More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Service Tax – Renting out of equipments such as diesel generator sets and earthmoving equipments, Effective control and possession of the equipments - The appellant had entered into agreements with various customers for renting out such equipments for specific periods on rental basis - Whether service tax under the category of 'supply of tangible goods service' is leviable on the appellant for renting various equipments to customers or whether the transaction amounts to 'deemed sales' on which VAT was paid by the appellant - HELD - To examine this issue it has to be ascertained is whether the effective control and posses... [Read more]

Service Tax – Renting out of equipments such as diesel generator sets and earthmoving equipments, Effective control and possession of the equipments - The appellant had entered into agreements with various customers for renting out such equipments for specific periods on rental basis - Whether service tax under the category of 'supply of tangible goods service' is leviable on the appellant for renting various equipments to customers or whether the transaction amounts to 'deemed sales' on which VAT was paid by the appellant - HELD - To examine this issue it has to be ascertained is whether the effective control and possession of the equipments was transferred to the customers or it was retained by the appellant for if it was transferred to the customers then it would amount to deemed sales - Based on the terms of the agreements, the appellant had transferred the effective control and possession of the equipments to the customers. The equipments delivered on rent by the appellant to the customers were at the sole risk of the customers and the customers were required to indemnify the appellant against any losses, damages, or destruction to the equipment or any component. The equipments were also required to be returned to the appellant on the expiry of the contract period. The agreements also provided that the appellant, upon delivery of the equipment at the site of the customer, shall not use the equipment for any other purpose or withdraw the same. The appellant could not use or withdraw the equipments for any other purpose. These factors indicate that the transaction amounted to 'deemed sales' on which VAT was paid by the appellant, and not a service that is liable to service tax – Since the effective control and possession of the equipments was transferred by the appellant to the customers, therefore, it would result in deemed sales for which VAT would be payable and service tax cannot be levied upon the appellant under the category of ‘supply of tangible goods for use’ - As the demand of service tax does not sustain, the imposition of penalty and interest on the appellant is also not sustainable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Parallel Proceedings, Same subject matter or not, Proceedings pertaining to different Financial years - Demand on account of wrongful availment of ITC - Petitioner contended that the proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act as it arose from the same subject matter as the previous proceedings under Section 73 of the SGST Act for the financial year 2019-2020 – HELD - The two proceedings were not on the same subject matter as the nature of the contravention, the underlying period of assessment, and the specific tax liability sought to be assessed were clearly distinguishable. The proceedings under ... [Read more]

GST - Parallel Proceedings, Same subject matter or not, Proceedings pertaining to different Financial years - Demand on account of wrongful availment of ITC - Petitioner contended that the proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act as it arose from the same subject matter as the previous proceedings under Section 73 of the SGST Act for the financial year 2019-2020 – HELD - The two proceedings were not on the same subject matter as the nature of the contravention, the underlying period of assessment, and the specific tax liability sought to be assessed were clearly distinguishable. The proceedings under Section 73 for FY 2019-2020 arose from discrepancies in the declaration of tax liability in the annual returns, whereas the proceedings under Section 74 for FY 2018-2019 were premised upon the allegation of wrongful availment of ITC on the strength of goods-less invoices from a non-existent entity. Since the two proceedings pertained to different financial years, the Court held that the ingredients necessary to attract the bar under Section 6(2)(b) were not satisfied. The impugned proceedings under Section 74 could not be said to be hit by the statutory prohibition against parallel proceedings - The writ petition is dismissed - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner contended that the impugned order was in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act as the petitioner had not received any notice for personal hearing and the impugned order failed to consider the submissions in the reply - HELD - The contentions advanced by the petitioner in its reply dated 01.08.2025 had been duly adverted to and considered. In such circumstances, it could not be said that there had been any infraction of the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. [Read less]

Customs - Rejection of declared export value of iron ore fines – Enhancement of value based on data from MetalBulletin.com and alleged contemporaneous exports, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 – HELD - The adjudicating authority did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing the crucial documents relied upon to the appellant. Under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the authority is required to issue a query memo to the exporter, specify the reasons for doubting the declared value, and provi... [Read more]

Customs - Rejection of declared export value of iron ore fines – Enhancement of value based on data from MetalBulletin.com and alleged contemporaneous exports, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 – HELD - The adjudicating authority did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing the crucial documents relied upon to the appellant. Under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the authority is required to issue a query memo to the exporter, specify the reasons for doubting the declared value, and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the declared value. The valuation cannot be enhanced based on undisclosed material - The Department failed to establish the similarity in quality, quantity and commercial level of the alleged contemporaneous exports used to reject the declared value. The prescribed procedure was not followed, and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh in view of the observations. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

GST – Cross-empowerment of Proper Officer - Competence of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to pass the impugned order - Petitioners challenge the impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax imposing tax liability on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax is not the Proper Officer as defined under the provisions of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error – HELD - The provisions for CGST and SGST are pari materia. In terms of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, 2017, a "proper officer" in relation to any function to be per... [Read more]

GST – Cross-empowerment of Proper Officer - Competence of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to pass the impugned order - Petitioners challenge the impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax imposing tax liability on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax is not the Proper Officer as defined under the provisions of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error – HELD - The provisions for CGST and SGST are pari materia. In terms of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, 2017, a "proper officer" in relation to any function to be performed under the Act means the Commissioner or the officer of the Central Tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board - Further, officers of the State Tax or Union Territory Tax can be authorized as Proper Officer in certain circumstances, which are enumerated under Section 6 of the Act, which provides that the officers appointed under the SGST Act can be authorized to be the Proper Officer for the purposes of the Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendation of the Council, by notification, specify. However, the respondents fairly admitted that there is no such recommendation by the Council for notifying the respondent No.4 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) as the Proper Officer - The impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed, being an order by an incompetent authority. The liberty is granted to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Utilization of Cenvat Credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) – Respondent-assessee was availing Cenvat Credit of basic excise duty on various inputs for payment of NCCD on the final product POY - Whether the respondent can utilize the Cenvat Credit of basic excise duty for payment of NCCD on the final product – HELD - The issue is no longer res-integra and has been settled in favor of the respondent. Prior to the amendment in 2016, there was no restriction under the Cenvat Credit Rules for utilizing the credit of basic excise duty for payment of NCCD. The Tr... [Read more]

Central Excise - Utilization of Cenvat Credit of Basic Excise Duty for payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) – Respondent-assessee was availing Cenvat Credit of basic excise duty on various inputs for payment of NCCD on the final product POY - Whether the respondent can utilize the Cenvat Credit of basic excise duty for payment of NCCD on the final product – HELD - The issue is no longer res-integra and has been settled in favor of the respondent. Prior to the amendment in 2016, there was no restriction under the Cenvat Credit Rules for utilizing the credit of basic excise duty for payment of NCCD. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Gauhati High Court, Uttarakhand High Court, and its own previous decisions, which have consistently held that Cenvat Credit of basic excise duty can be utilized for payment of NCCD as it is a duty of excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The decision of the Sikkim High Court in the case of Unicorn Industries, relied upon by the revenue, is distinguishable as it dealt with the scope of exemption from payment of NCCD and not the issue of utilization of Cenvat Credit. Accordingly, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the impugned orders of the Commissioner are upheld [Read less]

Service Tax - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - Appellants were providing manpower services to M/s Pulivendula Polymers Pvt Ltd (PPPL) and were paying monthly salaries to the workers after collecting the amounts from PPPL - Whether the appellants can be considered as providers of MRSAS to PPPL or were they employees of PPPL merely disbursing salaries on their behalf – HELD - The crucial fact to determine whether the appellants were employees of PPPL or providers of MRSAS was whether the appellants were able to establish that they were regular employees of PPPL and were only disbursing the salaries on behal... [Read more]

Service Tax - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - Appellants were providing manpower services to M/s Pulivendula Polymers Pvt Ltd (PPPL) and were paying monthly salaries to the workers after collecting the amounts from PPPL - Whether the appellants can be considered as providers of MRSAS to PPPL or were they employees of PPPL merely disbursing salaries on their behalf – HELD - The crucial fact to determine whether the appellants were employees of PPPL or providers of MRSAS was whether the appellants were able to establish that they were regular employees of PPPL and were only disbursing the salaries on behalf of PPPL to the workers. The appellants had not been able to establish this fact conclusively. The department had relied on letters issued by PPPL indicating that the appellants were provided remuneration/consideration, which were not on record - The fact that the PF registration of the contract employees was in the name of PPPL did not conclusively establish that the appellants were employees, as the principal employer can obtain PF registration under the relevant law – The matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to provide an opportunity to the appellants to produce relevant documents to prove that they were regular employees of PPPL and were only disbursing salaries on their behalf, and thereafter a view can be taken on whether they can be treated as providers of MRSAS or merely as employees of PPPL – The appeals are allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax – Cononation of delay in filing appeal - Bona fide belief of appellant regarding limitation period – HELD - The delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but stemmed from the appellant's reasonable and bona fide understanding of the limitation provisions. Further, the appellant had informed the authorities about the change of address, but the notices were still sent to the old address, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to attend the hearings - The delay of 23 days is marginal, and the appellant has expressed willingness to file an application for condonation ... [Read more]

Service Tax – Cononation of delay in filing appeal - Bona fide belief of appellant regarding limitation period – HELD - The delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but stemmed from the appellant's reasonable and bona fide understanding of the limitation provisions. Further, the appellant had informed the authorities about the change of address, but the notices were still sent to the old address, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to attend the hearings - The delay of 23 days is marginal, and the appellant has expressed willingness to file an application for condonation of delay. Procedural requirements, including limitation, should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice, particularly when the delay is satisfactorily explained - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after allowing the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay – The appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax - Classification of service as 'Technical Testing and Analysis Service' (TTAS) vs 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service' (STCS) – Providing of services such as Bio-Equivalence (BE) studies and Bio-Availability (BA) studies to clients located outside India - The respondent-assessee claimed that the services provided to foreign clients should be treated as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, as the final reports were delivered outside India. The department contended that after the 2008 amendment to the rules, services classified under TTAS cannot be treated as export of service - H... [Read more]

Service Tax - Classification of service as 'Technical Testing and Analysis Service' (TTAS) vs 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service' (STCS) – Providing of services such as Bio-Equivalence (BE) studies and Bio-Availability (BA) studies to clients located outside India - The respondent-assessee claimed that the services provided to foreign clients should be treated as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, as the final reports were delivered outside India. The department contended that after the 2008 amendment to the rules, services classified under TTAS cannot be treated as export of service - HELD - The respondent's activities were correctly classified under TTAS by the adjudicating authority, and this classification was not disputed by either party. The respondent's work involved conducting various research activities in India and providing deliverables such as reports, samples, and related documents to the foreign clients, which constituted an integrated part of the overall work order - The delivery of the final reports outside India constitutes part performance of the service, making it eligible as export of service under the Rules. The essential ingredients for export of service, such as receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange and the use of the service outside India, were fulfilled in this case. Therefore, the services provided to foreign clients were correctly treated as export of service by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order to that extent is correct and department’s appeal is rejected to that extent – The appeal is allowed by way of remand only for the limited purpose of calculating cum-duty benefit for computing total demand in terms of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and consequent reduction in penalty - Reduction in mandatory penalty - As per the statutory provisions, equal penalty has to be imposed in terms of total duty confirmed and merely because part payment has already been made before and appropriated later, there cannot be proportionate reduction in the mandatory penalty. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned orders are not correct and accordingly, the mater is required to be remanded back for limited issue of re-computation of the penalty amount - Cum-duty benefit – The adjudicating authority has not allowed the said benefit, however, in the absence of any supporting document, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to consider the submissions of the appellant for allowing the cum-duty benefit in respect of demand confirmed vide the impugned order. [Read less]

Central Excise - Clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty - Appellant was found to be maintaining records of clandestine purchase and sale of iron and steel products by various re-rolling mills, including details of sellers, buyers, and transporters. These incriminating records were recovered during a search conducted at the appellant's premises - Whether the appellant, who was not the main party involved in the clandestine clearance of goods, can be held liable for penalty under the Central Excise Rules - HELD – The appellant's role in the clandestine clearance of goods could not be simply brushed aside just... [Read more]

Central Excise - Clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty - Appellant was found to be maintaining records of clandestine purchase and sale of iron and steel products by various re-rolling mills, including details of sellers, buyers, and transporters. These incriminating records were recovered during a search conducted at the appellant's premises - Whether the appellant, who was not the main party involved in the clandestine clearance of goods, can be held liable for penalty under the Central Excise Rules - HELD – The appellant's role in the clandestine clearance of goods could not be simply brushed aside just because the main party had settled the case under the SVLDRS scheme. The appellant had not retracted his statements recorded by the officers, and the contents of the seized documents clearly showed his involvement in the transactions - The appellant mentioned that he requested the Adjudicating Authority for supply of relied upon documents to prepare his defence which were not provided to him. This issue he again raised during appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) but he also ignored this request and decided the appeal against him. Thus, the principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case either during adjudication or in appeal proceedings. Therefore, matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to provide relied upon documents to the appellant as requested for, and thereafter, decide the case afresh after following the Principles of Natural Justice, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order - The appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Customs - Exemption under Notification 4/2006-CE for import of Manganese Ore – Denial of benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of S.No.04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 on the ground that the imported goods were 'Manganese Concentrates' and not 'Manganese Ores' as the goods had undergone processes like washing, removal of waste and sizing – HELD - The ore has been supplied in terms of contract and certain specifications stipulated by the appellants. It is not an ore in the form, which has emerged in the mine i.e., Run of Mine (ROM) Ore. The process of screening and sizing, etc., has been carried out on ROM ore befor... [Read more]

Customs - Exemption under Notification 4/2006-CE for import of Manganese Ore – Denial of benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of S.No.04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 on the ground that the imported goods were 'Manganese Concentrates' and not 'Manganese Ores' as the goods had undergone processes like washing, removal of waste and sizing – HELD - The ore has been supplied in terms of contract and certain specifications stipulated by the appellants. It is not an ore in the form, which has emerged in the mine i.e., Run of Mine (ROM) Ore. The process of screening and sizing, etc., has been carried out on ROM ore before it is shipped to the appellants. Even crushing of ore and removal of overburden i.e., stone etc., has taken place. The subject processes undertaken on ROM ore has resulted into emergence of concentrate - As per Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, the process of converting ores into concentrates would amount to 'manufacture'. Once the goods are subjected to processes like washing, removal of waste and sizing, they would be considered as 'Manganese Concentrates' and not 'Manganese Ores'. Accordingly, the imported goods are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No.04/2006-CE claimed at the time of import in respect of impugned goods – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Entitlement to Concessional Customs Duty on components used in the manufacture of ABS/MAB/ECS, Imported goods being "suitable for use" in motor vehicles - Interpretation of the phrase "suitable for use" in exemption notification - Parts of an anti-lock brake system (ABS) being parts of a motor vehicle - Whether imported goods were "suitable for use" in motor vehicles and hence not eligible for concessional customs duty – HELD - The term "suitable for use" has to be interpreted strictly and the burden is on the assessee to show that its case falls within the parameters of the exemption. The imported goods, even ... [Read more]

Customs - Entitlement to Concessional Customs Duty on components used in the manufacture of ABS/MAB/ECS, Imported goods being "suitable for use" in motor vehicles - Interpretation of the phrase "suitable for use" in exemption notification - Parts of an anti-lock brake system (ABS) being parts of a motor vehicle - Whether imported goods were "suitable for use" in motor vehicles and hence not eligible for concessional customs duty – HELD - The term "suitable for use" has to be interpreted strictly and the burden is on the assessee to show that its case falls within the parameters of the exemption. The imported goods, even if not directly used in the motor vehicle, are capable of being used in manufacturing ABS which is an important component of motor vehicles. Therefore, the principle of "part of a part is part of the whole" applies, and the imported goods are considered "suitable for use" in motor vehicles, thus excluded from the benefit of the concessional customs duty notification. The classification of the imported goods as "Pressure Transducers/Sensors" under Tariff Item No. 90318000 is also upheld as the importer had themselves classified the goods under this heading in the past. However, no interest and penalty is leviable on the demand towards differential IGST for the period prior to 16.08.2024 - The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Eligibility for Service Tax Exemption on Vocational Training Courses - The appellant, a film and television academy, provided training courses in film direction, cinematography, editing, and sound design, and was denied exemption from service tax by the revenue authorities - Whether the appellant's vocational training courses were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 – HELD - The exemption Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 is broadly worded, without any condition, reflecting a legislative intent to cover skill-enhancing vocational training during the period fr... [Read more]

Service Tax - Eligibility for Service Tax Exemption on Vocational Training Courses - The appellant, a film and television academy, provided training courses in film direction, cinematography, editing, and sound design, and was denied exemption from service tax by the revenue authorities - Whether the appellant's vocational training courses were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 – HELD - The exemption Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 is broadly worded, without any condition, reflecting a legislative intent to cover skill-enhancing vocational training during the period from 01.04.2005 to 26.02.2010. Moreover there is no basis to conclude that trainees completing the appellant’s courses are incapable of securing employment or self-employment. The assertion that entry into the film industry depends solely on individual talent and experience, and that the courses merely enhance employment prospects without leading to employment, is speculative and misconceived - The courses imparted by the appellant are vocational in nature and qualify for exemption under the Notification. Adopting a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with the beneficial object of the notification, the appellant's training courses in film direction, cinematography, and editing and sound design directly enhance employability and therefore squarely fall within the scope of the exemption - The amendment to the notification in 2010, which required the institute to be affiliated with the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) and offer designated trades under the Apprentices Act, 1961, took effect only from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 22.01.2011, and not from the date of the amendment on 27.02.2010. As the appellant had obtained NCVT affiliation prior to 22.01.2011, it was eligible for the exemption during the relevant period - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Reversal of Input Tax Credit availed for purchase of spare parts for assembling windmills - The ITC availed for the purchase of spare parts for assembling windmills was adjusted against the VAT payable for the sale of old windmills. The Assessing Officer reversed the ITC on the ground that the inputs (spares for windmills) were used exclusively for generating electricity, which is a commodity exempted from tax, and therefore, the adjustment of ITC is not permissible – Whether the petitioner is required to reverse the Input Tax Credit under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on spare parts for... [Read more]

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Reversal of Input Tax Credit availed for purchase of spare parts for assembling windmills - The ITC availed for the purchase of spare parts for assembling windmills was adjusted against the VAT payable for the sale of old windmills. The Assessing Officer reversed the ITC on the ground that the inputs (spares for windmills) were used exclusively for generating electricity, which is a commodity exempted from tax, and therefore, the adjustment of ITC is not permissible – Whether the petitioner is required to reverse the Input Tax Credit under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on spare parts for assembling windmills – HELD - The issue in the case is whether the ITC availed for the purchase of windmills and spares, to replace the old windmills, can be adjusted towards the VAT payable for the sale of old windmills as output, or the output is the commodity (i.e., the electricity produced with the aid and help of windmills) - The petitioner, through its reply, made out a case that the Input Tax Credit paid for the purchase of windmill spares and for replacing the old windmills alone have nexus to each other and the VAT paid for the sale of the old windmills should be treated as the output. If the case of the department is otherwise, it should have been spelt out in the show cause notice itself. However, neither in the SCN nor in the order of the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority the issue whether the input tax credit sought to be adjusted to the sale of electricity or to the sale of the old windmills, has been discussed - The show cause notice suffered from an incurable defect as it drew a preposterous analogy that the windmill remains with the owner, ignoring the fact that the owner had sold the old windmills and sought adjustment only in respect of the old windmill. If the Department now wants to rectify the said defect, it should necessarily issue a fresh SCN, which would be barred by limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act - A mere remand of the matter back to the Assessing Officer to draw a fresh assessment order based on the instant SCN will be a futile exercise. If the fresh SCN is issued, it will be hopelessly barred by limitation. Either way, the department cannot succeed. Accordingly, the tax case is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Penalty under Customs Act 1962 – Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in relation to import of raw materials for manufacturing pharmaceuticals - HELD - The revenue has not made out a clear case for levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants. The only allegation against the appellants was the violation of CHALR, 2004, but no specific role was attributed to bring the alleged guilt within the meaning of Section 112 of the Customs Act – The CHA cannot be penalized under the Customs Act in... [Read more]

Customs - Penalty under Customs Act 1962 – Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in relation to import of raw materials for manufacturing pharmaceuticals - HELD - The revenue has not made out a clear case for levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants. The only allegation against the appellants was the violation of CHALR, 2004, but no specific role was attributed to bring the alleged guilt within the meaning of Section 112 of the Customs Act – The CHA cannot be penalized under the Customs Act in the absence of any positive evidence to show mala fide intention or to establish him as an abettor. Accordingly, the impugned order is set and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 - Demand of service tax on the basis of the difference between the gross receipts reflected in the appellant's ITR and the service tax paid by the appellant as per the ST-3 returns, invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the difference between the ITR and ST-3 returns, as there was no positive evidence of fraud, suppression of facts, willful mis-statement or deliberate contravention... [Read more]

Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 - Demand of service tax on the basis of the difference between the gross receipts reflected in the appellant's ITR and the service tax paid by the appellant as per the ST-3 returns, invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the difference between the ITR and ST-3 returns, as there was no positive evidence of fraud, suppression of facts, willful mis-statement or deliberate contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax. The appellant had been regularly filing ST-3 returns and paying service tax on receipt basis. The Department failed to adduce any evidence to show that the appellant had rendered taxable service to the category of persons who do not fall under the category liable to pay service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis – Further, the demand cannot be raised solely on the basis of the difference between the ST-3 returns and the 26AS/ITR, as it is a settled principle of law that service tax can be levied only when there is a clear identification of the service provider, service recipient and the consideration paid for the same. In the absence of such evidence, the Department cannot raise demands on the basis of other statutory returns like ITRs or balance sheets - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Works Contract service, Service Tax on Agency Charges, Discharge of service tax through CENVAT credit, Invoking of extended period of limitation against PSU – Demand of service tax under various categories like commercial and industrial construction services, erection, commissioning and installation services, and consulting engineering services, along with denial of CENVAT credit - Whether the services provided by the appellant to BHEL, SAIL, CLW, and Rajendra Agricultural University are classifiable as works contract services and not commercial and industrial construction services, erection, commissionin... [Read more]

Service Tax – Works Contract service, Service Tax on Agency Charges, Discharge of service tax through CENVAT credit, Invoking of extended period of limitation against PSU – Demand of service tax under various categories like commercial and industrial construction services, erection, commissioning and installation services, and consulting engineering services, along with denial of CENVAT credit - Whether the services provided by the appellant to BHEL, SAIL, CLW, and Rajendra Agricultural University are classifiable as works contract services and not commercial and industrial construction services, erection, commissioning and installation services, or consulting engineering services – HELD - The appellant was responsible to provide labour, materials, consumables, and to use their own equipments, construct temporary storage sheds etc. This shows that material supply is an essential part of the Agreement. It is not a mere contract for providing the service alone - The services provided by the appellant to BHEL and SAIL are in the nature of works contract services and not the other categories proposed by the revenue. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Larsen & Toubro, it is observed that the contracts involved supply of materials and were not mere service contracts. Therefore, the demands under commercial and industrial construction services, erection, commissioning and installation services, and consulting engineering services are set aside on merits - In respect of the demand on account of services rendered to BHEL, the same stands set aside both on account of merits as well as on account of time bar - In respect of services rendered to SAIL, balance confirmed demand stands admitted by the appellant. The service tax payment by way of debiting the Cenvat Credit account is to be verified by the Adjudicating authority. Once the debit gets confirmed, irrespective of whether it is shown in the ST 3 Return or not, the same is to be treated as proper discharge of the tax liability by the appellant - The appeal is disposed of - Service Tax on Agency Charges - Demand on services rendered to Rajendra Agricultural University – HELD - The appellant is the “Executing Agency?, who is responsible for the overall completion of the project, including appointing of sub-contractor, supply of materials, completion of the project as per the specified by the University. The sole responsibility to complete the project with proper quality and workmanship of the said project, is on the appellant. The appellant has raised the initial issue of the quantification of the demand. As per the appellant, while 8.5% has been mentioned as the “Agency Charges?, payable to the appellant, the same is nothing but the profit margin of the appellant. The Service Tax demand, if any, should have been made only on this 8.5% Agency Charges. However, the demand has been raised on the full construction value plus the 8.5% agency charges, because of which the quantification has been highly inflated – The demand could not have been made on value of the Project Cost + 8.5% thereon. Thus the Service Tax has been demanded on Rs.108.50, whereas the Service Tax, if any, would be demandable only on Rs.8.50 if the same is treated as “Consultancy Service?. Hence, the quantification of the value and Service Tax is required to be re-worked out - In respect of Consultancy Service except for the demand on the consideration of 8.5% [Agency Commission], no other amount can be added to arrive at the demand. Therefore, re-quantification of demand is required to be done and Service Tax is required to be paid on the Agency Charges - Invoking of extended period of limitation against Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) - Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked to demand service tax - HELD - The appellant is a reputed PSU and is in the business of taking of Works Contract and other works for other PSUs and others. Prima facie, being a Govt. entity, they would not have any willful intent to evade the Service Tax payment - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant in the absence of any fraud or suppression of facts with the intent to evade tax. The appellant, being a government-owned entity, cannot be charged with suppression or fraud even if the tax was legally payable. Therefore, the demands for the extended period are set aside on the ground of limitation. [Read less]

Service Tax – Extended period of Limitation, Demand based on inference from Form 26AS data - Issue of demand-cum-show cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had wilfully suppressed material facts to evade payment of service tax – Maintainability of writ petition - HELD - While the general rule is that a party should first avail the statutory remedy, this rule is not inflexible. The High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition even if an alternative remedy is available, particularly where the authority has exceeded its jurisdiction or there is a violation of principles of natural justice - In... [Read more]

Service Tax – Extended period of Limitation, Demand based on inference from Form 26AS data - Issue of demand-cum-show cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had wilfully suppressed material facts to evade payment of service tax – Maintainability of writ petition - HELD - While the general rule is that a party should first avail the statutory remedy, this rule is not inflexible. The High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition even if an alternative remedy is available, particularly where the authority has exceeded its jurisdiction or there is a violation of principles of natural justice - In the present case, the revenue authorities had invoked the extended period of limitation without making the necessary findings required under the proviso to that section. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities was unauthorised - In the present case, the adjudicating authority took into consideration the information available in form 26AS of the Income Tax Act, the sole basis for the purpose of levy of service tax. The authority did not consider the services rendered by the petitioner were exempted from levy of service tax or the liability to pay the service tax on the said services was on the recipient on the services. Since the adjudicating authority did not take into consideration those relevant materials which it was bound to take into consideration and on the other hand it had taken into consideration factors and materials, which if not irrelevant and not germane for deciding the liability of the service tax, cannot establish the liability of the assessee, then the said actions of the adjudicating authority is certainly without jurisdiction - The primary reason for invoking the jurisdiction under section 73(1) is non furnishing of the required documents by the petitioner assessee to be full satisfaction of the respondent authorities. The mere non furnishing of documents or information in itself cannot be construed to have given rise to a situation under any or all of these five conditions under proviso to section 73(1) in order to levy service tax by extending limitation - For the Revenue to invoke the powers under section 73(1), there must be a conclusive finding by the Revenue that the assessee under the facts and circumstances, had wilfully and deliberately evaded or neglected to pay the tax. This conclusion by the Revenue authorities is not apparent and discernible from a plain reading of the impugned order in original - The invocation of extended period of limitation under section 73(1) is invalid and contrary to the prescriptions mandated by law. The impugned order is quashed and set aside – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST – Cancellation of Registration for failure to prove of actual movement of goods - The assessee failed to produce documents like payment of freight charges, loading/unloading charges, lorry receipts, way bills to substantiate the physical movement of goods - Cancellation of registration under Section 29(2)(a) of the CGTS Act, 2017 as the assessee failed to establish the genuine nature of the transactions for the ITC claimed – HELD - When adequate opportunity given to the appellant to produce evidence for actual movement of goods and the appellant having failed to produce document to that effect, for the contraventio... [Read more]

GST – Cancellation of Registration for failure to prove of actual movement of goods - The assessee failed to produce documents like payment of freight charges, loading/unloading charges, lorry receipts, way bills to substantiate the physical movement of goods - Cancellation of registration under Section 29(2)(a) of the CGTS Act, 2017 as the assessee failed to establish the genuine nature of the transactions for the ITC claimed – HELD - When adequate opportunity given to the appellant to produce evidence for actual movement of goods and the appellant having failed to produce document to that effect, for the contravention of the provision of GST Act, the GST registration was cancelled - For contravention of the provisions of Act or Rules framed thereunder, the proper office has cancelled the registration after giving opportunity of hearing - When there is material to show the ITC claimed is based on fabricated documents and fake invoices, cancellation of registration is the appropriate action to prevent further fake claims and misuse of ITC. The Constitution guarantees only genuine and honest trade, not illegal and fake trade intended to cheat the revenue - The assessee's writ appeal against the cancellation of registration is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Anticipatory Bail - Applicants are alleged to be part of a large-scale GST fraud involving fraudulent availment and passing of ITC without actual supply of goods, causing a loss to Government exchequer - Whether the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 precludes the grant of anticipatory bail – HELD - The allegations against the applicants prima facie indicate that they were the key conspirators in the organized GST fraud. The role of the first applicant in operating the firm and managing the transactions, and the second applicant's role as an intermediary in circulat... [Read more]

GST - Anticipatory Bail - Applicants are alleged to be part of a large-scale GST fraud involving fraudulent availment and passing of ITC without actual supply of goods, causing a loss to Government exchequer - Whether the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 precludes the grant of anticipatory bail – HELD - The allegations against the applicants prima facie indicate that they were the key conspirators in the organized GST fraud. The role of the first applicant in operating the firm and managing the transactions, and the second applicant's role as an intermediary in circulating the fake invoices, is established by the statements under Section 70, bank records, GST portal data, and electronic communications. The magnitude of the alleged fraud, to the tune of around Rs. 27 crores, and the organized nature of the crime, warrant a strict approach in matters of bail - The contention that the evidence is documentary in nature and does not require custodial interrogation cannot be accepted, as the investigation is still ongoing and involves multiple transactions and entities. The offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act has been made non-compoundable, indicating the legislative intent to treat such offences with seriousness. This factor, coupled with the gravity of the economic offence and its impact on the financial system, precludes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants at this stage - The anticipatory bail applications are rejected [Read less]

Jharkhand VAT Act, 2005 - Delay in refund of excess tax paid - Respondent delayed the refund despite the petitioner's repeated reminders citing reasons such as, Additional Commissioner’s post is vacant and the Secretary of the department has been deputed as an observer for election duty – HELD - The above reasons for denying or delaying the refunds are neither legal nor satisfactory - The facts of this case are quite gross and the Bench is surprised by the attitude of the Revenue Department in delaying the refunds on a specious plea that the post is vacant or one of the officials has been deputed on election duty. On t... [Read more]

Jharkhand VAT Act, 2005 - Delay in refund of excess tax paid - Respondent delayed the refund despite the petitioner's repeated reminders citing reasons such as, Additional Commissioner’s post is vacant and the Secretary of the department has been deputed as an observer for election duty – HELD - The above reasons for denying or delaying the refunds are neither legal nor satisfactory - The facts of this case are quite gross and the Bench is surprised by the attitude of the Revenue Department in delaying the refunds on a specious plea that the post is vacant or one of the officials has been deputed on election duty. On this ground, the functioning of the department cannot be stopped. In any event, these are not the reasons to delay the refunds, because delayed refunds invariably accrue interest, which is again paid only from the taxpayers’ money - The officials, who are only the trustees, cannot delay such matters simply because there is no mechanism to make them pay for the delay. If one of the posts is vacant or one of the officials is sent on deputation for election duty, there would be others holding the charge. The business of the Revenue Department cannot come to a grinding halt for the reasons now cited - Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, to ensure that the petitioner is refunded the excess amount with interest @ 6% per annum commencing after 90 days of the petitioner’s first application claiming refund. This amount must be computed and actually refunded to the petitioner on or before 05.05.2026 without giving any excuses. If the aforesaid amount is not refunded by this date, the interest for the further period shall have to be paid personally by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department and such amount should then be deducted from his/her salary – The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs AAR - Eligibility to DFIA exemption to import of non-sensitive inputs without establishing correlation between the quality, technical characteristics etc. of imported goods and inputs used in export goods - Binding nature of DFIA licence conditions - Strict construction of exemption notifications - Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Exemption from payment of Customs Duty against Custom Notification No.25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023 r/w Board Circular No.20/2025-Cus dated 24.07.2025 under Transferable DFIAs without adherence to certain conditions, particularly with regard to value restrictions and the "actual ... [Read more]

Customs AAR - Eligibility to DFIA exemption to import of non-sensitive inputs without establishing correlation between the quality, technical characteristics etc. of imported goods and inputs used in export goods - Binding nature of DFIA licence conditions - Strict construction of exemption notifications - Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Exemption from payment of Customs Duty against Custom Notification No.25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023 r/w Board Circular No.20/2025-Cus dated 24.07.2025 under Transferable DFIAs without adherence to certain conditions, particularly with regard to value restrictions and the "actual user" condition - HELD - The exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus is conditional upon strict compliance with the DFIA scheme framework. On that framework, correlation of technical characteristics, quality and specifications is required only for sensitive inputs specified in Para 4.29 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. In the case of inputs falling under Paras 4.12 and 4.28, only the specific name or description and quantity used in the export product are required to match the shipping bill and authorisation – Further, the CBIC Circular No. 20/2025-Cus, dated 24.07.2025, clarified that only in respect of inputs specified in para 4.29 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, a correlation of technical characteristics, quality and specification of the inputs with the export product is required to be established under the DFIA Scheme. Such correlation is not required to be established in case of other inputs - The condition sheet forming part of the DFIA licence is integral to the authorisation and derives its authority from the Foreign Trade Policy and SION norms framed under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 - The applicant is entitled to avail exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023 for non-sensitive inputs without establishing correlation of quality, technical characteristics and specifications, subject to the goods being covered by the DFIA, SION norms and the conditions attached thereto, and any deviation including violation of actual user condition, wherever applicable, would render the benefit inadmissible – Ordered accordingly - Binding nature of DFIA licence conditions - "actual user" condition and value cap restrictions – HELD - The Rajasthan High Court in Nrapen Shanker Acharya has not struck down the SION amendments nor has it held that conditions incorporated in SION or DFIA licences are invalid. On the contrary, the judgment reinforces the principle that formulation and modification of policy conditions fall within the executive domain. Therefore, the reliance placed by the applicant to contend that conditions endorsed in the DFIA licence are unenforceable is misplaced and devoid of merit - The condition sheet forming part of the DFIA licence is integral to the authorisation and derives its authority from the Foreign Trade Policy and SION norms framed under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Such conditions, including value caps, exclusions and "actual user" requirements wherever specified, constitute binding stipulations governing the import - The "actual user" condition, where incorporated in SION norms, is valid and enforceable; the conditions endorsed in the DFIA licence are binding on the importer as well as Customs authorities; Customs authorities cannot add to or subtract from the licence conditions. [Read less]

GST - Bail application - Arrest in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) of the CGST Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was part of a larger conspiracy involving clandestine supply of marble and granite across the country without payment of GST, resulting in tax evasion of tax - Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged evasion, and the material available on record – HELD - The case involves an economic offence arising out of a structured and deep-rooted ... [Read more]

GST - Bail application - Arrest in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(l) of the CGST Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was part of a larger conspiracy involving clandestine supply of marble and granite across the country without payment of GST, resulting in tax evasion of tax - Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the alleged evasion, and the material available on record – HELD - The case involves an economic offence arising out of a structured and deep-rooted conspiracy, resulting in significant loss to the public exchequer. The economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach while considering the prayer for bail. The provisions of Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) do not confer an absolute or indefeasible right upon the petitioner to be released on bail, as the Magistrate retains the authority to deny bail taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - The contention with regard to the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, by itself cannot be treated as a determinative or sole factor for grant of bail, as mere length of incarceration, in absence of any other mitigating circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, more particularly when the allegations pertain to a serious economic offence involving substantial loss to the public exchequer - The Bail application is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Scope of judicial review of Advance Ruling Order - Classification of tobacco products - Appellant is engaged in tobacco business and manufactures cut tobacco products - Appellant argued his products should be classified under CETH 2401 20 90, while the department classified it under CETH 2403 99 10 - Appellant sought Advance ruling, which held the product is "manufactured chewing tobacco" falling under HSN 24 03 - Whether the Advance ruling is binding on the appellant and the scope of judicial review – HELD – When once Advance Ruling is sought and obtained, the assessee is bound by the same and that the scope for... [Read more]

GST - Scope of judicial review of Advance Ruling Order - Classification of tobacco products - Appellant is engaged in tobacco business and manufactures cut tobacco products - Appellant argued his products should be classified under CETH 2401 20 90, while the department classified it under CETH 2403 99 10 - Appellant sought Advance ruling, which held the product is "manufactured chewing tobacco" falling under HSN 24 03 - Whether the Advance ruling is binding on the appellant and the scope of judicial review – HELD – When once Advance Ruling is sought and obtained, the assessee is bound by the same and that the scope for judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is highly limited - The High Court cannot function as an appellate body. It can only exercise the power of judicial review. The High Court would be more concerned with the process adopted by the authority than with the decision itself - While exercising the powers of judicial review, the Court will see whether the authority acted within its jurisdictional limits, committed errors of law, adhered to the principles of natural justice or acted in breach thereof and whether the decision is perverse or not. If two views are possible, a court sitting in judicial review shall not exercise its discretion in favour of an alternate view to that of the authority - In a other writ appeal, the Court has held that the goods dealt with by the appellant would fall under CETH 2401 20 90. If the impugned decisions of the Authorities are allowed to stand, that would result in an invidious situation as persons similarly placed would be paying compensation cess at different rates for similar products. That would be an egregious breach of the equality principle. It is in this view of the matter, the orders impugned in the writ petition as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside - The writ appeal stands allowed [Read less]

Registration cannot be cancelled solely on the ground of alleged violation of Rule 21(d) when Sec.29 itself does not include such a ground. The power to make Rules u/s 164 cannot expand the grounds for cancellation beyond what is provided in Sec.29.

GST - Binding nature of Advance Rulings, Pre-condition for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner obtained an Advance Ruling classifying its product "Keer Kokil" as "unmanufactured tobacco" under CTH 2401 2090-"others", attracting 28% GST and 71% Compensation Cess. After the Advance Ruling attained finality, the Dept issued notices proposing a demand of GST and Excise Duty, alleging that the petitioner had misclassified the product by misrepresenting and suppressing material facts - Whether, in the absence of any material establishing fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, the respondents coul... [Read more]

GST - Binding nature of Advance Rulings, Pre-condition for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner obtained an Advance Ruling classifying its product "Keer Kokil" as "unmanufactured tobacco" under CTH 2401 2090-"others", attracting 28% GST and 71% Compensation Cess. After the Advance Ruling attained finality, the Dept issued notices proposing a demand of GST and Excise Duty, alleging that the petitioner had misclassified the product by misrepresenting and suppressing material facts - Whether, in the absence of any material establishing fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, the respondents could have assumed jurisdiction under Section 74 of the CGST Act and issue the impugned show cause notices, notwithstanding the binding Advance Ruling – HELD - The binding nature of Advance Ruling on both the applicant and the jurisdictional authorities reflects the legislative intent to ensure consistency and finality in tax administration. Any attempt to reopen issues already settled, in the absence of any change in law or facts, would defeat the object of the scheme. Therefore, unless the conditions under Section 104 are satisfied or there is a change in facts or law, the binding effect of the Advance Ruling cannot be disregarded - The issuance of the impugned SCNs reflects an attempt to reopen issues which have already attained finality. The existence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts is a jurisdictional pre-condition for invoking Section 74 of the Act, which was not satisfied in the present case - The allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of facts were specifically examined and rejected by the Authority for Advance Ruling, and such findings have attained finality. In the absence of any fresh material or change in facts, the respondents cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same allegations. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of higher appellate authorities must be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities, and that a subordinate authority is bound by the findings of a higher or competent authority, unless such findings are set aside in accordance with law - The impugned SCNs issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 are quashed and set aside as being without jurisdiction – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Refund of IGST on export of service – Rejection of refund by non-speaking order – HELD - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim does not contain any specific findings on the submissions made by the Petitioner and is a non-speaking order - The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for de novo consideration of the Petitioner\'s refund claim after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law – The writ petition is disposed of

GST – Refund of accumulated input tax credit - Rejection of Refund Claim on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted export invoices, foreign inward remittance certificates (FIRC) or foreign inward remittance advice (FIRA) - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – HELD - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was afforded to the Petitioner despite its request to reschedule the hearing. The proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that an opportunity of being heard must be provided to the assessee prior to r... [Read more]

GST – Refund of accumulated input tax credit - Rejection of Refund Claim on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted export invoices, foreign inward remittance certificates (FIRC) or foreign inward remittance advice (FIRA) - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – HELD - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was afforded to the Petitioner despite its request to reschedule the hearing. The proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that an opportunity of being heard must be provided to the assessee prior to rejection of the refund claim application. The Petitioner's objection to the shorter time period of 7 days given to reply to the show cause notice, as opposed to the 15 days prescribed under Rule 92(3), may also be considered by the Respondents - The impugned show cause notice and order are quashed and set aside. A fresh show cause notice shall be issued to the Petitioner within 2 weeks, a personal hearing shall be granted within 2 weeks thereafter, and a speaking order shall be passed expeditiously in accordance with law - The Writ Petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Preferential rate of customs duty under free trade agreement (FTA) – Petitioner imports certain goods from its associated enterprises in Thailand and claims preferential rate of customs duty under the India-Thailand Free Trade Agreement - Dept rejected the petitioner's claim for preferential rate of duty under Notification No.46/2011 (Customs) on the ground that the FOB value mentioned in the Certificate of Origin (COO) could not be verified from the third-party invoice submitted by the petitioner, as required under Public Notice No.33/2024 issued by the Commissioner of Customs - Whether the impugned order reje... [Read more]

Customs - Preferential rate of customs duty under free trade agreement (FTA) – Petitioner imports certain goods from its associated enterprises in Thailand and claims preferential rate of customs duty under the India-Thailand Free Trade Agreement - Dept rejected the petitioner's claim for preferential rate of duty under Notification No.46/2011 (Customs) on the ground that the FOB value mentioned in the Certificate of Origin (COO) could not be verified from the third-party invoice submitted by the petitioner, as required under Public Notice No.33/2024 issued by the Commissioner of Customs - Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for preferential rate of customs duty under the FTA is legal and valid - HELD - The entire basis of the impugned order has been extinguished due to subsequent developments. The CBIC had issued Instruction No.23/2024-Customs dated 21.10.2024, which clarified that the information sought from the importer and the verification process must be consistent with the trade agreement, and that CAROTAR (Customs Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) does not obligate the importer to provide commercially confidential information pertaining to the exporter or third party – The power of Commissioner of Customs to issue public notices is not without any specific statutory backing, and such public notices cannot dilute the effect and benefit available under the free trade agreements or obliterate the provisions of law or circulars issued by the CBIC. The impugned order was passed solely based on the Public Notice No.33/2024, which is contrary to the subsequent CBIC instructions - The impugned orders are set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh assessment of the petitioner's claim for preferential rate of Customs duty in accordance with law - The petitions are disposed of [Read less]

GST – Review Petition - Levy of penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of Returns and non-payment of GST - The failure to file the monthly returns and make the necessary tax payments amounted to wilful suppression of facts, justify imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act - SC HELD - No case to entertain the Curative Petition is made out. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed

GST – Recovery of tax without prior notice – Challenge to notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017, through which the petitioner’s Bank was directed to pay a sum towards the petitioner's tax dues. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities issued the impugned notice without initiating any adjudication proceedings as provided under Sections 73 or 74, and without providing any prior notice to the petitioner – HELD - The issuance of the impugned notice under Section 79 without prior notice to the petitioner is valid. The Section 79 does not mandate the requirement of prior notice to the def... [Read more]

GST – Recovery of tax without prior notice – Challenge to notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017, through which the petitioner’s Bank was directed to pay a sum towards the petitioner's tax dues. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities issued the impugned notice without initiating any adjudication proceedings as provided under Sections 73 or 74, and without providing any prior notice to the petitioner – HELD - The issuance of the impugned notice under Section 79 without prior notice to the petitioner is valid. The Section 79 does not mandate the requirement of prior notice to the defaulting dealer before issuing notice to a third party from whom money is due or may become due to the defaulting dealer. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, wherein the Courts had quashed the notices under Section 79 due to the absence of prior determination of the actual tax liability, is distinguishable. In the present case, the Assessment Order against the petitioner had attained finality, therefore, no illegality in the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 79 for the recovery of the tax dues - The issuance of the impugned notice under Section 79 without prior notice to the petitioner is valid – The writ petition is dismissed - Authorization for issuance of notice under Section 79 of APGST Act, 2017 - The petitioner contended that the Asst. Commissioner, who issued the impugned notice under Section 79, was not authorized to do so - Whether the Asst. Commissioner was authorized to issue the notice under Section 79 of APGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The Asst. Commissioner, who issued the impugned notice, was the proper officer authorized to exercise the powers under Section 79 of APGST Act, 2017. The Gazette Notification dated 14.12.2022 issued by the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, designated the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST-II), Airport Circle, Visakhapatnam-II Division as the proper officer for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 79. The provision of Section 79 itself does not require any prior authorization from a competent authority before issuing the notice - The Asst. Commissioner was the proper officer authorized to issue the notice under Section 79 of APGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the contention of the petitioner regarding the lack of authorization does not merit consideration. [Read less]

Service Tax - Demand of service tax on advance amounts forfeited on account of cancellation of hotel booking by the customers – In case of no-show the appellant forfeited the advance amounts as "room retention charges" - Whether the forfeited advance amounts are liable to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1944, as the appellant had "agreed to tolerate an act" (i.e., the cancellation of booking by the customers) – HELD – The Section 66E(e) covers only a situation where there is a contract to tolerate an act, and the amounts paid are the consideration for such tolerance. In the present case, the agre... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand of service tax on advance amounts forfeited on account of cancellation of hotel booking by the customers – In case of no-show the appellant forfeited the advance amounts as "room retention charges" - Whether the forfeited advance amounts are liable to service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1944, as the appellant had "agreed to tolerate an act" (i.e., the cancellation of booking by the customers) – HELD – The Section 66E(e) covers only a situation where there is a contract to tolerate an act, and the amounts paid are the consideration for such tolerance. In the present case, the agreement was for providing hotel accommodation services, and the forfeited amounts were in the nature of damages or compensation for the breach of contract by the customers, and not consideration for tolerating an act - The forfeited advance amounts are not liable to service tax, as they are not towards providing any service, but are in the nature of deterrent charges for non-performance of the contract - The impugned order demanding service tax on the forfeited advance amounts is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Foreign origin of seized gold – The gold bars and piece of gold was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on reasonable belief that the same are smuggled into India and therefore liable to confiscation - Whether gold seized from the appellant was of foreign origin and smuggled into India – HELD - In the absence of any foreign markings on the gold and the statement of the appellant being hearsay evidence without any corroborative evidence, the revenue has failed to establish that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled into India. Apart from the statement of the appellant, there is no corroborative e... [Read more]

Customs - Foreign origin of seized gold – The gold bars and piece of gold was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on reasonable belief that the same are smuggled into India and therefore liable to confiscation - Whether gold seized from the appellant was of foreign origin and smuggled into India – HELD - In the absence of any foreign markings on the gold and the statement of the appellant being hearsay evidence without any corroborative evidence, the revenue has failed to establish that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled into India. Apart from the statement of the appellant, there is no corroborative evidence on record to suggest that the subject gold was of foreign origin and was smuggled into India - The mere fact that the appellant was found carrying the gold at a public place does not constitute reasonable belief to seize the goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant as there is no conclusive proof of the gold being of foreign origin and smuggled. Therefore, the confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty on the appellant cannot be sustained - Since the seizure and confiscation of the gold has been found to be bad in law, the principle of restitution applies, and the appellant is required to be placed in the same position as he was prior to the seizure. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the release of the seized gold from whose possession it was seized, as the owner of the gold has not come forward to claim ownership. The Customs Act also does not prohibit release of goods to the person from whose possession the same were seized where the owner is not known or does not come forward - The appellant is entitled to release of subject gold. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Reasonable Belief for Confiscation of Smuggled Goods - Department seized gold and silver from appellant no.1 while he was transporting it in a car. The Department alleged that the goods were smuggled and therefore liable for confiscation. The appellants claimed that the goods were legally purchased - Whether the Department had reasonable belief to confiscate the seized gold and silver as smuggled goods - HELD - The Department could not establish any valid reasons to believe that the impugned goods were smuggled and liable for confiscation. The seizure was made in a town and not at the international border or a Cu... [Read more]

Customs - Reasonable Belief for Confiscation of Smuggled Goods - Department seized gold and silver from appellant no.1 while he was transporting it in a car. The Department alleged that the goods were smuggled and therefore liable for confiscation. The appellants claimed that the goods were legally purchased - Whether the Department had reasonable belief to confiscate the seized gold and silver as smuggled goods - HELD - The Department could not establish any valid reasons to believe that the impugned goods were smuggled and liable for confiscation. The seizure was made in a town and not at the international border or a Customs notified area, which is a strong ground to entertain a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. The follow-up searches at the premises of the respondents did not yield any incriminating evidence to corroborate the initial statement of the seized person, which was later retracted - The reasonable belief must exist at the time of seizure and not at a subsequent stage. The Department did not make any efforts to verify the claims of the respondents regarding the licit purchase of the goods, despite the production of invoices. The Department failed to discharge its responsibility of forming a reasonable belief under Section 123 of the Customs Act, without which the burden of proof cannot shift to the person from whom the goods were seized - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of the seized gold and silver is upheld and the Revenue appeals are dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Import of Technical Grade Urea through State Trading Enterprises (STE) on High Sea Sale basis without DGFT license - Whether goods are liable for confiscation and penalty can be imposed – HELD - As per the ITC (HS) Policy, import of Urea was allowed "through" STE, which means the purchase of Urea from the foreign supplier should be effected by STE, even if the sale to the domestic buyer is made on High Sea basis. When the import is made through STE, as permitted under the policy, there is no violation of legal provisions, and hence, the goods cannot be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Cu... [Read more]

Customs - Import of Technical Grade Urea through State Trading Enterprises (STE) on High Sea Sale basis without DGFT license - Whether goods are liable for confiscation and penalty can be imposed – HELD - As per the ITC (HS) Policy, import of Urea was allowed "through" STE, which means the purchase of Urea from the foreign supplier should be effected by STE, even if the sale to the domestic buyer is made on High Sea basis. When the import is made through STE, as permitted under the policy, there is no violation of legal provisions, and hence, the goods cannot be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act - The judgment relied upon by the Revenue in the case of Marico Industries Ltd. is distinguishable on facts, as in that case, the importer had directly established the letter of credit on the foreign supplier and the import was against Advance Release Order, which did not provide for import through STE - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Valuation under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of LED Light Fixtures and Solar Lights - Department alleged that the appellant did not adopt MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and initiated proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the valuation under Section 4 and held that the goods should be revalued by adopting MRP-based valuation under Section 4A, confirming the differential demand with interest and imposing an equal amount of penalty - Whether the valuation should be adopted under Section 4 or Sec... [Read more]

Central Excise - Valuation under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of LED Light Fixtures and Solar Lights - Department alleged that the appellant did not adopt MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and initiated proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the valuation under Section 4 and held that the goods should be revalued by adopting MRP-based valuation under Section 4A, confirming the differential demand with interest and imposing an equal amount of penalty - Whether the valuation should be adopted under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - Since the subject goods are not liable for Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declaration and have been cleared to Industrial and Institutional Consumers and labelled "Not for retail sale-for Industrial/Institutional use only", the valuation based on MRP in terms of Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 is not attracted. The Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2015 provides that the provisions of Chapter II (which includes the requirement of MRP declaration) shall not apply to packaged commodities meant for industrial or institutional consumers. Therefore, the adoption of Section 4A is unsustainable, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside - Further, the invocation of the extended period for the demand of duty and imposition of penalty is also not sustainable. The impugned order confirming the differential duty demand along with the interest and imposition of penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Classification of Glucose Monitoring Instruments, Luxury litigation – Petitioner classified "Blood Glucose Monitoring System" under HSN 90278990 and paid GST at 12% rate - Authorities issued a show cause notice classifying the goods under HSN 90278990 instead of HSN 90278090, which attracts 18% GST - HELD - The issue of classification of glucose monitoring instruments has already been decided by the CESTAT in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Although it may be true that insofar as the classification of Gluco meters are concerned, the same will be required to be classi... [Read more]

GST - Classification of Glucose Monitoring Instruments, Luxury litigation – Petitioner classified "Blood Glucose Monitoring System" under HSN 90278990 and paid GST at 12% rate - Authorities issued a show cause notice classifying the goods under HSN 90278990 instead of HSN 90278090, which attracts 18% GST - HELD - The issue of classification of glucose monitoring instruments has already been decided by the CESTAT in the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Although it may be true that insofar as the classification of Gluco meters are concerned, the same will be required to be classified under chapter heading/sub-heading/Tariff item 9027, however, the subject matter of the present SCN cannot be equated and would not stand concluded based on earlier decision in the petitioner’s own case on classification, as the impugned show cause notice issued on a different foundation - Petitioner’s assertion that it would not reply to the show cause notice on any count and it is only the High Court which would adjudicate the petitioner’s contentions on the SCN, is not the correct approach – There is an increase in the tendency in the litigants to by-pass the statutory procedure and approach the High Court in challenging the SCNs, sometimes even before reply to the SCNs are filed and obviously before a view is taken by the proper officer - Such litigation needs to be deprecated as this would amount to complete discarding of the statutory procedure mandated under the provisions of the concerned laws. However, very frequently such statutory mechanism is being circumvented with impunity knowing well that there are disputed questions of fact or issues which can be gone into, in reply to the show cause notice. The Writ Petitions are nonetheless filed, and on such petitions a vehement assertion is put up before the Court, as if, the Court does not have any other pressing proceedings, except to entertain such Writ Petitions. This amounts to a litigant taking selective chances, as such litigants has means to resort to such luxury litigation. Such litigation would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of law in a given situation, deserving it to be dismissed with costs for waste of valuable judicial time - The present case is one of such cases, where contentions appropriately gone into by the proper officer are sought to be urged before the Court in the present proceedings. If such contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are to be entertained by the High Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, not a single show cause notice can proceed and every show cause notice would be assailed before this Court. This is certainly not the law - The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Refund claim for goods supplied to SEZ – Rejection of refund on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ as required under Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the appellate authority was right in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ – HELD – The appellate authority had erred in its interpretation of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which provides for four exceptions under which the petitioner could have prod... [Read more]

GST - Refund claim for goods supplied to SEZ – Rejection of refund on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ as required under Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the appellate authority was right in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit endorsed copies of invoices by the specified officer of the SEZ – HELD – The appellate authority had erred in its interpretation of Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which provides for four exceptions under which the petitioner could have produced additional evidence, including the endorsed copies of invoices, before the appellate authority - The petitioner's case falls within the exceptions provided under Rule 112(1)(a) to (d), and therefore, the appellate authority should have considered the additional evidence submitted by the petitioner. In any event, it could have been also appropriate for the appellate authority to remand the proceedings to the original authority, if any additional material produced by the petitioner requires examination by the original authority. The substantive contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are required to be taken into consideration by the appellate authority before passing any order - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's additional evidence and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner should be allowed to urge any additional contentions before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority should record appropriate evidence on all such contentions - The writ petitions are disposed of [Read less]

GST – Demand of GST under Reverse Charge on Seigniorage fee/Royalty for quarrying and transporting of mines and minerals – HELD - The issue pertaining to the levy of GST on the Seigniorage fee/Royalty paid for quarrying and transporting of mines and minerals is pending before the Hon\'ble Supreme Court. The Respondent shall await the orders to be passed by the Hon\'ble Supreme Court and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall, however, deposit 10% of the disputed tax as security, in line with the directions issued in the Petitioner\'s own case earlier - The writ petition is disposed of

Service Tax - Reimbursable Expenses as Pure Agent - Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service (CFAS) - Department sought to include the reimbursable expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of the principal as part of the taxable value under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 – HELD - The amount which were received from the principal were in terms of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Clearing and Forwarding agent and there is a clear cut invocation of Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006. Therefore, once the said rule itself has been declared as ultra vires ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Reimbursable Expenses as Pure Agent - Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service (CFAS) - Department sought to include the reimbursable expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of the principal as part of the taxable value under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 – HELD - The amount which were received from the principal were in terms of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Clearing and Forwarding agent and there is a clear cut invocation of Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006. Therefore, once the said rule itself has been declared as ultra vires by the Delhi High Court and further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Show Cause Notice itself would also not survive and the Order-in-Original based thereupon will not be sustainable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Statutory requirement for pre-deposit under GST Act - Validity of dismissal of appeal by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Vide the impugned order the High Court held that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on two grounds, for non-compliance with Section 107(6) and also on merits. Even if one of the grounds is found to be perverse, illegal and not in consonance with the law, the other the ground(s) justifying the ultimate decisions to be taken, it does not invite quashing and setting aside of the order in its entirety. The findings of t... [Read more]

GST - Statutory requirement for pre-deposit under GST Act - Validity of dismissal of appeal by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Vide the impugned order the High Court held that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on two grounds, for non-compliance with Section 107(6) and also on merits. Even if one of the grounds is found to be perverse, illegal and not in consonance with the law, the other the ground(s) justifying the ultimate decisions to be taken, it does not invite quashing and setting aside of the order in its entirety. The findings of the appellate authority on merits were sustained and the petition was dismissed – Assessee in appeal – SC HELD - Not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed [Read less]

Customs – Import of “YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron (double salt of calcium nitrate with boron)” - Eligibility to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 - Appellant imported "YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sr. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017, which grants concessional rate to "Calcium Nitrate" fertilizers - Revenue denied the benefit on the ground that the imported product is not "Calcium Nitrate" but "Boronated Calcium Nitrate" which is a different product - Wheth... [Read more]

Customs – Import of “YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron (double salt of calcium nitrate with boron)” - Eligibility to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 - Appellant imported "YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sr. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017, which grants concessional rate to "Calcium Nitrate" fertilizers - Revenue denied the benefit on the ground that the imported product is not "Calcium Nitrate" but "Boronated Calcium Nitrate" which is a different product - Whether the appellant is eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 for their imported product "YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron" - HELD – The product "YARALIVA Nitrabor Calcium Nitrate with Boron" imported by the appellant is a "Boronated Calcium Nitrate" which is different from "Calcium Nitrate" covered under Sr. No. 225(I)(b) of the Notification. In case of tax exemption under a Notification, the burden to prove entitlement is on the assessee and any ambiguity in the Notification must be interpreted in favor of the revenue – Further, the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 also treats "Calcium Nitrate" and "Boronated Calcium Nitrate" as distinct products with different compositions. The Boronated Calcium Nitrate imported by the appellant is a different product than Calcium Nitrate and therefore, the product is not eligible to concessional rate of duty under Entry No.225(I)(b) of Notification No.50/2017-Cus - The impugned orders are upheld and the appeals are dismissed - Validity of issue of show cause notice for demanding duty without challenging the Bill of Entry or the out of charge order – HELD - the Revenue can issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for demand of duty without revising order of clearance passed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, any non-levy or short-levy as stipulated under Section 28 for issuance of show cause notice can only be by the assessing officer and not by the importer. There is no illegality in issuing the show cause notice for denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty to the appellant. [Read less]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Classification and applicable rate of tax on biodegradable bags - Whether biodegradable bags are classifiable under Chapter 39 (if of plastic/compostable polymer) or Chapter 48 (if of paper) – HELD - The Authority cannot determine whether the applicant's product is biodegradable or compostable, as that is a scientific and technical matter falling within the jurisdiction of the environmental authorities. While it cannot be determined whether the applicant’s product is biodegradable or compostable, if the bags supplied by the applicant are biodegradable, then the benefit of Entry No. 319 of Schedu... [Read more]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Classification and applicable rate of tax on biodegradable bags - Whether biodegradable bags are classifiable under Chapter 39 (if of plastic/compostable polymer) or Chapter 48 (if of paper) – HELD - The Authority cannot determine whether the applicant's product is biodegradable or compostable, as that is a scientific and technical matter falling within the jurisdiction of the environmental authorities. While it cannot be determined whether the applicant’s product is biodegradable or compostable, if the bags supplied by the applicant are biodegradable, then the benefit of Entry No. 319 of Schedule I would be available and GST would be payable at the rate of 5%. If the product is not biodegradable, then the concessional rate would not apply, and the applicable rate under the general classification for plastic bags under Chapter 39 would apply – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods up to customer's premises - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on GTA service used for outward transportation of goods up to the customer's premises – HELD - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Puducherry has held that in a case where clearance of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the 'place of removal' by applying the judgements of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries - The decision of Karnataka High Cour... [Read more]

Central Excise - Cenvat credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods up to customer's premises - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on GTA service used for outward transportation of goods up to the customer's premises – HELD - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Puducherry has held that in a case where clearance of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the 'place of removal' by applying the judgements of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries - The decision of Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on the GTA service upto the place of removal. – The Section 4 of the CEA, 1944 makes it clear that where excise duty is chargeable on an ad valorem basis, the assessable value shall be the transaction value, provided the goods are sold for delivery at the time and place of removal, the buyer and assessee are not related, and price is the sole consideration. Thus, valuation is intrinsically linked to the point of delivery at the ‘place of removal’ - In the instant case, the purchase orders issued by different customers stipulate the delivery term as "FDD (FOR Door Delivery)/BEML KGF" indicating that the sale is completed only upon delivery and acceptance of goods in proper condition at the buyer's premises. Therefore, the customer's premises constituted the place of removal and the GTA service availed for outward transportation of finished goods up to the customers premises qualify as input service under Rule 2(l). Accordingly, the appellant has rightly availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax on GTA service - The impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal [Read less]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Classification of online coaching services, Determination of place of supply - The online services include live online classes, pre-recorded courses, and a combination of both, delivered over the internet - Whether the online coaching services qualify as "online information or database access retrieval service (OIDAR)" under HSN 998433 or should be covered under HSN code 999293 for "Commercial Training and Coaching Services" – HELD - The statutory definition of OIDAR under Section 2(17) of the IGST Act requires two cumulative conditions, the service must be delivered over the internet or an electr... [Read more]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Classification of online coaching services, Determination of place of supply - The online services include live online classes, pre-recorded courses, and a combination of both, delivered over the internet - Whether the online coaching services qualify as "online information or database access retrieval service (OIDAR)" under HSN 998433 or should be covered under HSN code 999293 for "Commercial Training and Coaching Services" – HELD - The statutory definition of OIDAR under Section 2(17) of the IGST Act requires two cumulative conditions, the service must be delivered over the internet or an electronic network, and the nature of the service must be such that its supply is impossible without information technology. While the applicant's services satisfy the first condition, they fail to meet the second condition - Coaching for competitive exams has traditionally been provided through physical classroom teaching, and the adoption of an online platform merely changes the mode of delivery, not the essential nature of the service. The "impossibility test" must be applied to the intrinsic character of the service, not the medium of its delivery - The applicant's services involve significant human intervention, including live interactive classes, doubt-clearing sessions, mentoring, and performance tracking, which are hallmarks of a coaching institution, not a passive content-retrieval mechanism. The applicant itself concedes that online coaching is merely a different medium for delivering the same service - The illustrative examples of OIDAR services under Section 2(17) are characteristically automated, faceless, and system-driven, unlike the applicant's services, which are heavily dependent on human involvement. The applicant has consistently reported its activities as "Commercial Training and Coaching Services" in its registration, invoices, and tax returns, which aligns with the Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services under GST – Accordingly, the applicant's online coaching services do not qualify as "online information or database access retrieval service" under HSN 998433, but are correctly classifiable under HSN 999293 for "Commercial Training and Coaching Services" – Ordered accordingly - Determination of place of supply and tax liability for online coaching services - The applicant provides online coaching services to students located across India, including within and outside the State of Rajasthan, where the applicant's headquarters, faculty, content development, and administrative operations are based – HELD - The applicant's contention that the services should be treated as OIDAR and, therefore, the place of supply should be determined under Section 12(2) of the IGST Act (recipient's location) is legally misplaced, as the services have been correctly classified as "Commercial Training and Coaching Services" under HSN 999293 - Section 12(5) of the IGST Act, which specifically governs the place of supply for training and performance appraisal services, is the applicable provision in the present case. Under Section 12(5)(b), for services provided to unregistered persons, the place of supply is the location where the services are "actually performed" - Based on the facts, the applicant's headquarters, faculty, content development, and administrative operations are all centralized and executed from Rajasthan. The physical dispatch of study materials also originates from Rajasthan. Therefore, the actual "performance" and provision of the coaching service occur strictly within the State of Rajasthan - Since both the location of the supplier (Rajasthan) and the place of supply (Rajasthan) are within the same State, the transaction constitutes an intra-state supply under Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, and the tax liability is CGST at 9% and SGST at 9%, irrespective of the location of the students. [Read less]

The indecision of GST Council cannot create impediments to the right of trade. The dealer is entitled to be issued C-Forms for the purchase of ENA from other States for the period prior to the amendment excluding ENA from the ambit of GST.

Central Excise - Refund of deposit made during investigation - Revenue contention that the appellant has voluntarily paid the said amount and hence, the same cannot be considered as a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether interest is payable on the refunded amount – HELD - The amount deposited during the course of investigation was not a voluntary payment towards duty, but a deposit made under a mistaken notion as to the central excise duty liability, at the insistence of the Department – The payment was made at the instance of the Department, pursuant to the search operations conducte... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of deposit made during investigation - Revenue contention that the appellant has voluntarily paid the said amount and hence, the same cannot be considered as a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether interest is payable on the refunded amount – HELD - The amount deposited during the course of investigation was not a voluntary payment towards duty, but a deposit made under a mistaken notion as to the central excise duty liability, at the insistence of the Department – The payment was made at the instance of the Department, pursuant to the search operations conducted by the Officers of the DGCEI at the appellant’s factory premises and other premises. Hence, such payment made by the appellant cannot be construed as a voluntary payment of central excise duty on the part of the appellant – Since the deposit made by the appellant during the course of investigation does not amount to a voluntary payment of central excise duty but an amount paid under a mistaken notion, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be made applicable for the purpose of refund - The appellant is eligible for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the refunded amount, from the date of deposit during the course of investigation till the date of refund - The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund of CVD under GST Regime - Refund claim for CVD paid but could not be taken Cenvat credit due to introduction of GST regime - Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The CENVAT Credit is a vested right and cannot be extinguished merely due to the absence of a procedural mechanism under GST. Denial of refund would defeat the doctrine of legitimate expectation and violate Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution. The refund claim arises from the transitional provisions of the CGST Act and not independently from ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of CVD under GST Regime - Refund claim for CVD paid but could not be taken Cenvat credit due to introduction of GST regime - Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The CENVAT Credit is a vested right and cannot be extinguished merely due to the absence of a procedural mechanism under GST. Denial of refund would defeat the doctrine of legitimate expectation and violate Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution. The refund claim arises from the transitional provisions of the CGST Act and not independently from Section 118 of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the conditions under Section 11B(2) cannot be used to deny a refund specifically permitted under Section 142 of the CGST Act - The time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case, accordingly, the refund claim cannot be rejected being time barred - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Rejection of Tran-1 and Tran-2 Credit on the ground that the quantity and value of inputs were not matching with the TRAN credit availed, and the petitioner had not maintained detailed stock registers - On the issue of Tran-1 credit rejection, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the quantity and value of inputs did not match the Tran credit availed, and the petitioner did not maintain detailed stock registers. For the Tran-2 credit rejection, the Authority noted that the petitioner did not furnish details of inputs held in stock as on July 1st and did not produce invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax carr... [Read more]

GST - Rejection of Tran-1 and Tran-2 Credit on the ground that the quantity and value of inputs were not matching with the TRAN credit availed, and the petitioner had not maintained detailed stock registers - On the issue of Tran-1 credit rejection, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the quantity and value of inputs did not match the Tran credit availed, and the petitioner did not maintain detailed stock registers. For the Tran-2 credit rejection, the Authority noted that the petitioner did not furnish details of inputs held in stock as on July 1st and did not produce invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax carried forward to Electronic Credit Ledger – HELD - The petitioner had produced CA certified closing stock of goods as on 30.06.2017, purchase invoice copies and sales register for the period July to December, 2017, which were not previously considered by the Adjudicating Authority - The petitioner should be given an opportunity to demonstrate the availability of the relevant material and records to justify the TRAN credit claims - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded for fresh consideration – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Scope of Advance Ruling - Whether an application seeking clarification on the existence and classification of a raw material used by other manufacturers in the same industry falls within the scope of Advance Ruling – HELD - An Advance Ruling application is can be filed by the applicant only in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. In the instant case, the applicant had sought clarification on the queries not related to his supply of goods or services but by some other manufactures who are in the same... [Read more]

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Scope of Advance Ruling - Whether an application seeking clarification on the existence and classification of a raw material used by other manufacturers in the same industry falls within the scope of Advance Ruling – HELD - An Advance Ruling application is can be filed by the applicant only in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. In the instant case, the applicant had sought clarification on the queries not related to his supply of goods or services but by some other manufactures who are in the same line of business - As the application did not relate to the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant itself, it does not fall within the definition of "advance ruling" under Section 95 of the CGST Act. Since the applicant's queries were not related to their own supply of goods or services, no advance ruling can be issued in this case – Ordered accordingly [Read less]