi - Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the Octroi paid by it, based on the promise of exemption made in the Maharashtra Government's policy – HELD - The Maharashtra Government's policy dated 12.10.2001 vide Resolution No. SEZ2001/(152)/IND-2 clearly promised exemption from all State and local taxes, including octroi, to the developers of SEZs. The petitioner acted on this promise and set up the SEZ. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would squarely apply in this case, and the State Government cannot be allowed to resile from its promise - The State Government had the necessary statutory powers under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act to direct the PMC to amend the Octroi Rules to give effect to the exemption promised in the policy. However, the State Government failed to take any such steps, despite being aware of the issue - It was the duty of the State Government to ensure that the Petitioner, who was an approved developer of the SEZ got benefit of exemption from levying the octroi. The State Government was bound to fulfill its own policy and the promise made under the policy to the developers of SEZs - While the PMC could not be directed to refund the octroi in the absence of any amendment to the Octroi Rules. However, the same concession cannot be given to the State of Maharashtra - The State Government is directed to refund the octroi paid by the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The appellant, who was acting as an agent between the principal and the third party and was getting commission for effecting the sales between the sellers and the purchasers, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his alleged act of omission and commission and for helping the traders in selling excisable invoices without supply of goods – HELD – The appellant did not have the possession of the goods at any time since he was acting as a broker between the sellers and the purchasers. The goo... [Read more]

Central Excise - Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The appellant, who was acting as an agent between the principal and the third party and was getting commission for effecting the sales between the sellers and the purchasers, was imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his alleged act of omission and commission and for helping the traders in selling excisable invoices without supply of goods – HELD – The appellant did not have the possession of the goods at any time since he was acting as a broker between the sellers and the purchasers. The goods were handled by the principal parties and the appellant was not responsible for delivery of the invoices without actual supply of the material - Further, the case of the main noticees, against whom the allegation of supplying the fake invoices without actual supply of the material was made, has already been decided by the Tribunal wherein their appeals were allowed and the impugned order was set aside. Considering these facts, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules - The penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Classification of granite products under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) - The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing of granite slabs, blocks and other articles, contested the classification of its products under CETH 6802 instead of CETH 2516 as claimed by it – HELD - If the goods were merely roughly trimmed or cut without any further polishing or sizing, they may fall under CETH 2516, otherwise they would be classifiable under CETH 6802. The classification has a bearing on the levy of Central Excise duty on the clearances made by the appellant to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as well as ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Classification of granite products under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) - The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing of granite slabs, blocks and other articles, contested the classification of its products under CETH 6802 instead of CETH 2516 as claimed by it – HELD - If the goods were merely roughly trimmed or cut without any further polishing or sizing, they may fall under CETH 2516, otherwise they would be classifiable under CETH 6802. The classification has a bearing on the levy of Central Excise duty on the clearances made by the appellant to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as well as to another EOU - The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the classification of the appellant's granite products based on the evidence submitted by the appellant regarding the nature and extent of processing carried out on the granite blocks quarried from the mines – The appeal is allowed by remand - Clearance of goods from EOU to another EOU - The appellant had cleared certain quantities of goods from its EOU to another EOU without obtaining prior approval from the Development Commissioner as required. This was a procedural breach and the appellant had later obtained post-facto approval from the Development Commissioner - Mere procedural lapses cannot lead to invocation of the B-17 bond, unless there is any allegation that the duty-free imported goods were not used in the manufacture of the goods in the EOU. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the accountal of the entire quantity cleared by the appellant to the other EOU - Denial of benefit under Notification Nos. 52/2003-Cus and 22/2003-CE - The department denied the benefit of exemption on inputs procured by the appellant under the above notifications, on the ground of procedural lapses in clearing goods from EOU to DTA and another EOU – HELD - There was no allegation that the duty-free imported goods were not used in the manufacture of goods in the EOU. The adjudicating authority is directed to verify if the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions, including achievement of Net Foreign Exchange (NFE), under the said notifications, except for the procedural lapse in clearance to another EOU. Subject to this satisfaction, the benefit of the notifications cannot be denied to the appellant. [Read less]

Customs – Import of Roasted Areca Nuts - Department seized the goods on the basis of a laboratory report stating that the goods were not roasted areca nuts. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods, which included furnishing a bond and a bank guarantee amounting to a substantial portion of the assessable value of the goods - Whether the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods, particularly the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee, were arbitrary, unreasonable, and not sustainable in law – HELD - The Advance Ruling in favor of the appel... [Read more]

Customs – Import of Roasted Areca Nuts - Department seized the goods on the basis of a laboratory report stating that the goods were not roasted areca nuts. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods, which included furnishing a bond and a bank guarantee amounting to a substantial portion of the assessable value of the goods - Whether the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods, particularly the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee, were arbitrary, unreasonable, and not sustainable in law – HELD - The Advance Ruling in favor of the appellant, which had not been challenged by the Revenue, was binding. The test reports of the CRCL classifying the goods based on visual inspection were not permissible in law. The same laboratory had earlier declared the appellant's imports of roasted areca nuts as fit for human consumption. In such a case, the requirement of a bank guarantee amounting to a substantial portion of the assessable value is arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be sustained - The seized goods were directed to be released subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the provisional release order, except for the requirement to furnish the bank guarantee – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Grant-in-aid as reimbursement of expenses vs. taxable service - Appellant, a rice mill company, received grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries under a Government scheme for creation/expansion of food processing and preservation capacities - Department alleged that the grant-in-aid was consideration for rendering a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence liable to service tax - Whether the grant-in-aid received by the appellant was a taxable service under the Service Tax law – HELD - The grant-in-aid received by the appellant was merely a reimbursement ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Grant-in-aid as reimbursement of expenses vs. taxable service - Appellant, a rice mill company, received grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries under a Government scheme for creation/expansion of food processing and preservation capacities - Department alleged that the grant-in-aid was consideration for rendering a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence liable to service tax - Whether the grant-in-aid received by the appellant was a taxable service under the Service Tax law – HELD - The grant-in-aid received by the appellant was merely a reimbursement of the expenditure already incurred for setting up a rice milling plant, and not consideration for any service. The Tribunal relied on various decisions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court which have held that grant-in-aid received from the government is not a taxable service as there is no service provider-service recipient relationship and the grant is merely a reimbursement of expenses - The conditions in the sanction order were general and did not create any contractual obligations or counter obligations on the appellant. The appellant was not engaged in any research and development activities to generate intellectual property rights, but was simply a rice mill - In the absence of any consideration flowing from the government to the appellant, there was no provision of service under Section 65B(44) of the Act. The grant-in-aid was a reimbursement of capital expenditure incurred on the plant and cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on Legal Consultancy services under Reverse Charge mechanism – Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as its turnover in the preceding financial years exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs - Whether the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and consequently entitled to the refund of service tax paid under RCM - HELD – In earlier decision in the appellant's own case, it was held that for the purpose of the said notification, the term 'tur... [Read more]

Service Tax - Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on Legal Consultancy services under Reverse Charge mechanism – Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as its turnover in the preceding financial years exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs - Whether the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and consequently entitled to the refund of service tax paid under RCM - HELD – In earlier decision in the appellant's own case, it was held that for the purpose of the said notification, the term 'turnover' would include the entire proceeds of the business entity, and not just the turnover of the taxable services - The appellant's turnover, including the income from nursery sales, had exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs in the preceding financial years. Therefore, the appellant did not qualify for the threshold exemption provided under the notification – Further, the refund claim should be made within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the refund claim was filed after the expiry of the limitation period, and the appellant had also failed to establish the non-passing on of the incidence of the tax to the buyers. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax liability on security services, hiring of cars, legal charges, rent received from employees, and goods transport agency service – HELD - For the services of security and hiring of cars, the service provider is required to pay the service Tax, and the appellant as the receiver of these services is not liable to pay the Service Tax. Regarding the legal charges, the appellant had included payments for Chartered Accountant's services and other consultants under this head, and the appellant conceded the demand. For the rent received from employees equivalent to the House Rent Allowance paid to them, this can be tr... [Read more]

Service Tax liability on security services, hiring of cars, legal charges, rent received from employees, and goods transport agency service – HELD - For the services of security and hiring of cars, the service provider is required to pay the service Tax, and the appellant as the receiver of these services is not liable to pay the Service Tax. Regarding the legal charges, the appellant had included payments for Chartered Accountant's services and other consultants under this head, and the appellant conceded the demand. For the rent received from employees equivalent to the House Rent Allowance paid to them, this can be treated as free accommodation provided by the appellant, and hence the appellant is not required to pay Service Tax on this - The appeals are partially allowed, with the Service Tax demand upheld only on the legal charges and goods transport agency service, along with interest. No Service Tax was payable by the appellant on the security services, hiring of cars, and rent received from employees equivalent to the House Rent Allowance. No penalties were imposed on the appellant - The appeals are disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax - Determination of Service Tax Liability - Real Estate Agent Services and Construction of Residential Complex services - Whether the appellant is entitled to the claim of cum-duty benefit under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and whether the demand and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority are justified - HELD – The appellant is entitled to the claim of cum-duty benefit as per Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, which stipulates that where the gross amount charged by a service provider for the service provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be s... [Read more]

Service Tax - Determination of Service Tax Liability - Real Estate Agent Services and Construction of Residential Complex services - Whether the appellant is entitled to the claim of cum-duty benefit under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and whether the demand and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority are justified - HELD – The appellant is entitled to the claim of cum-duty benefit as per Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, which stipulates that where the gross amount charged by a service provider for the service provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable is equal to the gross amount charged – Further, the appellant has adduced various documents through a miscellaneous application, which were not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication, directing the Authority to consider the documents submitted by the appellant, recompute the tax and interest liabilities by granting the cum-duty benefit, and determine the applicable penalties, if any, after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and adhering to the principles of natural justice - The appeal is partly allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax - Renting of immovable property for residential purpose – Appellant was providing renting of immovable property service for commercial purpose and did not pay service tax on the consideration received - Department issued notice alleging that the VCES declaration filed by the appellant was substantially false and proposed demand of service tax on the ground that the property was rented out for commercial purpose, contrary to the claim made by the appellant that it was for residential purpose - Whether the appellant has sufficiently proved that the premises was let out for residential purposes so as to exclude ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Renting of immovable property for residential purpose – Appellant was providing renting of immovable property service for commercial purpose and did not pay service tax on the consideration received - Department issued notice alleging that the VCES declaration filed by the appellant was substantially false and proposed demand of service tax on the ground that the property was rented out for commercial purpose, contrary to the claim made by the appellant that it was for residential purpose - Whether the appellant has sufficiently proved that the premises was let out for residential purposes so as to exclude the said property from the ambit of "immovable property" under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - It is not the case of the Department that the premises is not a standalone Building or that it is a building that is party used in the course or furtherance of business or commerce - The Adjudicating Authority erred in merely assuming that just because the lease was entered into by the company, the premises is not for the residential purposes of the Managing Director, more so, in the absence of any evidence that it was not being so used as claimed - The lease agreement clearly indicated that the appellant had agreed to demise the property for use as a residence by the Managing Director of the company. There is no reason to disbelieve the notarised affidavit filed by the appellant averring to this fact and its usage for residential purposes – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund claim on excess payment of excise duty – Denial of refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment – HELD - The appellant has since collected and collated the necessary documents required to satisfy the authorities below that the appellant has not passed on the duty to its customers and can now adduce evidence that it has overcome the bar of unjust enrichment - The interest of justice would be served if the appellant is granted one more opportunity to let in evidence as available with him and to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional adjudicating authority that the appellant has overcome the bar of... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund claim on excess payment of excise duty – Denial of refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment – HELD - The appellant has since collected and collated the necessary documents required to satisfy the authorities below that the appellant has not passed on the duty to its customers and can now adduce evidence that it has overcome the bar of unjust enrichment - The interest of justice would be served if the appellant is granted one more opportunity to let in evidence as available with him and to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional adjudicating authority that the appellant has overcome the bar of unjust enrichment and is consequently entitled to the refund. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim for refund, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the jurisdictional authority for adjudication afresh – The appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]

Central Excise - Duty liability on goods manufactured by contract manufacturer on job work basis, finished goods cleared without undertaking any manufacturing activity - Appellant entered into an agreement with job-worker for manufacture of car seat sets on contract manufacturing/job-work basis. The raw materials were provided by the appellant to the contract manufacturer, who was availing the area-based exemption. The finished goods were cleared to the appellant, who sold the same to automobile manufacturer without undertaking any manufacturing activity - SCN proposing to recover excise duty from the appellant on the grou... [Read more]

Central Excise - Duty liability on goods manufactured by contract manufacturer on job work basis, finished goods cleared without undertaking any manufacturing activity - Appellant entered into an agreement with job-worker for manufacture of car seat sets on contract manufacturing/job-work basis. The raw materials were provided by the appellant to the contract manufacturer, who was availing the area-based exemption. The finished goods were cleared to the appellant, who sold the same to automobile manufacturer without undertaking any manufacturing activity - SCN proposing to recover excise duty from the appellant on the ground that as the principal manufacturer, it was liable to pay the excise duty on the goods manufactured by the contract manufacturer - Whether the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured by the contract manufacturer on job work basis - HELD - Various decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal have laid down the principle that the job worker who has undertaken the manufacturing activity is the "manufacturer" and is liable to pay the excise duty. As per the agreement between the parties, the relationship was that of independent contractors and the manufacturing activity took place at the premises of the contract manufacturer by employing its own resources, labour and machinery, without any control and supervision of the appellant. Applying the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the contract manufacturer is the "manufacturer" of the goods and is liable to pay the excise duty - The appellant cannot be said to be the manufacturer of the goods and it is the contract manufacturer, who is the manufacturer of the goods and, therefore, liable to pay the excise duty - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAAR - Classification of Geomembranes – Respondent-Assessee manufacturer of textile products including geomembranes sought advance ruling on whether geomembranes should be classified under HSN 5971 (textile products coated/covered/laminated with plastics) or HSN 3926 (other articles of plastics) - Advance Ruling Authority held that geomembranes are classified under HSN 5911 (textile products and articles for technical uses) - Department appealed against AAR ruling claiming that the product geomembranes manufactured from HDPE strips is rightly classifiable under HSN 3926 – HELD - The issue stands settled... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAAR - Classification of Geomembranes – Respondent-Assessee manufacturer of textile products including geomembranes sought advance ruling on whether geomembranes should be classified under HSN 5971 (textile products coated/covered/laminated with plastics) or HSN 3926 (other articles of plastics) - Advance Ruling Authority held that geomembranes are classified under HSN 5911 (textile products and articles for technical uses) - Department appealed against AAR ruling claiming that the product geomembranes manufactured from HDPE strips is rightly classifiable under HSN 3926 – HELD - The issue stands settled by the Gujarat High Court in the case of an identical product, where the High Court had held that geomembranes are correctly classified under HSN 5911, and not under Chapter 39. The manufacturing process followed by the respondent is identical to the one considered by the High Court - Since the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Ananta Synthetic Innovations has held that the product in question is classifiable under Chapter 59 and not under Chapter 39, the Authority is bound to follow the same. Accordingly, the geomembranes manufactured by the respondent are correctly classified under HSN 5911 – The Department’s appeal is rejected [Read less]

GST – Demand on account of failure to produce supporting documents - Whether the entire liability can be fastened on the petitioner primarily on account of non-production of supporting documents – HELD - While noting that the petitioner did not initially avail the opportunity to produce documents, the petitioner had uploaded a reply one day prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order. Though the petitioner did not properly avail the opportunity initially, he was sufficiently vigilant in submitting a reply prior to the passing of the order - An opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner, especially in l... [Read more]

GST – Demand on account of failure to produce supporting documents - Whether the entire liability can be fastened on the petitioner primarily on account of non-production of supporting documents – HELD - While noting that the petitioner did not initially avail the opportunity to produce documents, the petitioner had uploaded a reply one day prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order. Though the petitioner did not properly avail the opportunity initially, he was sufficiently vigilant in submitting a reply prior to the passing of the order - An opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner, especially in light of the plea that a portion of the turnover relates to exempted transportation of agricultural goods and another portion relates to stage carriage operations. It appears that the entire liability has been fastened on the petitioner primarily on account of non-production of supporting documents. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of assessment is set aside and matter is remanded to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Taxability of services rendered as "Intermediary" – Petitioner challenged the orders of the Advance Ruling Authority and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which held that the services rendered by the Petitioner qualify as "intermediary services" under the IGST Act - While the AAAR and AAR orders are under challenge in the present proceedings, a separate show cause notice was issued and proceedings culminated in an adjudication order confirming the demand against the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered qualify as “intermediary services” – HELD - The AAAR had not adjudicated all the issues... [Read more]

GST - Taxability of services rendered as "Intermediary" – Petitioner challenged the orders of the Advance Ruling Authority and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which held that the services rendered by the Petitioner qualify as "intermediary services" under the IGST Act - While the AAAR and AAR orders are under challenge in the present proceedings, a separate show cause notice was issued and proceedings culminated in an adjudication order confirming the demand against the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered qualify as “intermediary services” – HELD - The AAAR had not adjudicated all the issues raised by the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. These issues, including the interpretation of the term "intermediary services" and the constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, need to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The issues may be agitated by the petitioner in the appeal, which shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the orders passed by the AAAR - The petitioner to pursue the issues in the appeal proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal - All contentions of the parties in such proceedings are expressly kept open – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Blocking of Input Tax Credit, Unregistered supplier – Issue of show cause notices/intimation notices proposing block of available ITC, alleging that the suppliers were unregistered entities and that the petitioners availed fraudulent ITC on the strength of bogus invoices without actual movement of goods or services – HELD - The CGST Act, along with the Rules framed thereunder, constitutes a complete code governing the framework within which the Department is required to act. Blocking of ITC undoubtedly has adverse consequences and affects the right of registered persons to carry on business activities. However, e... [Read more]

GST - Blocking of Input Tax Credit, Unregistered supplier – Issue of show cause notices/intimation notices proposing block of available ITC, alleging that the suppliers were unregistered entities and that the petitioners availed fraudulent ITC on the strength of bogus invoices without actual movement of goods or services – HELD - The CGST Act, along with the Rules framed thereunder, constitutes a complete code governing the framework within which the Department is required to act. Blocking of ITC undoubtedly has adverse consequences and affects the right of registered persons to carry on business activities. However, each case must be examined on its own facts to determine whether the action proposed by the Department is based on tangible material and whether there exists a rational basis for invoking the statutory machinery. Situations involving fake or bogus ITC cannot be countenanced under the provisions of law governing the utilization of input tax credit - Insofar as the show cause notices or pre-intimation notices are concerned, they are required to be decided on the facts of each individual case. A collective adjudication on merits of individual issues is certainly not possible - It would be premature to entertain the challenge to the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act at this stage, before the adjudication of the show cause notices. The petitioners shall be permitted to file their replies to the show cause notices and the notices shall thereafter be adjudicated in accordance with law, after considering all contentions raised by the petitioners. In cases where only a pre-show cause intimation has been issued, the concerned authority shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take an appropriate decision - In regard to the challenge to the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act is concerned, all contentions of the petitioners in that regard are kept open to be agitated, if the need so arises, in appropriate proceedings – The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Vague and incorrect Show Cause Notice purportedly issued based on the findings of a Special Audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India - Whether the show cause notice is sustainable given the factual inaccuracy and vagueness of the allegations made therein – HELD - The SCN is not based on an audit conducted by the CAG, as stated, but by the State GST Department. The report of the Audit was never supplied to the petitioner. Further, the SCN failed to provide the basis for the various allegations made, such as excess input tax credit availed, mismatch in input tax credit, and undischarged t... [Read more]

GST - Vague and incorrect Show Cause Notice purportedly issued based on the findings of a Special Audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India - Whether the show cause notice is sustainable given the factual inaccuracy and vagueness of the allegations made therein – HELD - The SCN is not based on an audit conducted by the CAG, as stated, but by the State GST Department. The report of the Audit was never supplied to the petitioner. Further, the SCN failed to provide the basis for the various allegations made, such as excess input tax credit availed, mismatch in input tax credit, and undischarged tax liability - The purpose of a Show Cause Notice is to make the assessee aware of the department's intent and enable them to effectively respond, which a vague and non-specific notice does not fulfil - Serving of a non-specific notice is nothing but an empty formality which does not fulfil the afore object and is even otherwise, violative of the principles of natural justice. Not only should the notice be specific and detailed, the material which forms the basis of the notice, should also be supplied to the assesee alongwith the notice – The Section 73(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that “details” of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised have to be brought to the assesse’s notice through the SCN. In the case in hand, the impugned show cause notice is not only based on a wrong premise but is also found to be utterly vague and bereft of any details as are required to be furnished under Section 73(3) of the Act - The impugned notice is set aside with liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Revocation of Customs Broker license and levy of penalty - Whether the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR 2018 – HELD - The department failed to prove any violation of the regulations by the appellant. Regarding Regulation 10(d). The department did not provide any evidence to show that the appellant had not advised the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The appellant had produced a letter from the exporter confirming that it was advised, which the Commissioner had unjustifiably dismissed. On Regulation 10(e), the department did not specify what incorr... [Read more]

Customs - Revocation of Customs Broker license and levy of penalty - Whether the appellant had violated Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the CBLR 2018 – HELD - The department failed to prove any violation of the regulations by the appellant. Regarding Regulation 10(d). The department did not provide any evidence to show that the appellant had not advised the exporter to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The appellant had produced a letter from the exporter confirming that it was advised, which the Commissioner had unjustifiably dismissed. On Regulation 10(e), the department did not specify what incorrect information was provided by the appellant to the exporter – There is contradictions in the Commissioner's findings on this regulation vis-à-vis the other regulations. Regarding Regulation 10(n), the appellant had fulfilled its obligations. The impugned order revoking the appellant's Customs Broker license, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing the penalty is set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of imported meters as "gas meters" under CTI 9028 10 00 or "flow meters" under CTI 9026 10 10 - The appellant imported goods declared as "Rotary Gas Meter-FMR G025 (Flow Meter)" and classified them under CTI 9026 10 10 as flow meters, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The Department contended that the meters were actually "Gas Meters" classifiable under CTI 9028 10 00 – HELD – From examining the product brochure, the type of customers, and the meter readings, it is found that the meters were meant to measure the total volume of gas transferred, which is the function of gas m... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of imported meters as "gas meters" under CTI 9028 10 00 or "flow meters" under CTI 9026 10 10 - The appellant imported goods declared as "Rotary Gas Meter-FMR G025 (Flow Meter)" and classified them under CTI 9026 10 10 as flow meters, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The Department contended that the meters were actually "Gas Meters" classifiable under CTI 9028 10 00 – HELD – From examining the product brochure, the type of customers, and the meter readings, it is found that the meters were meant to measure the total volume of gas transferred, which is the function of gas meters under CTI 9028 10 00, and not just the rate of flow. The meters were not meant to check the pressure or rate of flow, which is the function of flow meters under CTI 9026 10 10. The classification of the meters under CTI 9028 10 00 and the consequent denial of the exemption benefit claimed by the appellant is upheld – However, no evidence of collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, as the appellant had filed all the documents and merely claimed a wrong classification and an ineligible exemption notification. Accordingly, the invocation of the extended period of limitation is set aside - The appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the demand for extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 114A, while upholding the classification of the imported meters under CTI 9028 10 00 and the consequent demand within the normal period of limitation – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Service Tax - Display of company names below traffic signal timer devices without any design, conceptualization, or creative input - Whether it constitutes "Advertising Agency Service" under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The display of company names simpliciter does not amount to Advertising Agency Service. As per the clarification issued by the CBEC, service tax applies only where services of making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement are rendered, involving activities such as designing, visualizing, or conceptualizing advertisements. Mere sale of space does not attract tax as 'Adverti... [Read more]

Service Tax - Display of company names below traffic signal timer devices without any design, conceptualization, or creative input - Whether it constitutes "Advertising Agency Service" under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The display of company names simpliciter does not amount to Advertising Agency Service. As per the clarification issued by the CBEC, service tax applies only where services of making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement are rendered, involving activities such as designing, visualizing, or conceptualizing advertisements. Mere sale of space does not attract tax as 'Advertising Agency Service' - The appellant's activity of merely displaying company names below the timer devices, without any creative input, does not fall under the definition of 'Advertising Agency Service' under Section 65(3) - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Real estate agent service - Demand for service tax invoking extended period of limitation under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The Revenue has failed to establish the ingredients required for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Mere non-payment of tax, without any element of intent or suppression, is not sufficient to attract the extended limitation period. The Revenue must prove positive acts of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. In the absence of such proof, the invocation of the ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Real estate agent service - Demand for service tax invoking extended period of limitation under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The Revenue has failed to establish the ingredients required for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Mere non-payment of tax, without any element of intent or suppression, is not sufficient to attract the extended limitation period. The Revenue must prove positive acts of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. In the absence of such proof, the invocation of the extended period of limitation is unsustainable - The Revenue has not deemed it fit to put the appellant to notice in the SCN as to how the relevant date for invoking the extended period of limitation has been determined and also has chosen not to explain in the notice as to how the SCN demanding the alleged service tax is within the extended period of limitation. - The show cause notice issued beyond the one-year limitation period is time-barred. The impugned order upholding the demand along with interest and penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Reimbursable expenses or not - Appellant was a Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) Agent who incurred various expenses in performing their functions but claimed to have been reimbursed by their principal - Whether such reimbursable expenditure paid to the appellant by the principal is liable to service tax – HELD - There is an agreement between the principal and the appellant to act as a C&F Agency for the principal, which obligated the appellant to perform certain functions. While performing said functions, they were incurring various expenses and according to the appellant they were getting those expenses reimb... [Read more]

Service Tax - Reimbursable expenses or not - Appellant was a Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) Agent who incurred various expenses in performing their functions but claimed to have been reimbursed by their principal - Whether such reimbursable expenditure paid to the appellant by the principal is liable to service tax – HELD - There is an agreement between the principal and the appellant to act as a C&F Agency for the principal, which obligated the appellant to perform certain functions. While performing said functions, they were incurring various expenses and according to the appellant they were getting those expenses reimbursed from the principal. The issue as to whether any amount, which is being incurred by a C&F agency and later on certain amount is getting reimbursed or repaid by the principal has been subject matter of various orders passed by the Coordinate Benches - Only when the service recipient has a legal or contractual obligation to pay certain amount to a third party and the service provider pays that amount on behalf of the recipient, the question of reimbursement arises. The claim for reimbursement towards rent, telephone charges, stationery, etc. amounts to a claim by the service provider that they can render services in a vacuum, and such costs for input services and inputs used in rendering services cannot be treated as reimbursable costs - However, the agreement provided that in case the C&F agent uses their own transport for delivery of goods, such transportation charges shall be reimbursed by the principal. This element was a reimbursement and should not be included in the gross value for charging service tax. For the rest of the expenses, they were incurred in relation to performing the C&F agent's obligations and functions, and hence should be part of the gross value - The matter was remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to re-compute the demand after allowing the exclusion of reimbursable expenses for transportation charges, if found to be on actual cost basis. If it is on notional basis, then the said amount cannot be considered as reimbursable expenses and hence includible – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Customs – Violation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, Allegation of excess import – Appellant imported super absorbent polymers and untreated fluff pulp for manufacture of baby diapers – Dept case that the appellant had not followed the procedure prescribed under IGCR rules and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 – HELD - The responsibility for any excess clearance of goods lies with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner at the port of import, who were respo... [Read more]

Customs – Violation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, Allegation of excess import – Appellant imported super absorbent polymers and untreated fluff pulp for manufacture of baby diapers – Dept case that the appellant had not followed the procedure prescribed under IGCR rules and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 – HELD - The responsibility for any excess clearance of goods lies with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner at the port of import, who were responsible for allowing clearance based on the declarations made by the appellant. In the absence of any evidence showing which of the two officers committed the irregularity, the demand of duty and penalty on the appellant cannot be sustained, as it could only be presumed that the concerned officers were satisfied with the quantities declared and cleared the goods accordingly - Rule 8 of IGCR Rules provides for recovery of duty if the importer fails to use the goods for the purpose indicated. In this case, there is no dispute that the goods were used for the purpose for which they were imported. The only case of the department is that the appellant had imported goods in excess of the declarations made before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner, which is not possible - In the absence of any recording as to which of the two Assistant Commissioners committed the irregularity, the demand of duty on the appellant cannot be confirmed. It can only be presumed that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at the port of import were satisfied about the quantities declared cleared the goods accordingly - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Overvaluation of export goods – Export of goods claiming benefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and Drawback - The Department found the goods to be overvalued and re-determined the value, leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties - Whether the Department was correct in re-determining the value of the exported goods and restricting the export incentives accordingly – HELD - The Export Valuation Rules under Section 14 of the Customs Act do not empower the Department to alter the transaction value. The Drawback and other export incentive schemes are based on the FOB value ... [Read more]

Customs - Overvaluation of export goods – Export of goods claiming benefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and Drawback - The Department found the goods to be overvalued and re-determined the value, leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties - Whether the Department was correct in re-determining the value of the exported goods and restricting the export incentives accordingly – HELD - The Export Valuation Rules under Section 14 of the Customs Act do not empower the Department to alter the transaction value. The Drawback and other export incentive schemes are based on the FOB value and not on the value determined by the Department under the Export Valuation Rules. The Commissioner committed illegality in ordering reduction of export incentives as he had no authority under the Customs Act or the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 to do so - The Department cannot re-determine the Free on Board (FOB) value declared by the appellant, which is the transaction value between the exporter and the buyer. The Department has no authority to override the Drawback schedule notified by the Central Government or the Foreign Trade Policy which prescribes the MEIS benefits based on the FOB value. The Department can only re-determine the value for the purpose of Customs duty, but that does not affect the export incentives which are linked to the transaction value (FOB value) - The statements recorded by the Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used as evidence without following the procedure under Section 138B of the Act. The market enquiry report relied upon by the Department was also not a proper method for re-determining the value under the Export Valuation Rules - The order of confiscation and penalties are set aside and the Department is directed to grant the export incentives based on the FOB value declared by the appellant - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Valuation, Import of plastic granules and sale of job-worked finished goods - The appellants imported plastic granules duty-free through the Target Plus Scheme and sent them to job workers for conversion into various plastic products. The finished goods were then sold to the job workers themselves - Department rejected the transaction value declared by the appellants and redetermined the assessable value under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Whether the transaction value declared by the appellants on sale of job-worked finished goods to th... [Read more]

Central Excise – Valuation, Import of plastic granules and sale of job-worked finished goods - The appellants imported plastic granules duty-free through the Target Plus Scheme and sent them to job workers for conversion into various plastic products. The finished goods were then sold to the job workers themselves - Department rejected the transaction value declared by the appellants and redetermined the assessable value under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Whether the transaction value declared by the appellants on sale of job-worked finished goods to the job workers should be determined under Rule 10A(i) or Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules - HELD - The method of valuation to be adopted in the present case, where the finished goods are sold to the job workers, is Rule 10A(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. This rule provides that where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured by a job-worker on behalf of a principal manufacturer, and the goods are sold by the principal manufacturer to the buyer who is not related and the price is the sole consideration, the value shall be the transaction value. There was no bar under the Rules to sell the finished goods to the job worker after charging the full price, which includes the cost of material, conversion charges and margin of profit as agreed. The price charged by the appellants was duly supported by CAS-4 certificates, and the addition of profit margin by the Department by adopting lowest purchase price and highest selling price to determine the margin of profit cannot be sustained being not supported by the law laid for valuation or supported by the accounting principles - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Export of services, IGST refund - The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing ship management services, had entered into an agreement with foreign company to provide ship management services - Prior to the introduction of GST, the petitioner's applications for refund of service tax paid on such "export of services" were favorably considered. However, under the GST regime, the Department rejected the petitioner's claims for refund of IGST paid on the ground that the services were provided on a principal-agent basis and not on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore the services were considered as "int... [Read more]

GST - Export of services, IGST refund - The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing ship management services, had entered into an agreement with foreign company to provide ship management services - Prior to the introduction of GST, the petitioner's applications for refund of service tax paid on such "export of services" were favorably considered. However, under the GST regime, the Department rejected the petitioner's claims for refund of IGST paid on the ground that the services were provided on a principal-agent basis and not on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore the services were considered as "intermediary services" not qualifying as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act - Whether the petitioner's transactions were "export of services" within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, entitling the petitioner to refund of IGST paid – HELD - The Appellate Authority had not adequately considered the terms of the agreement in the context of the nature of services provided by the petitioner - The Appellate Authority should have examined the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of the relevant provisions of the IGST Act and the Circulars in the context of the agreement - The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for a de novo consideration and a fresh order to be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the parties – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of Registration on the ground of availing of ineligible Input Tax Credit from certain suppliers whose Registrations were subsequently cancelled - Whether the mere cancellation of the suppliers' GST registrations can be a sufficient ground to deny the ITC claimed by the petitioner, in respect of bona fide transactions undertaken by the petitioner with such suppliers - HELD – The petitioner had furnished relevant documents, which include copies of tax invoices, e-way bills, ledger statements, bank statements etc. - Mere cancellation of the suppliers' registrations cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficie... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of Registration on the ground of availing of ineligible Input Tax Credit from certain suppliers whose Registrations were subsequently cancelled - Whether the mere cancellation of the suppliers' GST registrations can be a sufficient ground to deny the ITC claimed by the petitioner, in respect of bona fide transactions undertaken by the petitioner with such suppliers - HELD – The petitioner had furnished relevant documents, which include copies of tax invoices, e-way bills, ledger statements, bank statements etc. - Mere cancellation of the suppliers' registrations cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground to deny the ITC to the petitioner, unless it is corroborated by tangible materials that the petitioner in some manner was a beneficiary of an established illegality qua the ITC benefit claimed by it– Fraud in the availment of ITC is a serious conduct, prejudicial to not only the overall interest of trade and commerce but also against the public policy. The Proper Officer was required to record the entire trail of any such illegal involvement in order to establish the petitioner's liability, which was lacking in the present case – The matter is remanded back to the Superintendent for a fresh order in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and recording specific findings on the validity of the ITC claimed by the petitioner – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – The Complainant alleged respondent failed to pass on benefit of ITC to homebuyers - DGAP investigated and concluded that the no benefit accrued to the Respondent on introduction of the GST law and hence, there was no requirement to pass on any benefit in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act - Complainant objected to DGAP's methodology, computation, and reliance on respondent's data – HELD - There is no direct co-relation between the turnover and the ITC availed for a particular period as the expenses in a real estate project are not uniform throughout the life cycle of the project. The eligibi... [Read more]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – The Complainant alleged respondent failed to pass on benefit of ITC to homebuyers - DGAP investigated and concluded that the no benefit accrued to the Respondent on introduction of the GST law and hence, there was no requirement to pass on any benefit in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act - Complainant objected to DGAP's methodology, computation, and reliance on respondent's data – HELD - There is no direct co-relation between the turnover and the ITC availed for a particular period as the expenses in a real estate project are not uniform throughout the life cycle of the project. The eligibility of credit depends on the nature of the construction activity undertaking during the particular period. For the purpose of computation of profiteering, one has to calculate the total saving on account of GST and divide such savings by total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to the recipient i.e. the homebuyers - The DGAP correctly followed methodology prescribed by High Court in Reckitt Benckiser case, which held no uniform formula can be prescribed, and savings on entire project should be divided by total area to arrive at per sq. ft. benefit - DGAP's computation of credit ratio to purchase value, considering reversal of ITC on unsold units, was proper - Complainant's objections about inconsistency in DGAP reports, non-examination of EPC contractor's ITC flow, and reliance on respondent's data without independent verification, are unsubstantiated - DGAP report is accepted and the Complainant's objections are rejected – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Eligibility to Input Tax Credit on input services for construction of foundation and structural support for plant and machinery within factory – Construction of RCC foundation and structural steel support for installing various equipment and machinery – Foundation and structural support within the scope of definition of ‘plant and machinery’ - Whether the applicant is eligible to avail ITC on the input services used for the construction of foundation and structural support for the equipment and machinery installed within the factory, in terms of Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD ... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Eligibility to Input Tax Credit on input services for construction of foundation and structural support for plant and machinery within factory – Construction of RCC foundation and structural steel support for installing various equipment and machinery – Foundation and structural support within the scope of definition of ‘plant and machinery’ - Whether the applicant is eligible to avail ITC on the input services used for the construction of foundation and structural support for the equipment and machinery installed within the factory, in terms of Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - What qualifies as ‘plant and machinery’ is an apparatus, equipment, and machinery which is fixed to earth by foundation. The various equipments which are set up in the plants would qualify as an apparatus/machinery. The equipment and machinery installed in the plants, such as reactors, distillation columns, pumps, etc., qualify as 'plant and machinery' as per the explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act. Further, the foundation and structural support, including RCC structures and structural steel, are essential and integral to the installation and functioning of these equipment/machinery - The CBIC Circular No. 219/13/2024-GST had clarified that ITC on ducts and manholes used in the network of Optical Fiber Cables is eligible, as they are the basic components for the OFC network used in providing telecommunication services. Similar logic applies to the foundation and structural support for plant and machinery, as they are specifically included in the definition of 'plant and machinery' under the Act, and are not excluded from the scope of ITC - The applicant is eligible to avail ITC on input services used for construction of foundation and structural support for plant and machinery installed within the factory for manufacture of APIs – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund claim for double payment of excise duty, Period of Limitation - Appellant had wrongly utilized Cenvat credit for payment of excise duty on goods cleared under an exemption notification, and subsequently paid the duty in cash from their current account, resulting in double payment – Rejection of refund claim for the amount paid in excess on the ground of time-barred - Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The refund claim filed by the appellant cannot be barred by limitation merely because the period of l... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund claim for double payment of excise duty, Period of Limitation - Appellant had wrongly utilized Cenvat credit for payment of excise duty on goods cleared under an exemption notification, and subsequently paid the duty in cash from their current account, resulting in double payment – Rejection of refund claim for the amount paid in excess on the ground of time-barred - Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The refund claim filed by the appellant cannot be barred by limitation merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. When duty is paid under a mistake of law, the refund claim is admissible for the period covered by the refund application, regardless of the expiry of the limitation period. The appellant had made the double payment due to a bona fide mistake, and not due to any deliberate contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules - It is not the case of contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the CCR, 2004 rather it is a case of wrong payment of duty from Cenvat Credit account. There is nothing on record which can prove that the payment of duty from Cenvat Credit account was made deliberately so that he is not required to pay the amount of duty in cash from the current account. It appears to be a case of bonafide mistake which cannot be considered as contravention of the provision of Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2004 - The ld. Commissioner erred in holding that the refund claim of the appellant is barred by limitation, whereas, in the present case the limitation provided in Section 11B of CEA is not applicable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts beyond six months - Petitioners challenging the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by the DRI under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the provisional attachment orders passed by the DRI have lapsed by operation of law as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs did not extend the attachment for a further period of six months as mandated under the proviso to Section 110(5) – HELD - The proviso to Section 110(5) clearly mandates that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs is of the opinion that the provisi... [Read more]

Customs - Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts beyond six months - Petitioners challenging the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by the DRI under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the provisional attachment orders passed by the DRI have lapsed by operation of law as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs did not extend the attachment for a further period of six months as mandated under the proviso to Section 110(5) – HELD - The proviso to Section 110(5) clearly mandates that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs is of the opinion that the provisional attachment needs to be extended beyond the initial period of six months, they have to pass a reasoned order extending it for a further period not exceeding six months, and inform the account holder of such extension before the expiry of the initial six-month period - In the present case, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs failed to pass any such order extending the provisional attachment before the expiry of the initial six-month period. Consequently, the provisional attachment orders dated 8 July 2025 have lapsed by operation of law and are rendered illegal and invalid. The petitioners are therefore free to operate their bank accounts - The impugned provisional attachment orders are set aside and the writ petition is partly allowed [Read less]

GST – Initiation of recovery proceedings before expiry of appeal period, Validity of Notification issued under Section 168A of CGST Act extending the period for passing an order under Section 73(10) of CGST Act - Whether recovery proceedings initiated before expiry of appeal period valid – HELD – The substantive challenge to the validity of the CGST notifications was already pending before the High Court in a similar matter. The legal issues involved were also pending consideration before the Supreme Court in another case. Considering the similarity of the issues, the petitioner would be required to be granted interi... [Read more]

GST – Initiation of recovery proceedings before expiry of appeal period, Validity of Notification issued under Section 168A of CGST Act extending the period for passing an order under Section 73(10) of CGST Act - Whether recovery proceedings initiated before expiry of appeal period valid – HELD – The substantive challenge to the validity of the CGST notifications was already pending before the High Court in a similar matter. The legal issues involved were also pending consideration before the Supreme Court in another case. Considering the similarity of the issues, the petitioner would be required to be granted interim reliefs - The recovery action taken by the Department by debiting the petitioner's electronic credit ledger was contrary to the Notification dated 17th September 2025 issued by the Government of India, which had prescribed the outer date for filing appeals. The recovery action was also not in compliance with the provisions of Section 78 of the CGST Act, which provided a period of three months from the date of service of the order before any recovery proceedings could be initiated. The Department failed to record reasons to justify the departure from the statutory period of three months prescribed under Section 78 - The impugned recovery proceedings are stayed and the Department is directed to re-credit the amount debited from the petitioner's electronic credit ledger – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, Period of Limitation for claim of refund – Rejection of part of the claims as time-barred. The appellants contended that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules – HELD – When the statute does not prescribe the relevant date from which the limitation period is to be counted, it cannot be construed that any limitation period applies. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined these legal aspects in detail. Further, the subsequent amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, Period of Limitation for claim of refund – Rejection of part of the claims as time-barred. The appellants contended that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules – HELD – When the statute does not prescribe the relevant date from which the limitation period is to be counted, it cannot be construed that any limitation period applies. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined these legal aspects in detail. Further, the subsequent amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules through Notification No. 14/2016-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2016, prescribed the limitation period for service tax refunds, was also not considered by the Ld. Commissioner – The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the legal issues raised by the appellants regarding the applicability of the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the service tax refund claims - The appeals are allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax - Demand based on difference between receipts as per ST-3 and Financial records invoking extended period - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the differential amount – HELD - The nature of services provided by the appellant had already been decided in the earlier proceedings and it was held that the exemption under Notification No.25/2012 would be admissible in respect of the same. The impugned order was a non-speaking order and did not record any reasons for setting aside the Order-in-Original - The SCN has been issued in terms of Section 73(1A) having recorded so should have considered th... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand based on difference between receipts as per ST-3 and Financial records invoking extended period - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the differential amount – HELD - The nature of services provided by the appellant had already been decided in the earlier proceedings and it was held that the exemption under Notification No.25/2012 would be admissible in respect of the same. The impugned order was a non-speaking order and did not record any reasons for setting aside the Order-in-Original - The SCN has been issued in terms of Section 73(1A) having recorded so should have considered the orders passed in respect of show cause notice itself. It is settled position in law that departmental authorities could not be selective in making demands unless and until any changes in position of law and other facts - Since there was no new material or change in the position of law, there is no merit in the impugned order and set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty on import of "Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches" – Appellant claimed the benefit of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 10% under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 - Department denied this benefit, holding that the basic rate of duty at 20% should be applicable - Whether the imported goods are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of BCD under the said Notification – HELD - The issue regarding entitlement to the concessional rate of duty on the identical goods was earlier decided in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal as... [Read more]

Customs - Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty on import of "Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches" – Appellant claimed the benefit of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 10% under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 - Department denied this benefit, holding that the basic rate of duty at 20% should be applicable - Whether the imported goods are eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of BCD under the said Notification – HELD - The issue regarding entitlement to the concessional rate of duty on the identical goods was earlier decided in favor of the appellant by the Tribunal as well as the High Court - Since the issue arising out of the present dispute, with regard to availment of the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the subject goods is no more open for any debate, the impugned order, denying the benefits of concessional rate of duty to the appellants cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed by setting aside the impugned order pertaining to assessed B/E against which the order was passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal in absence of appealable order under Section 128A of the Customs Act - Payment of duty under protest - The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order in disposing of 3 assessed Bills of Entry (B/Es). However, the appellant filed 41 appeals before the Tribunal - Maintainability of appeal – HELD - The Customs Act provides for filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against any 'decision' or 'order' passed by the officer of Customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs – The payment of duty amount under protest cannot be treated as a ‘decision’ taken or ‘order’ passed by the competent authority under the statute. In the present case, the appellant failed to prove that they had filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the remaining 38 assessed B/Es. Further, the impugned order did not consider any such appeals. Therefore, the remaining 38 appeals filed by the appellant are not maintainable as no orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A of the Customs Act in respect of those 38 assessed B/Es - the impugned order passed in respect of three (3) appeals being Nos. C/87546/ 2022, C/87558/2022 and C/87568/2022 is set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants. The remaining 38 appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed as not maintainable. [Read less]

GST – Karnataka AAR – Applicability of Margin Scheme to purchase and sell of used cars – HELD - Motor vehicles, including second-hand cars, being movable property, squarely fall within the ambit of “goods” defined under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is engaged in the business of dealing in second-hand goods – The Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides a special method of valuation for persons engaged in the business of buying and selling of second-hand goods, permitting payment of GST on the margin, being the difference between the selling price and the purchase price, subje... [Read more]

GST – Karnataka AAR – Applicability of Margin Scheme to purchase and sell of used cars – HELD - Motor vehicles, including second-hand cars, being movable property, squarely fall within the ambit of “goods” defined under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is engaged in the business of dealing in second-hand goods – The Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides a special method of valuation for persons engaged in the business of buying and selling of second-hand goods, permitting payment of GST on the margin, being the difference between the selling price and the purchase price, subject to certain conditions. Further, Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, also provides for payment of GST on the value representing the difference between the selling price and the purchase price in respect of old and used motor vehicles, subject to the condition that no input tax credit has been availed on such vehicles. However, in the absence of necessary details and documentary evidence provided by the applicant regarding the nature and extent of repairs undertaken on the used cars, the Authority is unable to conclusively verify whether the applicant meets the prescribed conditions for availing the benefit of the said margin scheme – Ordered accordingly - Classification and Valuation - Applicable HSN code and rate of tax for the second-hand cars sold by the Applicant – HELD - Motor vehicles, including second-hand cars, are classifiable under Heading 8703 of the GST Tariff. The applicable rate of tax shall be as prescribed under the relevant rate notifications, read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate), as amended. However, in the absence of particulars relating to engine capacity, vehicle length, and fuel type furnished by the applicant, the exact applicable rate of tax cannot be determined. Regarding valuation, the taxable value shall be the difference between the selling price and the purchase price of the second-hand motor vehicles, and where such difference is negative, the same shall be ignored. [Read less]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Taxability of water charges collected by Residents Welfare Association (RWA) from its members - Applicant, a Residents Welfare Association, supplies unprocessed water to its members sourced from its own borewells as well as from third-party vendors - The applicant collects the water charges separately from the maintenance charges levied on the members - Whether the supply of unprocessed, unbottled water by the RWA to its members is exempt from GST under Entry 99 of Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The applicant is not selling water as goods to its members, it is merely recovering... [Read more]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Taxability of water charges collected by Residents Welfare Association (RWA) from its members - Applicant, a Residents Welfare Association, supplies unprocessed water to its members sourced from its own borewells as well as from third-party vendors - The applicant collects the water charges separately from the maintenance charges levied on the members - Whether the supply of unprocessed, unbottled water by the RWA to its members is exempt from GST under Entry 99 of Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The applicant is not selling water as goods to its members, it is merely recovering from members the actual cost of water procured from third parties - The supply of water constitutes an integral component of the Home Owners’ Association services provided by the applicant and cannot be regarded as an independent or distinct supply. The provision of water is intrinsically linked with the maintenance and upkeep of the residential complex, which is the principal supply rendered by the Association to its members. Therefore, the recovery of water charges from members, even if shown separately in the invoice and collected on actual consumption basis, would form part of the composite supply of services provided by the Association. Such recovery does not assume the character of an independent supply of water as goods, but remains part of the principal supply of maintenance and related services - The supply of water by the RWA is not exempt under Entry 99 of Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as the supply of water forms an integral part of the "Home Owners' Association" services provided by the RWA to its members and does not constitute an independent supply of goods eligible for exemption - The supply of water by the RWA to its members is not exempt from GST, and the water charges must be included in the aggregate turnover for determining the INR 7,500 per member per month exemption threshold for the RWA's services – Ordered accordingly - Whether the water charges collected by the RWA should be included in the aggregate turnover for determining the INR 7,500 per month per member threshold for GST applicability on the services provided by the RWA – HELD - The activity of supplying water constitutes as a supply under Section 7(1)(aa) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the recovery of water charges is includable in value of supply. Consequently, such recoveries form part of the taxable value and are liable to GST - Applicant’s contention that water charges are pure reimbursements of expenses and should be excluded from the taxable value under Section 15(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, is rejected as the RWA does not satisfy the conditions prescribed for a "pure agent" under the said Rule - The water charges collected by the RWA must be aggregated with the maintenance charges for determining the INR 7,500 per member per month exemption threshold under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). The activities undertaken by the RWA for its members constitute a supply of services, which is classifiable under SAC 999598 (Membership organisation services, including services of RWAs/Home Owners' Associations) and is taxable at 18% GST. [Read less]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Classification of diesel and biodiesel blends manufactured from used cooking oil - Classification and applicable GST rate on biodiesel blends of B20 (Biodiesel 20% + HSD 80%) (b) B30 (Biodiesel 30% + HSD 70%) (c) B40 (Biodiesel 40% + HSD 60%) (d) B50 (Biodiesel 50% + HSD 50%) (e) B60 (Biodiesel 60% + HSD 40%) (f) B70 (Biodiesel 70% + HSD 30%) – HELD - Under the GST regime, specified petroleum products, including High-Speed Diesel, have been consciously kept outside the levy of GST. However, this exclusion is product-specific and does not automatically extend to all blends or mixtures containing pe... [Read more]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Classification of diesel and biodiesel blends manufactured from used cooking oil - Classification and applicable GST rate on biodiesel blends of B20 (Biodiesel 20% + HSD 80%) (b) B30 (Biodiesel 30% + HSD 70%) (c) B40 (Biodiesel 40% + HSD 60%) (d) B50 (Biodiesel 50% + HSD 50%) (e) B60 (Biodiesel 60% + HSD 40%) (f) B70 (Biodiesel 70% + HSD 30%) – HELD - Under the GST regime, specified petroleum products, including High-Speed Diesel, have been consciously kept outside the levy of GST. However, this exclusion is product-specific and does not automatically extend to all blends or mixtures containing petroleum oils. The Customs Tariff draws a clear statutory distinction between petroleum-dominant fuels falling under Chapter 27 and biodiesel and its mixtures falling under Chapter 38 – The Biodiesel blends containing 70% or more by weight of petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals are classifiable under Heading 2710 of the Customs Tariff. Accordingly, the biodiesel blends B20 (Biodiesel 20% + HSD 80%) and B30 (Biodiesel 30% + HSD 70%) are classifiable under Sub-heading 2710 20, specifically under tariff item 27102020 (Diesel fuel blend (B6 to B20) conforming to standards IS 16531) and 27102090 (Other petroleum oil preparations), respectively - However, biodiesel and its blends containing less than 70% by weight of petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals are specifically excluded from Heading 2710 and are therefore classifiable under Heading 3826 of the Tariff and the corresponding GST Tariff Heading 3826 - Accordingly, the biodiesel blends B40, B50, B60, and B70 are classifiable under tariff item 38260000 (Biodiesel and mixtures thereof, not containing or containing less than 70% by weight of petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals) – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Classification of Supply, Development of residential villa project under Joint Development Agreement - Whether the agreement entered into by the applicant with the customers for construction of villa results in a supply of goods or services, when the entire construction is proposed to be outsourced to a contractor - HELD - The agreement for construction of villa constitutes a supply of service under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, notwithstanding the fact that the actual construction activity is outsourced to a third-party contractor - Further, works contracts relating to immovable property ha... [Read more]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Classification of Supply, Development of residential villa project under Joint Development Agreement - Whether the agreement entered into by the applicant with the customers for construction of villa results in a supply of goods or services, when the entire construction is proposed to be outsourced to a contractor - HELD - The agreement for construction of villa constitutes a supply of service under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, notwithstanding the fact that the actual construction activity is outsourced to a third-party contractor - Further, works contracts relating to immovable property have been expressly classified as a supply of services under paragraph 6(a) of Schedule II to the CGST Act. The existence of a sub-contractor or the outsourcing of construction activity does not dilute or negate the Applicant’s independent supply to the customers, as each supply is liable to tax in the hands of the respective supplier – The agreement entered into by the Applicant with the buyers for construction of villas constitutes a taxable supply of construction service under GST, and the applicant cannot avoid tax liability on the ground that the construction activity has been entirely outsourced to a contractor – Ordered accordingly - Whether the supply undertaken by the applicant in respect of construction of villas is classifiable under Heading 9954(xii) and chargeable to 18% GST under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, or classifiable under Heading 9954(ia) and chargeable to GST at 7.5% under the said notification – HELD - The Applicant is engaged in the development of a residential villa project under a Joint Development Agreement and enters into agreements with prospective buyers prior to completion of construction. The Applicant receives consideration from the buyers linked to construction milestones and undertakes to deliver completed residential villas. Such activity squarely falls within the scope of construction of residential units intended for sale, where consideration is received before issuance of completion certificate - While transfer of title in land is covered under Schedule III to the CGST Act, 2017 and is not exigible to GST, the agreements are executed in pursuance of a single economic objective, namely, supply of a completed residential villa to the buyer. The sale of land and construction of villa are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the transaction qualifies as a composite supply in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017, with construction service being the principal supply - The supply is classifiable under Heading 9954(ia) of the Scheme of Classification of services and is liable to GST at the rate of 7.5% under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended. The value of supply shall be determined by deeming one-third of the total amount charged (including consideration towards land and construction) as the value of land, and the remaining amount as the taxable value of construction services, as per the valuation mechanism prescribed under the relevant rate notification. [Read less]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Applicability of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on charitable activities - Whether the services in relation to conducting emergency care and life support courses for medical, nursing, and allied healthcare students qualify as "charitable activities" by way of "public health through public awareness of preventive health" and exempt from GST – HELD - The Authority held that the activities undertaken by the applicant do not qualify as "public health by way of public awareness of preventive health" under paragraph 2(r) of the notification, which defines "charitable activi... [Read more]

GST – Karnataka AAR - Applicability of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on charitable activities - Whether the services in relation to conducting emergency care and life support courses for medical, nursing, and allied healthcare students qualify as "charitable activities" by way of "public health through public awareness of preventive health" and exempt from GST – HELD - The Authority held that the activities undertaken by the applicant do not qualify as "public health by way of public awareness of preventive health" under paragraph 2(r) of the notification, which defines "charitable activities". The courses offered by the applicant, though aimed at imparting emergency care skills, are in the nature of structured professional training and skill development programmes for a specific and identifiable class of beneficiaries, namely medical, nursing, and allied healthcare students. Such activities cannot be equated with general public awareness campaigns or preventive health education envisaged under the notification. The fact that the trained professionals may, in the course of their future practice, contribute to improved health outcomes or awareness constitutes only an indirect or consequential benefit, which cannot be equated with direct public awareness activities - Further, the applicant does not satisfy the definition of "educational institution" under the notification to avail exemption under Entry No. 66. Accordingly, the services provided by the applicant are liable to GST at the rate of 18% under Commercial Training and Coaching Services – Ordered accordingly - Exemption under Entry 1 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Whether the BCLS course offered by the Applicant to students other than medical students qualifies as "charitable activities" – HELD - The activity does not qualify as "charitable activities" under the notification as it involves structured professional training and skill development for a specific class of beneficiaries (students), rather than dissemination of general public awareness. The Applicant also does not satisfy the definition of "educational institution" under the notification to avail exemption under Entry 66. Accordingly, the BCLS course offered to students other than medical students is liable to GST at 18%. [Read less]

Customs - Seizure and Release of imported roasted areca nuts, Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to seize the imported goods - FSSAI examined the goods and issued no-objection certificates confirming the goods were fit for human consumption. However, the Customs authorities subsequently seized the goods, citing CRCL test reports that allegedly found the goods unfit. The petitioner challenged the seizure and the conditions imposed for provisional release – HELD - Once the FSSAI, the statutory body responsible for food safety, had cleared the goods as fit for human consumption based on its test reports, the Customs author... [Read more]

Customs - Seizure and Release of imported roasted areca nuts, Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to seize the imported goods - FSSAI examined the goods and issued no-objection certificates confirming the goods were fit for human consumption. However, the Customs authorities subsequently seized the goods, citing CRCL test reports that allegedly found the goods unfit. The petitioner challenged the seizure and the conditions imposed for provisional release – HELD - Once the FSSAI, the statutory body responsible for food safety, had cleared the goods as fit for human consumption based on its test reports, the Customs authorities could not question the credibility of those reports without valid reasons. The CRCL reports did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the goods were unfit, as they only noted minor damage to a small percentage of the goods. The seizure and the conditions imposed for release are without authority of law and quashed - Even assuming that a minuscule percentage of the goods which are agricultural products, are stated to be damaged, it cannot be that the same yardstick is applied to the entire consignment. If such tests are applied to the several range of agricultural products domestically available from the indigenous sources, it would be impossible for any agricultural produce to have a market - The action of the Respondents to detain the Petitioner’s imports in question, is not justified. The goods are to be released on payment of duty, subject to the petitioner removing any damaged portions under FSSAI supervision before selling the goods in the domestic market – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Seizure of goods in case pertaining to classification and valuation of the imported goods – Petitioner undertaken imports of what is described to be fabrics/table cloths and as described in B/E as PVC rolls, PVC table covers, readymade jackets (branded and unbranded). – Petitioner seeking provisional release of the goods – HELD - The goods had completely deteriorated and were of no utility to either the petitioner or the Revenue. Considering the case of a small entrepreneur, the Customs Authorities should have adopted an approach that would make the small business effective while also protecting the interes... [Read more]

Customs - Seizure of goods in case pertaining to classification and valuation of the imported goods – Petitioner undertaken imports of what is described to be fabrics/table cloths and as described in B/E as PVC rolls, PVC table covers, readymade jackets (branded and unbranded). – Petitioner seeking provisional release of the goods – HELD - The goods had completely deteriorated and were of no utility to either the petitioner or the Revenue. Considering the case of a small entrepreneur, the Customs Authorities should have adopted an approach that would make the small business effective while also protecting the interest of the Revenue. A hard-line approach, as in this case, would not benefit the Department or the importer, especially when the importer is a small enterprise. Such an approach may prove to be counter-productive to the trade of small-scale imports and domestic trade - As the goods have completely deteriorated, ld. advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Department is free to deal with the goods i.e. either auction the same or destroy, and appropriate intimation of either of it be given to the Petitioner. In the event any amount is realized in any auction/sale, let the same be appropriated by the Department and if any surplus amount is available, the same be paid to the Petitioner so as to pay off the liability towards warehousing charges - The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to issue a demurrage waiver certificate in respect of the subject goods – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Classification of services - The applicant is a service provider of Municipal Solid Waste Management Solutions and is executing a project under Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) 2.0 for "Reclamation of Existing Dump Yard located at Compost Yard by Removing the Legacy Waste in Ariyalur Municipality" - Whether the services provided by the applicant should be classified under SAC 9994 "Sewage and Waste Collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental Protection Services" - HELD – The applicant is involved in ‘Waste treatment and disposal services’, and ‘Site Remediation Services’ - The... [Read more]

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Classification of services - The applicant is a service provider of Municipal Solid Waste Management Solutions and is executing a project under Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) 2.0 for "Reclamation of Existing Dump Yard located at Compost Yard by Removing the Legacy Waste in Ariyalur Municipality" - Whether the services provided by the applicant should be classified under SAC 9994 "Sewage and Waste Collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental Protection Services" - HELD – The applicant is involved in ‘Waste treatment and disposal services’, and ‘Site Remediation Services’ - The services provided by the applicant, which involve bio-mining of waste and remediation of site, gets covered under SAC 9994, attracting GST at 18% - The applicant's operation can be broadly categorized under heading 9994, which includes 'Site remediation' under Group 99944, and 'Hazardous waste treatment and disposal services' and 'Non-Hazardous waste treatment and disposal services' under Group 99943, attracting 18% GST - Whether the services provided by the applicant to the Ariyalur Municipality are exempted under Sl.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended - HELD - The services rendered by the applicant in the instant case are 'Pure Services' provided to Ariyalur Municipality, which is a 'Local Authority', by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. The services in question are covered under Sl.No.6 of Article 243W of the Constitution, i.e., 'Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management'. Accordingly, the services provided by the applicant to the Ariyalur Municipality are exempted under Sl.No.3 of Notification 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.07.2017, as amended. [Read less]

Central Excise - clubbing of clearance values for SSI exemption, Denial of Cross-Examination of witnesses – HELD - When a case is made out on the basis of a statement of a witness, then cross-examination of that witness has to be given to the party who is aggrieved by the said statement – Further, the statements were typed by the department officers in English without explaining the same to the appellants in the vernacular language. There were also discrepancies in the statements, which fully justified the examination/cross-examination of the witnesses - The denial of the cross-examination of the persons whose statemen... [Read more]

Central Excise - clubbing of clearance values for SSI exemption, Denial of Cross-Examination of witnesses – HELD - When a case is made out on the basis of a statement of a witness, then cross-examination of that witness has to be given to the party who is aggrieved by the said statement – Further, the statements were typed by the department officers in English without explaining the same to the appellants in the vernacular language. There were also discrepancies in the statements, which fully justified the examination/cross-examination of the witnesses - The denial of the cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon would seriously violate the principle of natural justice, and the statements cannot be relied upon against the appellants - The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to provide the opportunity of cross-examination of the relevant witnesses and officials whose statements have been relied upon before deciding the matter – The appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]