More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Customs – Cancellation of Private bonded warehouse license, Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) license - Appellant was granted private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses for two of its mining locations. The Principal Commissioner of Customs later cancelled these licenses under Section 58B of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the Principal Commissioner had the power to cancel the private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses granted to the appellant - HELD - The Principal Commissioner did not have the power to cancel the private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses granted to the ... [Read more]

Customs – Cancellation of Private bonded warehouse license, Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) license - Appellant was granted private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses for two of its mining locations. The Principal Commissioner of Customs later cancelled these licenses under Section 58B of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the Principal Commissioner had the power to cancel the private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses granted to the appellant - HELD - The Principal Commissioner did not have the power to cancel the private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses granted to the appellant. After the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2016, the Commissioner can cancel a private bonded warehouse license issued under Section 58 only if the licensee contravenes any provision of the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or breaches any of the conditions of the license. In this case, there was no allegation of any violation by the appellant - Further, the MOOWR Regulations do not empower the Commissioner to review his own decision to grant permission under Section 65 and withdraw the permission. Once a license is issued by the Commissioner for mining operations, the MOOWR Regulations do not authorize him to review his own decision and withdraw the permission - The impugned orders cancelling the private bonded warehouse licenses and MOOWR licenses of the appellant are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Customs – Classification of Modular Port Concentrator [MPC] or Capacity Line Card, Modular Interface Cards [MIC] or Daughter Card, Fixed Configuration MPC, and Switch Fabric or Switch Control Board – while the appellant claims that the aforesaid products are all parts of Juniper router and, therefore, were classified under Customs Tariff Item 8517 70 90 as ‘Other’ under the sub-heading pertaining to ‘Parts’, the impugned order held that the imported items are classifiable as Network Interface Card (NIC) classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 - Whether the items imported by the appellant are parts/components of a Rou... [Read more]

Customs – Classification of Modular Port Concentrator [MPC] or Capacity Line Card, Modular Interface Cards [MIC] or Daughter Card, Fixed Configuration MPC, and Switch Fabric or Switch Control Board – while the appellant claims that the aforesaid products are all parts of Juniper router and, therefore, were classified under Customs Tariff Item 8517 70 90 as ‘Other’ under the sub-heading pertaining to ‘Parts’, the impugned order held that the imported items are classifiable as Network Interface Card (NIC) classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 - Whether the items imported by the appellant are parts/components of a Router or apparatus of Heading 85.17 - HELD – the imported items assist in setting up a communication apparatus, but the said function of communication can be achieved only when assembled with several other parts and cannot communicate with other devices independently. The imported parts on a stand-alone basis cannot perform any of the desired function and it is only when the imported parts are configured with other parts that it will produce the desired function. The imported items, therefore, deserve classification under CTI 8517 70 90 and not under CTI 8517 62 90 – Further, NIC is a hardware which enables a device to connect to a network. For the purpose of such connection, it provides for a physical interface on the card as well supports packet forwarding. Merely because a router is primarily a Layer 3 device, with only some elements of Layer 1 and Layer 2 would not mean that Router can be classified as NIC - The items imported by the appellant would merit classification under CTI 8517 70 90 as contended by the appellant and not CTI 8517 62 90 has contended by the department – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Invocation of extended period of limitation – HELD - Merely because it was a case of self-assessment would not mean that the extended period of limitation can be invoked. It is trite that for invocation of extended period of limitation the Department is required to prove deliberate suppression and concealment of the material facts on the part of the assessee to evade duty liability - the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. For this reason also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. [Read less]

The Section 16(2)(c) places an onerous burden on a bonafide purchasing dealer. The Sec.16(2)(c) is read down to apply only in cases where the transaction is found to be not bonafide or is a collusive or fraudulent transaction to defraud the revenue.

Customs/SEZ - Legality of Customs duty on electricity generated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) – Appellant operates a coal-based thermal power plant within SEZ and the electricity generated at this plant is partly consumed within the SEZ and substantially supplied to buyers in the DTA - Whether customs duty can be levied on the clearance of electrical energy from the appellant's SEZ unit to the DTA – HELD - There was no "import into India" that could trigger the charging event under Section 12 of the Customs Act, as an SEZ is not a foreign territory. The legal fiction in... [Read more]

Customs/SEZ - Legality of Customs duty on electricity generated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) – Appellant operates a coal-based thermal power plant within SEZ and the electricity generated at this plant is partly consumed within the SEZ and substantially supplied to buyers in the DTA - Whether customs duty can be levied on the clearance of electrical energy from the appellant's SEZ unit to the DTA – HELD - There was no "import into India" that could trigger the charging event under Section 12 of the Customs Act, as an SEZ is not a foreign territory. The legal fiction in Section 30 of the SEZ Act only allows ascertainment of the rate of duty applicable to comparable imports, not the conversion of intra-national supply of electricity into an act of import - The Respondent’s attempt to impose the duty through Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., which was couched as an "exemption" notification, is a colourable exercise of delegated authority, as Section 25 of the Customs Act is a power to relax duty, not to create a new levy. The retrospective application of the duty also violated Article 265 of the Constitution, which requires authority of law for every tax levy and collection - The structure of the levy created an arbitrary and unfair double burden, as the SEZ Rules already ensured that the benefit of duty-free inputs was clawed back to the extent electricity left the zone for the DTA - the levy of customs duty on electrical energy cleared by the appellant from its SEZ unit to the DTA during the relevant period, as sought to be enforced through Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., Notification No. 91/2010-Cus., Notification No. 26/2012-Cus., and similar instruments, is without authority of law – The authorities are directed to refund the amounts deposited by the appellant towards Customs duty on the clearance of electrical energy from its SEZ unit to the DTA for the period from 16 September 2010 to 15 February 2016 – The impugned order by the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

The Late Fee u/s 47(2) is penal in nature, and therefore, the imposition of General Penalty u/s 125 over and above the Late Fee is not justified. The imposition of penalty consequence, without any element of mens rea, is unjustifiable.

GST – Tax on Works Contract of laying of roads – Appellant was engaged in the business of works contracts and had executed certain infrastructure/road works for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) under contracts dated 25.02.2019 and 08.03.2019 - Respondent conducted an audit and issued an adjudication order levying a higher rate of tax at 18% on the infrastructure/road works executed by the petitioner, contrary to the petitioner's contention that the applicable rate should be 12% as the works were for public infrastructure - Whether the infrastructure/road works executed by the petitioner ... [Read more]

GST – Tax on Works Contract of laying of roads – Appellant was engaged in the business of works contracts and had executed certain infrastructure/road works for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) under contracts dated 25.02.2019 and 08.03.2019 - Respondent conducted an audit and issued an adjudication order levying a higher rate of tax at 18% on the infrastructure/road works executed by the petitioner, contrary to the petitioner's contention that the applicable rate should be 12% as the works were for public infrastructure - Whether the infrastructure/road works executed by the petitioner should be taxed at 12% or 18% - HELD - Considering the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Industrial Area Local Authority (IALA) stating that the roads laid by the petitioner were for facilitating industrial activity and for the benefit of the general public, the works executed by the petitioner fall under Entry 3 of Notification No. 24 of 2017 dated 21.09.2017, where the applicable rate of tax is 12% and not 18% - The adjudication order is set aside to the extent of levying 18% tax and respondent is directed to re-do the assessment by considering the IALA certificate and determine the appropriate tax rate - The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

The amendment to Sec.54(1) which curtailed the period for filing refund by substituting the definition of "relevant date" w.e.f. 01.02.2019, cannot operate retrospectively to curtail the vested rights in relation to period preceding the amendment.

Central Excise - Cess on textile processing, Scope of Term ‘Manufacture’ - Petitioner are engaged in the business of processing of grey fabric by dyeing and not manufacturing textile products - Whether the Textile Committee was justified in levying cess on the petitioner's processing activities under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963 – HELD - The definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Chapter Notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 cannot be imported into the Textile Committee Act, 1963 since the 1963 Act does not contain any specific provision to that effect. The 1963... [Read more]

Central Excise - Cess on textile processing, Scope of Term ‘Manufacture’ - Petitioner are engaged in the business of processing of grey fabric by dyeing and not manufacturing textile products - Whether the Textile Committee was justified in levying cess on the petitioner's processing activities under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963 – HELD - The definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Chapter Notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 cannot be imported into the Textile Committee Act, 1963 since the 1963 Act does not contain any specific provision to that effect. The 1963 Act only refers to the levy of cess on the 'manufacture' of textiles, without defining the term. It is settled proposition of law that definition of another statute especially taxing statute cannot be borrowed unless and until specifically provided in such Act - The Textile Committee itself had acknowledged in a letter that cess should not be levied on independent processing units as the yarn on which cess has already been paid. The Textile Committee had later on exempted all textile units from the cess and subsequently repealed the Act itself, indicating that the Government itself was not in favor of levying cess on independent processing units - Further, the notices for cess were issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Rule 10 of the Textile Committee (Cess) Rules, 1975. Accordingly, the Textile Committee was not justified in levying cess on the petitioner's processing activities – The impugned orders are set aside and the petitions are allowed [Read less]

Customs - Self-Assessment, Reassessment, Amendment of Bills of Entry, Refund of Customs Duty – Appellant classified the import of mobile handsets under Customs Tariff Item 8517 1290 and paid the applicable duties of customs, including Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) at the standard rate of 12.5%. The appellants later realized that they were entitled to the concessional CVD rate of 1% as per Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 12/2015-C.E. dated 01.03.2015 – Appellant got the self-assessment at higher rates of CVD re-assessed, and applied for refund of the excess CVD paid. The... [Read more]

Customs - Self-Assessment, Reassessment, Amendment of Bills of Entry, Refund of Customs Duty – Appellant classified the import of mobile handsets under Customs Tariff Item 8517 1290 and paid the applicable duties of customs, including Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) at the standard rate of 12.5%. The appellants later realized that they were entitled to the concessional CVD rate of 1% as per Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 12/2015-C.E. dated 01.03.2015 – Appellant got the self-assessment at higher rates of CVD re-assessed, and applied for refund of the excess CVD paid. The original authority sanctioned the refund, but Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund order - Whether the impugned order rejecting the refund claim is legally sustainable – HELD - The definition of ‘assessment’ includes the self-assessment made by the importer, re-assessment, if any, subsequently made by the proper officer of Customs and any other kinds of assessment made under the Customs Act, 1962 - In the present case, the self-assessment by the appellants was subsequently modified through a reassessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which is a valid "assessment" under the Customs Act. Therefore, the requirement of Section 27 in terms of the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited, that the refund should be arising from an assessment or re-assessment made, changing such self-assessment made by importer, as may be applicable, has been fulfilled in the present case - the appellants has filed the refund claim within the time limit and they have also submitted the proof satisfying the unjust enrichment angle. Therefore, it clearly establishes that the basic requirement of Section 27 to prove that the burden of incidence of duty having been not passed on to their buyers/customer or any other person. Therefore, the twin requirement of Section 27 has been fulfilled – the impugned order in rejecting the refund of customs duty is not consistent with the legal provisions and set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services – Denial of CENVAT credit on certain input services on the ground that these services were not covered within the scope of the term 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD - The definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004, which has three main categories- the 'means' part, the 'inclusion' part, and the 'exclusion' part. In order to decide about the eligibility of an input service for taking CENVAT Credit, it has to satisfy that the same can be covered under either ‘means’ part or ‘inclusion’ part and t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services – Denial of CENVAT credit on certain input services on the ground that these services were not covered within the scope of the term 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD - The definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CCR 2004, which has three main categories- the 'means' part, the 'inclusion' part, and the 'exclusion' part. In order to decide about the eligibility of an input service for taking CENVAT Credit, it has to satisfy that the same can be covered under either ‘means’ part or ‘inclusion’ part and the same should not be covered under the ‘exclusion’ part - The certain input services such as construction services, health club and fitness centre services, and restaurant services were eligible to be considered as 'input services' as they were either covered under the 'means' part or the 'inclusion' part, and were not covered under the 'exclusion' part of the definition. However, CENVAT credit is not eligible for certain specific services like rent-a-cab, outdoor catering, air conditioning restaurants, share transfer agent, and general maintenance services, as they were not found to be eligible under the definition of 'input service' – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

GST - Retrospective vs Prospective Nature of Notification and Amendment – Activity of conducting clinical trials for foreign clients – Demand of GST on the petitioner's services, treating them as non-export service - Whether the Notification No. 04/2019 dated 30.09.2019, which clarified that the place of supply for R&D services including clinical trials provided by Indian companies to foreign clients shall be the location of the recipient, i.e., outside India, should be applied retrospectively or prospectively – HELD - The 37th GST Council meeting had recommended issuing a notification under Section 13(13) of the IGS... [Read more]

GST - Retrospective vs Prospective Nature of Notification and Amendment – Activity of conducting clinical trials for foreign clients – Demand of GST on the petitioner's services, treating them as non-export service - Whether the Notification No. 04/2019 dated 30.09.2019, which clarified that the place of supply for R&D services including clinical trials provided by Indian companies to foreign clients shall be the location of the recipient, i.e., outside India, should be applied retrospectively or prospectively – HELD - The 37th GST Council meeting had recommended issuing a notification under Section 13(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 to clarify that the place of supply of specific R&D services, including clinical trials, provided by Indian pharmaceutical companies to foreign clients shall be the location of the service recipient, i.e., outside India. This was to address the issue that such services were not being treated as exports under Section 13(3)(a) of the IGST Act, which provides that the place of supply is the location where the services are actually performed - The amendments which are clarificatory, elucidatory or declaratory in nature are to be treated as retrospective, as they merely explain the existing law. Since the Notification dated 30.09.2019 was issued pursuant to the 37th GST Council's recommendation to clarify the place of supply for such R&D services, it should be applied retrospectively - The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vatika Township case, is that a legislation is presumed to be prospective unless it is clarificatory or declaratory in nature. As the 30.09.2019 notification was intended to clarify the existing law, it should operate retrospectively from the time the IGST Act came into force - As the Notification No. 04/2019 operates retrospectively, the petitioner's services of conducting clinical trials for foreign clients should be treated as exports not liable to GST – The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Valuation of imported induction cookers under Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.), Demand of differential duty and penalty – Appellant imported induction cookers and paid basic customs duty and countervailing duty (CVD) based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) fixed on the packages. Later, the goods were bundled and offered to the customer after revising the MRP. The revenue demanded differential duty on this revised MRP - Whether the induction cookers are covered under Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.) dated 24.12.2008, wherein all goods listed at Sl. No. 86 are to be assessed under Section 4A of the Central Ex... [Read more]

Customs - Valuation of imported induction cookers under Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.), Demand of differential duty and penalty – Appellant imported induction cookers and paid basic customs duty and countervailing duty (CVD) based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) fixed on the packages. Later, the goods were bundled and offered to the customer after revising the MRP. The revenue demanded differential duty on this revised MRP - Whether the induction cookers are covered under Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.) dated 24.12.2008, wherein all goods listed at Sl. No. 86 are to be assessed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - A plain reading of Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.) along with the relevant Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) would indicate that the provisions of the said notification are applicable to all goods falling under CTH 8516, which includes induction cookers - There is no dispute that 8516 6000 where the appellant would like to classify their products is also part of the chapter heading 8516. Therefore, the induction cookers falling under chapter heading 8516 6000 also forms part of Sl. No. 86 of the notification. Hence, the Commissioner’s observation that the provisions of said notification are applicable to all goods falling under the said tariff head except ‘electric heating resistors’ cannot be ignored. It is also an admitted fact that the induction cookers do not fall under the excluded category i.e. ‘electric heating resistors’ - The matter is remanded to Commissioner for redetermination of duty on induction cookers in terms of the said notification, along with interest. Since the assessee had already paid a differential duty, the question of imposition of penalty would arise depending upon the redetermined liability – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Activity of sale of soil, Non-registration and Non-filing of ST-3 returns - Based on information received from the Income Tax Department, the Department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax along with interest and penalties for various contraventions of the Service Tax provisions - Whether the receipts declared in the ITR is taxable are liable service tax – HELD - The appellant was engaged in the activity of sale of soil. The appellant had correctly shown the purchase of soil and the corresponding receipts from the sale of soil - The receipts declared in the ITR for the financial year 2016-17 we... [Read more]

Service Tax - Activity of sale of soil, Non-registration and Non-filing of ST-3 returns - Based on information received from the Income Tax Department, the Department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax along with interest and penalties for various contraventions of the Service Tax provisions - Whether the receipts declared in the ITR is taxable are liable service tax – HELD - The appellant was engaged in the activity of sale of soil. The appellant had correctly shown the purchase of soil and the corresponding receipts from the sale of soil - The receipts declared in the ITR for the financial year 2016-17 were towards the sale of soil, which is a non-taxable activity under the Service Tax law. The entry in the ITR was an erroneous one and did not reflect the true nature of the appellant's business activities - Since the receipts were towards the sale of soil, which is a non-taxable activity, the appellant is not liable for the payment of service tax, interest, and penalties. The various contraventions, such as non-registration, non-filing of ST-3 returns, and non-furnishing of information/documents, were a result of the erroneous entry in the ITR, which led to the entire proceedings. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Import of goods – Classification – Appellant filed bills of entry for clearance of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Suspension Resin – Appellant classified goods under CTH 39042110 and paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @2% – Department issued show cause notice proposing to re-classify goods under CTH 39041090, charge BCD @5% and demand short collected duty – Adjudicating Authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – First appellate authority upheld Order-in-Original and rejected appeal filed by Appellant – Whether item imported by Appellant, viz. PVC Resin Suspension Grade, is classifiable under C... [Read more]

Customs – Import of goods – Classification – Appellant filed bills of entry for clearance of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Suspension Resin – Appellant classified goods under CTH 39042110 and paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @2% – Department issued show cause notice proposing to re-classify goods under CTH 39041090, charge BCD @5% and demand short collected duty – Adjudicating Authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – First appellate authority upheld Order-in-Original and rejected appeal filed by Appellant – Whether item imported by Appellant, viz. PVC Resin Suspension Grade, is classifiable under CTH 39042110 as “Other Poly (Vinyl Chloride): Non-Plasticised” or under CTH-39041090-Other category – HELD – Revenue had classified goods under CTH 39041090 by placing reliance on test report and clarification given by CIPET in respect of goods imported by another importer. Identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in case of Arun Polymers, wherein, Revenue had similarly relied on exactly the same test report and clarification given by CIPET, but in its Final Order, this Tribunal held that imported goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 39042110. In view of identical issue involved in this appeal and facts being the same, issue is no longer res integra, hence impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – CENVAT credit, Invoices not in name of manufacturing unit, procedural requirements – Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant's manufacturing unit, but in the name of its division - Whether the CENVAT credit can be denied on technical or procedural grounds when the substantive compliance, i.e., the duty paid nature and utilization of the inputs/input services in manufacture, is not disputed – HELD – The CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere technical or procedural grounds when the substantive compliance is not in doubt. The minor infirmities in ... [Read more]

Central Excise – CENVAT credit, Invoices not in name of manufacturing unit, procedural requirements – Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant's manufacturing unit, but in the name of its division - Whether the CENVAT credit can be denied on technical or procedural grounds when the substantive compliance, i.e., the duty paid nature and utilization of the inputs/input services in manufacture, is not disputed – HELD – The CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere technical or procedural grounds when the substantive compliance is not in doubt. The minor infirmities in the documents cannot disentitle the appellant from the rightful CENVAT credit, as long as the duty paid character of the goods/services and their use in manufacture is not disputed. The issuance of invoices in the name of the head office/division, instead of the manufacturing unit, is a mere procedural lapse that can be condoned - Availment of CENVAT credit in the present case is admissible as it is no more than a procedural lapse. As long as the goods/services were received in the factory of production and utilized the said goods/services in the manufacture of finished products the appellant is entitled to avail the said credit – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Filing of revised refund application pursuant to deficiency memo, Computation of period of Limitation for the purpose of refund – Petitioner filed a refund application within a period of two years in terms of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Respondents issued a deficiency memo to the said refund application and one more refund application pursuant to the deficiency memo, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the said refund application was beyond the period prescribed under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act - Whether the refund application filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed period... [Read more]

GST - Filing of revised refund application pursuant to deficiency memo, Computation of period of Limitation for the purpose of refund – Petitioner filed a refund application within a period of two years in terms of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Respondents issued a deficiency memo to the said refund application and one more refund application pursuant to the deficiency memo, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the said refund application was beyond the period prescribed under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act - Whether the refund application filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act – HELD - The undisputed material on record indicated that the petitioner initially filed a refund application on 04.07.2024, which was well within the prescribed period of two years as contemplated under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. The respondents have erroneously considered the subsequent revised refund application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the deficiency memo issued by the respondents, instead of the initial refund application, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The respondents also failed to consider the exclusion of the period from March 2020 to February 2022 for the computation of the period of limitation, as per the relaxation provided under Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, which would have benefited the petitioner - The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the refund application filed by the petitioner afresh, on merits, without reference to the period of limitation, which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST – Kerala AAR - Admissibility of Input Tax Credit under Margin Scheme for Second-hand Vehicles - Business of buying and selling second-hand motor vehicles. Before resale, the applicant undertakes minor repairs and refurbishments to enhance the vehicles' market value without altering their essential character. The applicant also incurs various common business expenses such as office/showroom rent, telephone, advertising, professional fees, and procures capital goods like workshop equipment, office infrastructure, and demo vehicles - Whether ITC admissible on inward supplies of goods or services which are in the nature ... [Read more]

GST – Kerala AAR - Admissibility of Input Tax Credit under Margin Scheme for Second-hand Vehicles - Business of buying and selling second-hand motor vehicles. Before resale, the applicant undertakes minor repairs and refurbishments to enhance the vehicles' market value without altering their essential character. The applicant also incurs various common business expenses such as office/showroom rent, telephone, advertising, professional fees, and procures capital goods like workshop equipment, office infrastructure, and demo vehicles - Whether ITC admissible on inward supplies of goods or services which are in the nature of direct expenditures like spare purchases, repairs and refurbishment costs of vehicles, except on the purchase of old or used motor vehicles – HELD – The Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January 2018 restricts ITC only on the purchase of used motor vehicles themselves. There is bar under the notification on claiming ITC on other inward supplies, including but not limited to spare parts, repair and refurbishment services, rent, advertising, professional services, or capital goods utilized in the course of business - The input tax credit on inward supplies such as spare parts, repairs, and refurbishment services is admissible to the applicant subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed under Sections 16 to 21 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules 36 to 45 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – The applicant is eligible to claim input tax credit on both direct and indirect expenses incurred in the course or furtherance of business, except on the purchase of used motor vehicles themselves, subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules - Ordered accordingly - Whether input tax credit is admissible on inward supplies of other goods or services such as office/showroom rent, telephone, advertisement, professional charges, and capital goods, except on the purchase of old or used motor vehicles as mentioned in Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January 2018 – HELD - The input tax credit on inward supplies of goods or services such as office/showroom rent, advertisement, telephone, professional fees, and capital goods is admissible, as there is no restriction under Notification No. 8/2018-CT (Rate) or Rule 32(5) regarding such expenses. The availment shall be subject to fulfillment of the conditions under Sections 16 to 21 of the CGST Act and Rules 36 to 45 of the CGST Rules. [Read less]

Service Tax – Works Contract, Determination of Value – Providing of services related to fabrication and installation of aluminium architectural systems - Appellant paid Service Tax under the category ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’, on 33% of the total amount charged, after availing abatement, in terms of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006; and service tax under Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) @4%, as per Notification No. 32/2007 -ST, dated 22-05-2007 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006, and Noti... [Read more]

Service Tax – Works Contract, Determination of Value – Providing of services related to fabrication and installation of aluminium architectural systems - Appellant paid Service Tax under the category ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’, on 33% of the total amount charged, after availing abatement, in terms of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006; and service tax under Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) @4%, as per Notification No. 32/2007 -ST, dated 22-05-2007 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006, and Notification No. 32/2007-ST, dated 22-05-2007 – HELD - As per the conditions of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006, the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the 'inputs'. The appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006, as they had availed CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services, which was not permitted under the said notification. However, the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 32/2007-ST, dated 22-05-2007, as the substantial benefit of the exemption cannot be denied on the ground of procedural infirmities, such as non-exercise of the option to avail the composition scheme - After denying the benefits of the Notification Nos. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006 and 32/2007-ST, dated 22-05-2007, Service Tax has been demanded by adding the value of goods in the ‘gross amount charged’. It is pertinent to note that if the concessional rate of 4% as provided under Notification No. 32/2007-ST, dated 22-05-2007 is not extended, then the value of service needs to be determined in terms of Rule 2A(i) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 by excluding the value of the goods and VAT/WCT from the gross amount charged. However, the Department has demanded Service Tax by including the value of the goods used in execution of the ‘works contract’, which is legally not sustainable - The value of services needs to be determined in terms of Rule 2A(i) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, by excluding the value of the goods and VAT/WCT from the gross amount charged. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to recompute the Service Tax liability in accordance with this principle - The demand of Service Tax confirmed in the impugned order beyond the normal period of limitation, is barred by limitation - The appeal is disposed of by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to recompute the Service Tax liability. No penalty is imposable on the demand of Service Tax, if any, confirmed for the normal period of limitation - The appeal is partly allowed by remand [Read less]

Customs – Use of forged scrips, Levy of penalty - Demand of duty and imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the customs duty and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act can be imposed when the scrips were found to be forged – HELD - When the scrips are found to be forged, the demand of customs duty and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is valid – However, the adjudicating authority had not dealt with the issue of whether the appellant had knowingly or intentionally used the forged scrips in the body of the order, and the Commissioner (A... [Read more]

Customs – Use of forged scrips, Levy of penalty - Demand of duty and imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the customs duty and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act can be imposed when the scrips were found to be forged – HELD - When the scrips are found to be forged, the demand of customs duty and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is valid – However, the adjudicating authority had not dealt with the issue of whether the appellant had knowingly or intentionally used the forged scrips in the body of the order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) also did not record any such finding - Unless it is alleged and proved that the appellant had knowledge that the scrips were forged, penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is set aside - The confirmation of customs duty and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is maintained, but the imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is set aside - The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Emergence of By-Products in the manufacture of refined vegetable oil, Eligibility to benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 - In the course of manufacturing Refined Palm Oil, Palm Fatty Acid generated as a technological emergence of waste - Whether the fatty acid, waxes, and gums arising in the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil can be considered as manufactured products and the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 is available on such products or not – HELD – The Fatty Acid, Waxes and Gum arising in course of manufacture of Refined Vegetable Oil, cannot be con... [Read more]

Central Excise - Emergence of By-Products in the manufacture of refined vegetable oil, Eligibility to benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 - In the course of manufacturing Refined Palm Oil, Palm Fatty Acid generated as a technological emergence of waste - Whether the fatty acid, waxes, and gums arising in the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil can be considered as manufactured products and the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 is available on such products or not – HELD – The Fatty Acid, Waxes and Gum arising in course of manufacture of Refined Vegetable Oil, cannot be considered as manufactured product and the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 is available on such byproducts in terms of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ricela Health Foods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - The issue is no more res-integra and that the fatty acid, waxes, and gums arising in the course of manufacture of refined vegetable oil cannot be considered as manufactured products, and the benefit of Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 is available on such by-products - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Setting up of factory, CENVAT credit on input services, Modernization of Mines/factory – Denial of CENVAT credit on the input services received in connection with modernisation of plant - Whether the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on the input services used for the modernization plant when the definition of "input service" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was amended with effect from April 1, 2011 to exclude "setting up of a factory" from its ambit – HELD - The input services in question are directly linked to the manufacture of the final product, as without these services, the appellant... [Read more]

Central Excise - Setting up of factory, CENVAT credit on input services, Modernization of Mines/factory – Denial of CENVAT credit on the input services received in connection with modernisation of plant - Whether the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on the input services used for the modernization plant when the definition of "input service" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was amended with effect from April 1, 2011 to exclude "setting up of a factory" from its ambit – HELD - The input services in question are directly linked to the manufacture of the final product, as without these services, the appellant could not have set up the factory for the manufacture of goods. Since these input services are covered under the "means" clause of the definition of "input service", the fact that "setting up of a factory" was specifically excluded from the "includes" clause does not make any difference. Unless the input services are specifically excluded from the definition, the appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on such services – Further, the term "manufacture" is defined very broadly under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. The services used for the modernization of the factory are covered within this wide definition of "manufacture" and, therefore, qualify as "input services" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant is entitled to the CENVAT credit on the items in dispute, which has been used by them for setting of factory/mines post 01.04.2011 – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Works Contract or Consultancy Services – Providing of sub-contract works with State Government projects and providing consultancy services relating to the construction of various civil structures, water supply and drainage pipelines - Appellant provided consultancy service to main service provider. Appellant claims benefit of exemption, under Notification No. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 on ground that main contractor are exempted under said notification - Whether the appellant's consultancy services are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 – HELD - As per the said noti... [Read more]

Service Tax - Works Contract or Consultancy Services – Providing of sub-contract works with State Government projects and providing consultancy services relating to the construction of various civil structures, water supply and drainage pipelines - Appellant provided consultancy service to main service provider. Appellant claims benefit of exemption, under Notification No. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 on ground that main contractor are exempted under said notification - Whether the appellant's consultancy services are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 – HELD - As per the said notification, the sub-contractor who are providing service by way of works contract are exempted to pay Service Tax but here no such services - the admitted activity of providing advisory/consultancy services is a taxable service and not covered under the exemption. Therefore, the appellant's consultancy services are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and the services rendered by the appellant are taxable service – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is engaged in providing software development and other IT software services to customers in India – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Manpower Supply services – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether services provided by Appellant would fall under category of Manpower Supply or not – HELD – Some of agreements are applicable to manpower recruitment services. One cannot read agreement in bits and pieces, but has to be read and interpreted from... [Read more]

Service Tax – Demand of tax – Sustainability – Appellant is engaged in providing software development and other IT software services to customers in India – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Manpower Supply services – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether services provided by Appellant would fall under category of Manpower Supply or not – HELD – Some of agreements are applicable to manpower recruitment services. One cannot read agreement in bits and pieces, but has to be read and interpreted from intention of parties executing particular contract. Agreements were executed for development of software and not an activity exclusively for supply of manpower. Nature of services required to be provided by Appellant are in nature of Information Technology Services, as same relates to data management. At relevant time, information technology services was outside scope of Service Tax as evident from provisions of the Act. Since activities carried out by Appellant cannot be classified under category of manpower supply, impugned order confirming demand is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Job work, Manufacturing - The appellant manufactures products on its own account and also undertakes job work for its principal manufacturer, wherein the principal supplies raw materials and packaging materials, and the appellant undertakes processing and manufacturing strictly in accordance with the specifications. The finished goods are cleared from the appellant's factory on payment of applicable Central Excise duty - Whether the income reflected as "service income" in the appellant's audited financials, but not disclosed in its ST-3 returns, is liable to service tax – HELD - The activity undertaken by t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Job work, Manufacturing - The appellant manufactures products on its own account and also undertakes job work for its principal manufacturer, wherein the principal supplies raw materials and packaging materials, and the appellant undertakes processing and manufacturing strictly in accordance with the specifications. The finished goods are cleared from the appellant's factory on payment of applicable Central Excise duty - Whether the income reflected as "service income" in the appellant's audited financials, but not disclosed in its ST-3 returns, is liable to service tax – HELD - The activity undertaken by the appellant, i.e., manufacturing medicaments on behalf of principal manufacturer under a contractual agreement, where raw materials are supplied by principal and the finished goods are cleared on payment of excise duty, squarely falls within the ambit of "process amounting to manufacture" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This activity is expressly excluded from the levy of service tax by virtue of Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides that "any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods" is covered in the Negative List and thus not liable to service tax - The activity of manufacturing goods on behalf of a client is an excisable activity under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and cannot be classified as a taxable service under the "Business Auxiliary Service" category – The demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Manufacture of traction motor – Denial of exemption – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Traction Motor – Enquiry revealed that Appellant had not paid duty on Traction Motors cleared by them to various zones of Indian Railways – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of duty by invoking extended period of limitation – Commissioner confirmed demand of central excise duty – Whether Appellant is eligible for benefit of exemption provided under Notification No.12/2012-CE – HELD – Main contention of Appellant is that benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE should be available t... [Read more]

Central Excise – Manufacture of traction motor – Denial of exemption – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Traction Motor – Enquiry revealed that Appellant had not paid duty on Traction Motors cleared by them to various zones of Indian Railways – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of duty by invoking extended period of limitation – Commissioner confirmed demand of central excise duty – Whether Appellant is eligible for benefit of exemption provided under Notification No.12/2012-CE – HELD – Main contention of Appellant is that benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE should be available to all Traction Motors cleared to various zones of Indian Railways. Benefit of said Notification is available only when Traction Motors are used within factory of production. It is an admitted fact that goods in question were removed outside the factory of Appellant. Since Appellant had not fulfilled conditions laid down under Notification No.12/2012, Appellant is not eligible for benefit of exemption provided under said Notification. Appellant is liable to pay duty on Traction Motors manufactured and cleared to various zones of Indian Railways – Appeal disposed of - Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of duty – Whether invoking of extended period of limitation is justified in facts and circumstances of case – HELD – Entire demand had been raised and confirmed on basis of information furnished by Appellant in their ER-1 and ER-6 Returns. Appellant had not suppressed any information from Department. In such circumstances, invoking of extended period of limitation is not sustainable. Consequently, demand confirmed in impugned order by invoking extended period of limitation is set aside. Demand confirmed in impugned order for normal period of limitation is uphold. Matter is remanded back to Adjudicating authority for limited purpose of quantification of demand for normal period. [Read less]

Service Tax – Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 – Export of services – Tax liability – Appellants are engaged in business of providing hospitality and management services to various hotels operating under Marriott International Chain of hotels – Department claimed that Appellants were providing taxable services of Business Auxiliary Service, but had failed to pay appropriate service tax to government exchequer – Department had initiated show cause proceedings demanding service tax on taxable services provided by Appellants – Commissioner confirmed demand along with interest and penalty – Whether servi... [Read more]

Service Tax – Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 – Export of services – Tax liability – Appellants are engaged in business of providing hospitality and management services to various hotels operating under Marriott International Chain of hotels – Department claimed that Appellants were providing taxable services of Business Auxiliary Service, but had failed to pay appropriate service tax to government exchequer – Department had initiated show cause proceedings demanding service tax on taxable services provided by Appellants – Commissioner confirmed demand along with interest and penalty – Whether services provided by Appellants to their group entity located abroad would amount to export of services or otherwise – HELD – On careful perusal of various agreements entered into between Appellants with Marriott foreign entities, it transpires that relationship between parties is that of independent contractor-contractee. In terms of agreements, Appellants were only required to identify, recruit, hire and supervise the senior hotel employees in order to ensure that standards and quality of Marriott standards are maintained. Content in agreements clearly provide that no services were provided by Appellants to end customers/hotel owners on behalf of overseas entity. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that Appellants have acted as an intermediary in dealings between overseas entities and their customers in India. On careful examination of nature of arrangements between Appellants and foreign entities vis-à-vis statutory provisions, it is abundantly clear that services provided by Appellants to overseas entities qualify as ‘export’ in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules. Conclusion arrived at by Commissioner in impugned order for confirmation of adjudged demand, by denial of such activity as export of services, does not stand the legal scrutiny. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeals allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Providing of services – Demand of tax – Appellant entered into agreements with Diagnostic Service Providers (DSPs) for providing pathology lab and other diagnostic services in hospital – Department entertained view that Appellant is providing Business Support Services (BSS) to DSPs – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of service tax under BSS – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating Authority – Whether services rendered by Appellant qualifies as BSS or not – HELD – As per contrac... [Read more]

Service Tax – Providing of services – Demand of tax – Appellant entered into agreements with Diagnostic Service Providers (DSPs) for providing pathology lab and other diagnostic services in hospital – Department entertained view that Appellant is providing Business Support Services (BSS) to DSPs – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of service tax under BSS – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating Authority – Whether services rendered by Appellant qualifies as BSS or not – HELD – As per contracts, Appellant is required to provide infrastructure and DSPs are required to install their equipments and revenue earned from patients is shared between Appellant and DSPs. There is absolutely no stipulation of payment of any service charges by DSPs to Appellant and no taxable service is being provided by Appellant to DSPs. Perusal of agreements between parties clearly showed that contracts between Appellant and DSPs are on principal-to-principal basis and are in nature of sharing-revenue. Mere providing of a building along with some basic amenities cannot be qualified as support service for running a business. Service, if any, rendered by Appellant are not BSS and rather qualifies as Healthcare Service, which is exempted from service tax. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

GST - Treatment of Supply of tyres, tubes, and flaps (TTF), SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit - The petitioner initially treated the supply of TTF in a carry strapping form as individual supplies, paying tax at the reduced rates applicable to tubes and flaps. However, later the petitioner communicated its intention to treat the supply as a "composite supply" and paid the additional tax due, along with interest - DGGI initiated an investigation and issued a SCN to the petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit - HEL... [Read more]

GST - Treatment of Supply of tyres, tubes, and flaps (TTF), SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit - The petitioner initially treated the supply of TTF in a carry strapping form as individual supplies, paying tax at the reduced rates applicable to tubes and flaps. However, later the petitioner communicated its intention to treat the supply as a "composite supply" and paid the additional tax due, along with interest - DGGI initiated an investigation and issued a SCN to the petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, alleging wrongful availment of input tax credit - HELD - To invoke Section 74 the Authorities ought to have traced out as to whether there is any evasion of tax in the course of payment of tax dues, the intention of fraud or provision of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. If the aspects of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts were not established while issuing the show cause notice, the same would be considered as issued without fulfilling the ingredients of Section 74 of the Act and such notice is liable to be set aside as the same was issued without jurisdiction - The issuance of the SCN under Section 74 is not valid as the respondents had not established the ingredients of Section 74, namely, fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The petitioner had voluntarily communicated its intention to treat the supply as a "composite supply" and paid the additional tax due, along with interest, prior to the DGGI investigation. At the worst, petitioner's action could be considered as tax not paid or short paid due to confusion in the entire industry and that the petitioner deferred the payment of tax and paid the same, once the doubts had been cleared. The same would attract proceedings under Section 73 of the Act - Further, the question of application of Section 39(9) so as to deprive the petitioner from availing ITC, would not at all arise as the said provision would attract only in the event, if the enforcement action was initiated prior to the intimation by the petitioner to pay the short payment of tax - The petitioner's actions were not motivated by any criminal intent, but rather by the prevailing confusion in the industry regarding the treatment of the TTF supply. The respondents had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 74 and issued the show cause notice without fulfilling the necessary requirements - The impugned show cause notice is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed [Read less]

GST – Kerala AAR - Applicant is engaged in providing healthcare services, including treatment for psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, antifungal infections, and folliculitis - Whether the healthcare services provided by the applicant are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 – HELD - The services provided by the applicant fall within the definition of "healthcare services" under the Notification, as they involve diagnosis and treatment of recognized medical conditions. The applicant's establishments are recognized as "clinical establishments" under the relevant statutory... [Read more]

GST – Kerala AAR - Applicant is engaged in providing healthcare services, including treatment for psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, antifungal infections, and folliculitis - Whether the healthcare services provided by the applicant are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 – HELD - The services provided by the applicant fall within the definition of "healthcare services" under the Notification, as they involve diagnosis and treatment of recognized medical conditions. The applicant's establishments are recognized as "clinical establishments" under the relevant statutory framework. The treatments provided are not merely cosmetic in nature but involve clinical diagnosis and therapeutic care - The healthcare services provided by the applicant in connection with the treatment of psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, antifungal infections, folliculitis, and similar dermatological conditions are exempted under Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Cenvat credit on technical inspection services, outward courier services – Appellant availed Cenvat credit on technical inspection services by BIS and outward courier services - Whether the technical inspection services and outward courier services availed by the appellant are eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD - The definition of "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is exhaustive and includes all services directly or indirectly related to the manufacturer's business. The appellant had manufactured HDPE pipes for Government project... [Read more]

Central Excise - Cenvat credit on technical inspection services, outward courier services – Appellant availed Cenvat credit on technical inspection services by BIS and outward courier services - Whether the technical inspection services and outward courier services availed by the appellant are eligible input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD - The definition of "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is exhaustive and includes all services directly or indirectly related to the manufacturer's business. The appellant had manufactured HDPE pipes for Government project of water supply distribution system, which was funded by the Asian Development Bank. The technical inspection services were availed by the appellant for its manufactured HDPE pipes before supplying them to the Government agency, and thus, these services were used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Similarly, the outward courier services were also eligible input services under the broad definition provided in the Rules - the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on said services is eligible and the order confirming the reversal of Cenvat credit is set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]