More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Central Excise - Manufacture of tailor-made goods, Marketability of goods - Revenue alleged that the respondent has manufactured and clandestinely removed the finished goods from the factory of production without payment of central excise duty - Whether the goods manufactured by the respondent are 'marketable' and hence, excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The goods manufactured by the respondent are not marketable, as they were tailor-made as per the specific requirement of the customers and were not capable of being bought and sold in the market. The unassembled parts were tailor made goods, removed in ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Manufacture of tailor-made goods, Marketability of goods - Revenue alleged that the respondent has manufactured and clandestinely removed the finished goods from the factory of production without payment of central excise duty - Whether the goods manufactured by the respondent are 'marketable' and hence, excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The goods manufactured by the respondent are not marketable, as they were tailor-made as per the specific requirement of the customers and were not capable of being bought and sold in the market. The unassembled parts were tailor made goods, removed in CKD condition and they are not goods capable of being bought and sold - For an article to be subject to excise duty, it must be capable of being marketed and known in the market as a distinct identifiable commodity. In the present case, no evidence brought on record by the Revenue to show that the goods manufactured by the respondent were capable of being marketed or bought and sold in the market. Therefore, the goods manufactured by the respondent do not satisfy the test of 'marketability' and hence, are not excisable - the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had dropped the demand of duty, along with interest and penalty, is upheld – The Revenue appeal is dismissed - Whether the respondent wrongfully availed Cenvat credit based on the fake invoices - HELD - The Department has not brought any evidence to establish that the respondent had availed Cenvat credit based on fake invoices. The Adjudicating Authority has stated that the respondent had not produced any concrete evidence to prove that the inputs were actually received in their factory and accounted for in their records. However, the Department had also failed to prove beyond doubt that the subject goods were not received by the respondent and that it was only a paper transaction. Therefore, the Department has not been able to prove the allegation of wrongful Cenvat credit availed by the respondent. [Read less]

GST - Powers of DGGI to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The petitioners case that the summons were issued in violation of the guidelines and circulars issued by the Board as no assessment had been carried out, no liability was imposed - Whether the issuance of summons under Section 70 by the DGGI officers was valid and in accordance with the law - HELD - Under Section 70 CGST Act, the officer is empowered to summon any person, whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry - For the purposes of Section 70, a summons is issued... [Read more]

GST - Powers of DGGI to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The petitioners case that the summons were issued in violation of the guidelines and circulars issued by the Board as no assessment had been carried out, no liability was imposed - Whether the issuance of summons under Section 70 by the DGGI officers was valid and in accordance with the law - HELD - Under Section 70 CGST Act, the officer is empowered to summon any person, whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry - For the purposes of Section 70, a summons is issued primarily for gathering information and for providing an opportunity to produce documents, etc. Hence, issuance of summons under Section 70 cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioners - Even otherwise, in case there is a possibility of arrest in the future, there are sufficient inherent safeguards contained in Section 69 prior to the affecting arrest of the accused persons - Mere issuance of a summons does not imply that the Department has decided to proceed against the taxpayer for recovery of liability - The writ petitions are premature and dismissed. However, the Petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage – The petitions are dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of Multimedia Speakers - During the assessment, the Assessing Officer re-classified the goods under CTH 85182200 instead of the declared CTH 85279100, as the items were not having additional features such as FM Radio or USB port playback. The appellant challenged the re-assessment order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who upheld the lower authority's decision - Whether the impugned goods, Multimedia Speakers, should be classified under CTH 85279100 as declared by the appellant-importer, or under CTH 85182200 as re-assessed by the Revenue authorities – HELD - As per the CBEC Circular... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of Multimedia Speakers - During the assessment, the Assessing Officer re-classified the goods under CTH 85182200 instead of the declared CTH 85279100, as the items were not having additional features such as FM Radio or USB port playback. The appellant challenged the re-assessment order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who upheld the lower authority's decision - Whether the impugned goods, Multimedia Speakers, should be classified under CTH 85279100 as declared by the appellant-importer, or under CTH 85182200 as re-assessed by the Revenue authorities – HELD - As per the CBEC Circular No. 27/2013-Cus. dated 01.08.2013, multimedia speakers without additional features like FM Radio or USB port playback are to be classified under CTH 85182200, while those having such additional functionalities are classifiable under CTH 85279100. In the present case, the items were simple multimedia speakers without any additional features and, therefore, correctly reclassified under CTH 85182200 by the lower authorities. The other the items having multifunctionality, are correctly classified under CTH 85279100 - The re-classification of subject goods under CTH 85182200 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Grant of bail in economic offence under CGST Act – Arrest in connection with allegations that petitioner had claimed and received a refund and ITC from non-existent/inoperative suppliers on account of bogus invoices - Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case – HELD - The petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2025, i.e., for more than 5 months, and the investigation is already complete. The petitioner has been cooperating with the authorities, has made voluntary payments of tax and GST, and has no criminal antecedents - The grant of bail is ... [Read more]

GST - Grant of bail in economic offence under CGST Act – Arrest in connection with allegations that petitioner had claimed and received a refund and ITC from non-existent/inoperative suppliers on account of bogus invoices - Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case – HELD - The petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2025, i.e., for more than 5 months, and the investigation is already complete. The petitioner has been cooperating with the authorities, has made voluntary payments of tax and GST, and has no criminal antecedents - The grant of bail is the general rule and incarceration is an exception. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied to an under-trial prisoner - Considering the totality of the circumstances and the settled principles of law, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to certain conditions – The petition is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Cenvat credit on Rent-a-cab service, Extended period of Limitation - Whether the rent-a-cab service availed by the appellant for providing pick-up and drop facility to its employees during working hours is an 'input service' eligible for Cenvat credit - HELD - The amendment to CCR 2004 w.e.f. April 1, 2012 expressly excluded 'services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle' from the definition of 'input service' – Further, the Supreme Court in Solar Industries India Limited case held that providing transportation service to employees cannot be considered as 'input service' as it has no relation to th... [Read more]

Service Tax - Cenvat credit on Rent-a-cab service, Extended period of Limitation - Whether the rent-a-cab service availed by the appellant for providing pick-up and drop facility to its employees during working hours is an 'input service' eligible for Cenvat credit - HELD - The amendment to CCR 2004 w.e.f. April 1, 2012 expressly excluded 'services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle' from the definition of 'input service' – Further, the Supreme Court in Solar Industries India Limited case held that providing transportation service to employees cannot be considered as 'input service' as it has no relation to the manufacture of goods. The appellant's reliance on the earlier judgments was misplaced as they pertained to the period prior to the amendment of the CCR 2004 – On the issue of time-barred, as per the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the department can issue a notice within 30 months from the relevant date, which is the date of filing of the return by the appellant. Since the notices were issued within this period, there is no merit in the appellant's contention regarding limitation - The denial of Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab services on merits is upheld. However, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the aspect of limitation – The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Customs - Violation of Customs Notification conditions, duty evasion charges, regularization by DGFT - Appellant imported PP Granules under Advance Authorisation without payment of Customs duty but could not utilise them for manufacture and export of goods – The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, confirmed the duty demand with interest, and imposed equal penalty under Section 114A - Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sections 28(2) and 28(10B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and if the imposition of penalty under Section 114A is justified - HELD - The appellant had paid the duty and interest on their... [Read more]

Customs - Violation of Customs Notification conditions, duty evasion charges, regularization by DGFT - Appellant imported PP Granules under Advance Authorisation without payment of Customs duty but could not utilise them for manufacture and export of goods – The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, confirmed the duty demand with interest, and imposed equal penalty under Section 114A - Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Sections 28(2) and 28(10B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and if the imposition of penalty under Section 114A is justified - HELD - The appellant had paid the duty and interest on their own before the issuance of the notice and also got the matter regularized with the DGFT. By virtue of Section 28(10B) of the Customs Act, the show cause notice is deemed to be issued under Section 28(1) as the charges of collusion or wilful misstatement were not established. Further, under Section 28(2), since the appellant had paid the duty and interest, the show cause notice should not have been issued - The proviso to Section 28(2) provides that no penalty shall be levied if the duty and interest are paid within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Considering these provisions, the imposition of penalty under Section 114A is unjustified - The imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with Rule 10A of CGST Rules, 2017 - Show-cause notice for cancellation of registration on the ground of violation of Rule 10A (requirement to furnish bank account details within 30 days of registration) - The SCN gave the petitioner only 7 days to furnish a reply, instead of the 30 days required under Rule 21A(2A). Without waiting for the 30-day period, the respondent authority passed an order in July 2024 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration - Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is valid – HELD – The Rule 21A(2A) of the CGST Ru... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with Rule 10A of CGST Rules, 2017 - Show-cause notice for cancellation of registration on the ground of violation of Rule 10A (requirement to furnish bank account details within 30 days of registration) - The SCN gave the petitioner only 7 days to furnish a reply, instead of the 30 days required under Rule 21A(2A). Without waiting for the 30-day period, the respondent authority passed an order in July 2024 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration - Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is valid – HELD – The Rule 21A(2A) of the CGST Rules clearly requires the respondent authority to provide a 30-day period to the registered person to explain the non-compliance with Rule 10A and show cause as to why the registration should not be cancelled. By providing only a 7-day period and not waiting for the 30-day period to lapse, the respondent authority had violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements - Further, the SCN was issued in Form GST REG-17 instead of the prescribed Form GST REG-31. When a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner only. By not adhering to the prescribed form, the show-cause notice is not in compliance with the statutory requirements - The SCN and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is quashed – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Availment of CENVAT Credit on capital goods and input services procured by works contractor; Extended period of limitation - Appellant set up an LPG plant and availed CENVAT credit on the capital goods and input services used in the setting up of the plant - Dept issued SCN proposing to deny the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the works contractor who procured the capital goods, was not eligible to avail CENVAT credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2A of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, and that the input services used for setting up the ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Availment of CENVAT Credit on capital goods and input services procured by works contractor; Extended period of limitation - Appellant set up an LPG plant and availed CENVAT credit on the capital goods and input services used in the setting up of the plant - Dept issued SCN proposing to deny the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the works contractor who procured the capital goods, was not eligible to avail CENVAT credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2A of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, and that the input services used for setting up the plant were not eligible for credit post the amendment to the definition of "input service" w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - Whether the denial of CENVAT credit availed on duty paid goods claimed as 'capital goods' is valid – HELD - The goods procured by works contractor and used in the appellant's factory for the production of LPG qualify as 'capital goods' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The fact that works contractor was mentioned as the 'buyer' and the appellant as the 'consignee' in the invoices does not affect the appellant's eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on such capital goods. The ownership of the goods during the subsistence of the works contract is not a relevant criterion for denying the credit. The appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the capital goods received in its premises - The demands confirmed in the impugned order are set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the rejection of CENVAT credit availed on input services is justified – HELD - The input services used for setting up the LPG plant would not be eligible for CENVAT credit post the amendment to the definition of "input service" w.e.f. 01.04.2011, which specifically excluded services used for the laying of foundation or making structures for the support of capital goods. The denial of credit on such input services by the Adjudicating Authority is correct - Whether the Revenue has established 'suppression' while invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD - The appellant had reflected the availment of CENVAT credit in its ER-1 returns, and there was no denial of payment of duty or filing of returns. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents to hold that there was no 'suppression' of facts by the appellant to invoke the extended period of limitation. Accordingly, the demand is set aside on the ground of limitation, and consequently, the interest and penalty also cannot be sustained. [Read less]

Central Excise – Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Manufacture of goods – Demand of amount – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of PVC pipes, HDPE Coil and sprinkling systems – During audit, department noticed that Appellant was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, but were not maintaining separate accounts for inputs/input services so used in final products – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of amount equal to 10% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Rules – Commissioner confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether demand as confirmed... [Read more]

Central Excise – Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Manufacture of goods – Demand of amount – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of PVC pipes, HDPE Coil and sprinkling systems – During audit, department noticed that Appellant was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, but were not maintaining separate accounts for inputs/input services so used in final products – Department issued show cause notice proposing demand of amount equal to 10% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Rules – Commissioner confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether demand as confirmed in impugned order is sustainable – HELD – Appellant had maintained separate records for inputs used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. Only common input service which was used was the service tax paid on insurance services. Such service cannot be vivisected into insurance towards exempted goods and insurance towards dutiable goods. Demand of amount equal to 10% of value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the Rules cannot be sustained. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Demand of credit – Appellants are engaged in manufacture of control panels – On scrutiny of input credit records, department viewed that Appellants had availed ineligible Cenvat credit – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeal filed by Appellants – Whether Appellants have correctly availed Cenvat credit on inputs – HELD – During hearing and in submissions, Appellants consistently maintained that they were not af... [Read more]

Central Excise – Demand of credit – Appellants are engaged in manufacture of control panels – On scrutiny of input credit records, department viewed that Appellants had availed ineligible Cenvat credit – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeal filed by Appellants – Whether Appellants have correctly availed Cenvat credit on inputs – HELD – During hearing and in submissions, Appellants consistently maintained that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity to verify records or submit documents to substantiate their claim that credit availed was eligible and appropriate duty had been paid. Principles of natural justice mandate that Appellants should be given full access to all relied upon records. On taking note of factual situation as narrated by Appellants, matter is remanded to Original Authority, who shall accord sufficient time and opportunity to Appellants to verify and submit documents to substantiate their contentions. Adjudicating Authority must give copies of documents relied upon or seized from Appellants premises at request of Appellants – Appeal disposed off [Read less]

SVLDRS, 2019 – Demand of Interest post issue of Discharge Certificate - The petitioner filed a declaration under the SVLDRS and paid the requisite amount. The Designated Committee issued a Discharge Certificate to the petitioner, certifying full and final settlement of tax dues - Whether the issuance of Show Cause Notice demanding interest on the delayed payment of service tax, after the petitioner had been issued a Discharge Certificate, is legally sustainable – HELD - the issuance of Discharge Certificate is not just conclusive of the amount but also of the full and final settlement of tax dues - This is not a case w... [Read more]

SVLDRS, 2019 – Demand of Interest post issue of Discharge Certificate - The petitioner filed a declaration under the SVLDRS and paid the requisite amount. The Designated Committee issued a Discharge Certificate to the petitioner, certifying full and final settlement of tax dues - Whether the issuance of Show Cause Notice demanding interest on the delayed payment of service tax, after the petitioner had been issued a Discharge Certificate, is legally sustainable – HELD - the issuance of Discharge Certificate is not just conclusive of the amount but also of the full and final settlement of tax dues - This is not a case where the Respondents allege any falsity, misstatement, misdeclaration, suppression or the like in the voluntary disclosure made in the declaration filed by the petitioner, under the SVLDRS. In such situation, when a discharge certificate for the settlement of all tax dues has been issued, the demands raised by the show cause notices issued would be ex facie contrary to law - The issuance of SCNs demanding interest on the delayed payment of service tax is contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019, and without authority in law. The Discharge Certificate issued by the Designated Committee was conclusive as to the matter and time period covered, and the petitioner was not liable to pay any further duty, interest, or penalty with respect to the same – The writ petition is allowed - Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its declaration under the SVLDRS considered under the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category, instead of the "arrears" category – HELD - Merely because the Petitioner had incorrectly filed its declaration under arrears category and not under audit, enquiry, investigation category would not deprive the Petitioner to claim relief which is available to the Petitioner eligible under the statutory framework of the Finance Act, 2019 - The petitioner is eligible to file its declaration under the "enquiry, investigation or audit" category, as the total tax dues against the petitioner were quantified before the cut-off date of 30 June 2019, as stipulated under Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner had already paid a significant portion of the quantified amount before the cut-off date, and the petitioner is entitled to the deduction of the same under Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 2019. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's declaration under the "investigation" category and grant the petitioner the benefit of amount paid by the petitioner to avail the benefit under the scheme. [Read less]

Customs – Import under Advance License, Non-fulfilment of minimum value addition condition - Respondents had obtained an Advance license for import of certain components for manufacturing and exporting complete electronic ventilation systems to Russia – The Authorities found that instead of importing components, Respondents had imported complete equipment in CKD-SKD condition and no further processing and manufacturing were carried out in India - Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging that the assembly and testing undertaken on the imported goods did not constitute 'manufacture' - Whether the import ef... [Read more]

Customs – Import under Advance License, Non-fulfilment of minimum value addition condition - Respondents had obtained an Advance license for import of certain components for manufacturing and exporting complete electronic ventilation systems to Russia – The Authorities found that instead of importing components, Respondents had imported complete equipment in CKD-SKD condition and no further processing and manufacturing were carried out in India - Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging that the assembly and testing undertaken on the imported goods did not constitute 'manufacture' - Whether the import effected by the respondents under the licenses issued by DGFT and the export obligations carried out by them were in violation of the license conditions and policy decision of the DGFT - HELD - As per the EXIM Policy 1997-2002, for export of goods against payment in Indian Rupees, a minimum value addition of 33% was required. However, the Tribunal itself had found that the actual value addition done by the respondents was only 5.18%, which was much below the required threshold. When the value addition was only 5.18% as recorded by the Tribunal, which was much below 33% for export of goods against payment in Indian Rupee under paragraph 11.7 of the EXIM policy, it could not be said that there was any increase in the intrinsic value of the export product by the Respondent - It is settled principles of law that an assessee claiming the benefit of an exemption notification must strictly comply with the conditions prescribed therein. The exemption provision has to be construed strictly, and the burden is on the assessee to establish that it satisfies the eligibility criteria. In the present case, since the Respondents failed to achieve the minimum value addition as mandated, they were not entitled to the exemption from payment of customs duty - The respondents had misrepresented the facts to the JDGFT while obtaining the Advance License, as the supporting manufacturer declared by them did not have the requisite manufacturing facilities. This would also disentitle them from the exemption under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act - The impugned order of the CEGAT is set aside and the Revenue appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 – Revocation of licence – Forfeiture of security deposit – Appellant challenged impugned order passed by Commissioner revoking its Customs Broker licence and directing forfeiture of its security deposit and also imposing penalty – Whether Appellant has violated provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) & 10(n) of the Regulations – HELD – Regulation 10(a) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to obtain an authorization from each of firms or individuals, by whom, he is for the time being, employed as a Customs Broker. Importer appoin... [Read more]

Customs – Regulation 10 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 – Revocation of licence – Forfeiture of security deposit – Appellant challenged impugned order passed by Commissioner revoking its Customs Broker licence and directing forfeiture of its security deposit and also imposing penalty – Whether Appellant has violated provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) & 10(n) of the Regulations – HELD – Regulation 10(a) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to obtain an authorization from each of firms or individuals, by whom, he is for the time being, employed as a Customs Broker. Importer appoints Appellant as its Customs Broker to file Bill of Entry on its behalf and represent it before Customs to complete all documentation formalities upto delivery of import consignment. Regulation 10(d) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to advise his client to comply with relevant provisions. Nothing in finding of Commissioner establishes that Appellant had not advised importer to comply with provisions or Appellant was aware that importer was violating any provision or Acts. Regulation 10(e) of the Regulations requires Customs Broker to ensure that it provides only correct information to client. There is nothing on record to show that Appellant had provided any incorrect information to importer. Regulation 10(n) of the Regulations requires customs broker to verify identity of his client and functioning of his client at declared address. Appellant had verified existence of importer through KYC documents. Findings in impugned order that Appellant had violated Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of the Regulations is not correct. Impugned order passed by Commissioner is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Customs – Import of construction materials – Payment of duty – Filing of refund claim – Appellant filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs for refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs paid on import of Construction Materials vide 11 bills of entry – Adjudicating authority rejected refund claim for non-fulfillment of condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 – Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) upheld order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether Appellant has fulfilled the condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 read with Circular No.16/2008 – HELD – App... [Read more]

Customs – Import of construction materials – Payment of duty – Filing of refund claim – Appellant filed refund claim in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs for refund of 4% Additional Duty of Customs paid on import of Construction Materials vide 11 bills of entry – Adjudicating authority rejected refund claim for non-fulfillment of condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 – Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) upheld order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether Appellant has fulfilled the condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 read with Circular No.16/2008 – HELD – Appellant’s refund claim had been rejected by original adjudicating authority for non-fulfillment of condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 read with Para 2(vi) of Circular No.16/2008. Since Appellant have produced copies of documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, Appellant should be considered to have fulfilled condition in para 2(e)(iii) of Notification No.102/2007 read with Circular No.16/2008 – Appeal partly allowed - Rejection of certificate – Sustainability – Whether rejection of Chartered Accountant Certificate by Adjudicating authority as well as LAA on ground that same is not in proper format as per Public Notice No.39/2011 is correct or not – HELD – LAA had rejected appeal of Appellant on ground that Chartered Accountant Certificate submitted by Appellant evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax/value added tax is not in proper format as per Public Notice No.39/2011. Format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No.39/2011 is only suggested/indicative format and not a mandatory format prescribed for claiming refund under Notification No.102/2007. Even the Notification No.102/2007 does not prescribe any format for Chartered Accountant Certificate. Rejection of Chartered Accountant Certificate by Adjudicating authority as well as LAA on ground that same is not in proper format as per Public Notice No.39/2011 is not correct - Filing of refund claim – Bar of limitation – Whether refund claim of Appellant in respect of four Bills of Entry is time barred – HELD – In terms of amendment made to Notification No.102/2007, Appellant is required to file claim for refund of 4% additional duty of customs before expiry of one year from date of payment of said additional duty of customs. Refund claim of Appellant in respect of four bills of entry is time barred, as refund claim had been filed beyond period of one year from date of payment of additional duty of customs. Impugned order is set aside in respect of seven bills of entry, but it is upheld in respect of remaining four bills of entry. [Read less]

Service Tax – Providing of services – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of compressors and parts thereof – After thorough verification of records, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Technical Testing and Analysis Service (TTAS) – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether services provided by Appellant would fall under category of Consultant Engineer Services (CES) or it would fall under category of TTAS – HELD – From perusal of limited information furnished by Appellant, they have no... [Read more]

Service Tax – Providing of services – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of compressors and parts thereof – After thorough verification of records, department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of Service Tax under category of Technical Testing and Analysis Service (TTAS) – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Whether services provided by Appellant would fall under category of Consultant Engineer Services (CES) or it would fall under category of TTAS – HELD – From perusal of limited information furnished by Appellant, they have not been able to establish that their services were more in nature of CES and not in nature of TTAS. Adjudicating authority will take into account the argument of Appellant that even in case of TTAS, it would still be covered within scope of export of service, as it is not disputed that recipients of service are located abroad and remittances have been received in foreign exchange. With these observations, impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to original authority to re-determine classification and consequential demand, keeping in view of above observations subject to submission of necessary documents by Appellant in their support – Appeal allowed [Read less]

GST - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, Fake invoicing, Proper authority before whom the petitioner may file appeal – Whether the show cause notice could have been issued by the Superintendent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), or it had to be only at the level of the Joint Director, DGGI – HELD - Though the SCN is shown on the portal under the name of the Superintendent, DGGI, it was actually signed by the Joint Director himself. Therefore, this objection raised by the petitioner was not tenable - The impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Faridabad, and the appeal agains... [Read more]

GST - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, Fake invoicing, Proper authority before whom the petitioner may file appeal – Whether the show cause notice could have been issued by the Superintendent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), or it had to be only at the level of the Joint Director, DGGI – HELD - Though the SCN is shown on the portal under the name of the Superintendent, DGGI, it was actually signed by the Joint Director himself. Therefore, this objection raised by the petitioner was not tenable - The impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Faridabad, and the appeal against the order would lie before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram, as per the Circular no. 250/07/2025-GST and Notification No. 02/2017-Central tax dated 19th June, 2017. The Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram would be the correct authority before whom the petitioner can file an appeal challenging the impugned order – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs – Sections 58, 65 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962 – Regulation 3(2) of Private Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016 – Application for grant of licence – Rejection of application – Appellant had applied for grant of license for Private Warehouse under Section 58 of the Act read with the Regulations along with permission to carry out manufacture and other operations under Section 65 of the Act – Principal Commissioner rejected applications filed by Appellant – Whether Appellant is eligible for grant of licence for private warehouse under Section 58 of the Act – HELD – Regulation 3(2) of the Regulat... [Read more]

Customs – Sections 58, 65 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962 – Regulation 3(2) of Private Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016 – Application for grant of licence – Rejection of application – Appellant had applied for grant of license for Private Warehouse under Section 58 of the Act read with the Regulations along with permission to carry out manufacture and other operations under Section 65 of the Act – Principal Commissioner rejected applications filed by Appellant – Whether Appellant is eligible for grant of licence for private warehouse under Section 58 of the Act – HELD – Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations sets out the categories of cases wherein licence shall not be issued. When custom authorities grant any license, lot of trust is expressed in person to whom it is granted on basis of his antecedents. There is no dispute to fact that Appellant have been penalized under Section 114A of the Act vide Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner. Penalty imposed in departmental quasi judicial proceedings have been upheld by this Tribunal. Decision of Tribunal being final fact finding body in any matter should be respected. Since Appellant have been penalized under the Act, they are not eligible for license in terms of Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Regulations. Order under challenge is affirmed – Appeals dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on User Development Fee (UDF) charges, Limitation period for filing refund claim - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which upheld the order of the Refund Sanctioning Authority sanctioning a refund along with interest. The Department contested the payment of interest, arguing that the refund claim was filed beyond the limitation period - Whether the respondent was entitled to the refund of service tax paid on UDF charges – HELD - There is no dispute regarding the grant of refund as the service tax on UDF charges is held to be not leviable. The respondent is entitled to the re... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on User Development Fee (UDF) charges, Limitation period for filing refund claim - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which upheld the order of the Refund Sanctioning Authority sanctioning a refund along with interest. The Department contested the payment of interest, arguing that the refund claim was filed beyond the limitation period - Whether the respondent was entitled to the refund of service tax paid on UDF charges – HELD - There is no dispute regarding the grant of refund as the service tax on UDF charges is held to be not leviable. The respondent is entitled to the refund as the service tax amount had already been paid - The respondent had paid the service tax under protest, and the Commissioner's order had not accepted the respondent's offer to withdraw the protest. Therefore, the payment was made under protest, and the refund claim filed within one year of the payment is within the limitation period - While the issue of refund on merit and the limitation period had been adequately addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the aspect of the relevant date for determining the interest payable had not been examined - The impugned order is set aside only to the extent of upholding the payment of interest and remanded the matter back to the Refund Sanctioning Authority to redetermine the issue of admissibility of interest - The Department is allowed partially by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax - Construction of residential complex - The Department of the view that the exemption for residential complex is available only in case of self-service, which is not applicable to the appellant as it is providing service to its clients - Whether service tax was exigible on the construction of residential complex by the appellant prior to July 1, 2010 – HELD - Prior to July 1, 2010, the activity undertaken by the appellant in the capacity of a developer was in the nature of 'works contract service', and the exemption for residential complex was available if the service was rendered prior to the issue of the co... [Read more]

Service Tax - Construction of residential complex - The Department of the view that the exemption for residential complex is available only in case of self-service, which is not applicable to the appellant as it is providing service to its clients - Whether service tax was exigible on the construction of residential complex by the appellant prior to July 1, 2010 – HELD - Prior to July 1, 2010, the activity undertaken by the appellant in the capacity of a developer was in the nature of 'works contract service', and the exemption for residential complex was available if the service was rendered prior to the issue of the completion certificate and transfer to the customer, or if the service was rendered for the completion or construction of a flat for the personal use of the service recipient. The period of dispute is from April 2009 to June 2010, and hence, no service tax was exigible on the appellant - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Commercial Training & Coaching Service, DGCA approved flying training courses – Appellant is engaged in providing various training courses, including aviation courses approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The adjudicating authority had confirmed a service tax demand on the appellant, treating the courses as 'Commercial Training & Coaching Service' (CTCS) under the Finance Act, 1994 - Whether the training courses provided by the appellant are covered under the exemption for courses "recognized by law" – HELD - If a course completion certificate is recognized by the DGCA, a statutory... [Read more]

Service Tax - Commercial Training & Coaching Service, DGCA approved flying training courses – Appellant is engaged in providing various training courses, including aviation courses approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The adjudicating authority had confirmed a service tax demand on the appellant, treating the courses as 'Commercial Training & Coaching Service' (CTCS) under the Finance Act, 1994 - Whether the training courses provided by the appellant are covered under the exemption for courses "recognized by law" – HELD - If a course completion certificate is recognized by the DGCA, a statutory authority exercising powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Aircraft Rules, 1937, then such a certificate satisfies the condition of being "recognized by law" for the purpose of exclusion from CTCS - The CBIC Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST clarified that the DGCA-approved flying training courses conducted by Flying Training Organizations approved by the DGCA, where the DGCA mandates the requirement of a completion certificate, are exempt from GST. The Tribunal found this circular to be equally relevant for service tax matters - The appellant's training courses, being approved by the DGCA, a statutory authority, are covered under the exemption for courses "recognized by law" and are not liable for service tax under CTCS - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Penalty under 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Correctness of imposition of the penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act instead of Section 129(1)(a) when the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the goods – Whether the goods and conveyance should be released in favor of the petitioner upon payment of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act - HELD - The order passed by the authorities contained detailed factual findings questioning the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the documents like invoices and e-way bills relied upon by the petitioner. It would require a comprehensive factual exerci... [Read more]

GST - Penalty under 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Correctness of imposition of the penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act instead of Section 129(1)(a) when the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the goods – Whether the goods and conveyance should be released in favor of the petitioner upon payment of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act - HELD - The order passed by the authorities contained detailed factual findings questioning the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the documents like invoices and e-way bills relied upon by the petitioner. It would require a comprehensive factual exercise to assess the worth of the order, which is not possible in the writ jurisdiction based on affidavit evidence. The petitioner is left free to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act to challenge the order - The CBIC Circular dated 31.12.2018, which the petitioner relied upon to contend that it should be deemed the owner of the goods, would be binding on the Department. However, the Circular should be applied only in cases where the documents, such as invoices and e-way bills, are in order. In the present case, the authorities have raised serious questions regarding the veracity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. Therefore, the circular cannot be relied upon to grant the benefit of Section 129(1)(a) to the petitioner - If the petitioner pays an amount equivalent to the penalty that would have been payable under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and secures the balance amount by furnishing a bank guarantee, the authorities shall release the goods and conveyance in favor of the petitioner. The authorities are directed to provide the petitioner with the necessary GST ID and password to enable it to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, if so required - If an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the appeal – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Validity of issuance of consolidation of Show Cause Notices across multiple Financial Years – Petitioner aggrieved by SCN alleging tax evasion and ineligible input tax credit claims over a period of multiple FYs from 2019-20 to 2023-24 - The petitioner contends that the consolidation of multiple financial years in a single Show Cause Notice is impermissible under the CGST Act - Whether the consolidation of show cause notices across multiple financial years is valid under the CGST Act – HELD - The CGST Act is structured around financial-year-specific assessment, with every stage, registration, maintenance of acc... [Read more]

GST – Validity of issuance of consolidation of Show Cause Notices across multiple Financial Years – Petitioner aggrieved by SCN alleging tax evasion and ineligible input tax credit claims over a period of multiple FYs from 2019-20 to 2023-24 - The petitioner contends that the consolidation of multiple financial years in a single Show Cause Notice is impermissible under the CGST Act - Whether the consolidation of show cause notices across multiple financial years is valid under the CGST Act – HELD - The CGST Act is structured around financial-year-specific assessment, with every stage, registration, maintenance of accounts, filing of returns, reconciliation, determination of liability, adjudication and limitation, being independent for each Financial Year. The Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act prescribe specific time limits for issuance of SCNs and passing of orders, which are tied to the due date of filing Annual Returns for the relevant Financial Year – Further, various High Courts have consistently held that the issuance of a consolidated SCN covering multiple Financial Years is in violation of the statutory scheme and framework of the CGST Act - The assessee is entitled to give year-wise explanations, year-wise reconciliations, and year-wise legal defences. A single notice covering five years deprives the assessee of this opportunity and violates natural justice. When the entire statutory scheme i.e., from registration to accounts, from returns to annual reconciliation, from assessment to limitation, all operates on a financial-year basis, there is no scope for issuing a consolidated SCN covering multiple unrelated financial years – The clubbing/ consolidation/ bunching/ combining of multiple tax periods/financial years in a Single/Composite Show cause notice issued under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act is illegal, invalid, impermissible and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act - The impugned show cause notice and all further proceedings initiated thereunder are quashed, while granting liberty to the revenue authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Import of goods – Rejection of declared transaction value – Demand of differential duty – Appellant is engaged in import of Mulberry raw silks from Vietnam and has availed benefit of duty exemption in terms of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. – Department received information to effect that Appellant had undervalued the imports – After investigation, department issued show cause notice proposing rejection of declared transaction value, re-determination of same and demand of differential duty – Adjudicating Authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – Whether rejection of declared transact... [Read more]

Customs – Import of goods – Rejection of declared transaction value – Demand of differential duty – Appellant is engaged in import of Mulberry raw silks from Vietnam and has availed benefit of duty exemption in terms of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. – Department received information to effect that Appellant had undervalued the imports – After investigation, department issued show cause notice proposing rejection of declared transaction value, re-determination of same and demand of differential duty – Adjudicating Authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – Whether rejection of declared transaction value of imported goods for purported willful undervaluation, their redetermination and consequent demand of differential duty are tenable – HELD – It is well settled principle of law that burden squarely lies on department to prove under-valuation by cogent evidence. Although searches were conducted at various premises, neither impugned order nor show cause notice place reliance on any incriminating evidence found consequent to these searches that would substantiate alleged undervaluation by Appellant. No direct evidences are available to establish allegation of wrong availment of duty exemption under Notification 46/2011-Cus. There is no credible evidence of any extra amount having been paid by Appellant towards said imports over and above transaction value that has been paid through banking channels. Department had failed in proving undervaluation in so far as they pertain to goods on which demand of differential duty had been raised. Findings in impugned order pertaining to rejection of declared transaction value of imported goods, redetermination of assessable value and demand of differential duty are unsustainable. Impugned order in original is set aside – Appeals allowed [Read less]

Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 – Repeal of MPVAT Act, 2002 - Imposition of penalty for the assessment year 2008-09 – Petitioner case that after the MPVAT Act and MPET Act stood omitted, the power to levy VAT, Entry Tax etc., on goods also stood omitted. Hence, the Respondent did not have the power to issue the Impugned Orders/Show Cause Notice - Whether the SCN issued under the repealed MP VAT Act in 2020 is valid and maintainable – HELD - The issue involved in the present case had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana and Ors v. Trimula Constructions. The Supreme Cou... [Read more]

Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 – Repeal of MPVAT Act, 2002 - Imposition of penalty for the assessment year 2008-09 – Petitioner case that after the MPVAT Act and MPET Act stood omitted, the power to levy VAT, Entry Tax etc., on goods also stood omitted. Hence, the Respondent did not have the power to issue the Impugned Orders/Show Cause Notice - Whether the SCN issued under the repealed MP VAT Act in 2020 is valid and maintainable – HELD - The issue involved in the present case had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana and Ors v. Trimula Constructions. The Supreme Court had held that the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, which introduced the GST regime, had the effect of continuing the operation of inconsistent State-level VAT laws for a limited duration. This was part of the transitional arrangement to facilitate the implementation of GST - The impugned show cause notice issued under section 52 of the MPVAT Act is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised – The writ petitions are allowed [Read less]

GST - Applicability of GST on interest and penalty on delayed payment recovered by chit fund company - The petitioner is a chit fund company engaged in the business of running chit schemes. The petitioner had approached the Authority for Advance Ruling to seek clarity on whether any GST is payable on the interest/penalty charged for delay in payment of subscription amounts by the chit subscribers. The Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the interest/penalty charged on delayed payments would be subject to GST - Whether the interest and penalty recovered by the chit fund comp... [Read more]

GST - Applicability of GST on interest and penalty on delayed payment recovered by chit fund company - The petitioner is a chit fund company engaged in the business of running chit schemes. The petitioner had approached the Authority for Advance Ruling to seek clarity on whether any GST is payable on the interest/penalty charged for delay in payment of subscription amounts by the chit subscribers. The Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the interest/penalty charged on delayed payments would be subject to GST - Whether the interest and penalty recovered by the chit fund company from defaulting subscribers are liable to GST – HELD - Under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, the foreman (chit fund company) is entitled to interest and penalty on any default in payment of installments by the subscribers, in addition to the commission/remuneration. This interest and penalty cannot be treated as a service fee or other charges, as the Act caps the commission/remuneration of the foreman at 7% of the chit value - The relationship between the foreman and the subscribers is in the nature of a debt, and the foreman is entitled to recover the entire balance amount in case of default. The interest and penalty charged on such defaults would be covered by the exemption provided under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate), which exempts services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances, to the extent the consideration is represented by way of interest or discount – The findings of the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling are set aside and it is held that the interest and penalty, recovered by a foreman, in relation to default in payment of installments would not be exigible to tax under the GST Act – The Writ Petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Petitioner, a courier service provider, has a network agreement with DHL International GmbH in Germany where they provide services to each other's clients without any consideration - Petitioner discharged GST on these 'unbilled shipments' as it constitutes a service under Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act. However, since the recipient of the service is located abroad, petitioner claims these services should be treated as 'zero-rated supply' under Section 16(1) of the IGST Act – Dept case that for zero-rated supply, Section 2(6) of the IGST Act requires receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange, which i... [Read more]

GST - Petitioner, a courier service provider, has a network agreement with DHL International GmbH in Germany where they provide services to each other's clients without any consideration - Petitioner discharged GST on these 'unbilled shipments' as it constitutes a service under Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act. However, since the recipient of the service is located abroad, petitioner claims these services should be treated as 'zero-rated supply' under Section 16(1) of the IGST Act – Dept case that for zero-rated supply, Section 2(6) of the IGST Act requires receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange, which is absent in this case – HELD – Insofar as the interpretation of Section 7 of CGST Act read with Section 16 of IGST Act is concerned, the matter deserves consideration inasmuch as the non-receipt of foreign exchange/consideration while on one hand does not exempt the Petitioner from paying taxes, it deprives the Petitioner of the benefits of export of services - Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that these aforesaid provisions would have to be harmoniously interpreted and a view would have to be taken - Considering the fact that various High Courts are considering the matter, let the CBIC look into this issue and may place its stand before this Court either by way of an affidavit or issue a clarification, if the need is so felt – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Appeal against denial of interest on delayed payment of IGST refund, Proper forum for filing of appeal - The petitioner had filed two applications - one for interest on delayed payment of IGST refund under the IGST Act and another for interest on delayed payment of drawback under the Customs Act - The Revisional Authority held that the Customs appellate authorities were not the appropriate authorities to adjudicate the issue of interest on delayed IGST refund, and that the petitioner should have appealed before the GST appellate authorities instead - Whether the petitioner was required to approach the GST appellate... [Read more]

GST – Appeal against denial of interest on delayed payment of IGST refund, Proper forum for filing of appeal - The petitioner had filed two applications - one for interest on delayed payment of IGST refund under the IGST Act and another for interest on delayed payment of drawback under the Customs Act - The Revisional Authority held that the Customs appellate authorities were not the appropriate authorities to adjudicate the issue of interest on delayed IGST refund, and that the petitioner should have appealed before the GST appellate authorities instead - Whether the petitioner was required to approach the GST appellate authorities to seek interest on delayed IGST refund, or whether it was correct for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Customs appellate authorities - HELD - The petitioner was diligently pursuing the issue of interest on IGST refunds before the appellate authorities constituted under the Customs Act, and that this objection was raised for the first time in the impugned order - In the peculiar facts of the case, the request made by the petitioner to approach the GST appellate authorities, while excluding the period during which it pursued the matter before the customs appellate authorities, is quite reasonable. The petitioner is directed to institute an appeal before the Appellate Authorities under the GST Act against the original order and the GST appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on its merits without adverting to the issue of limitation – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Difference in weight mentioned in the invoice and the actual weight – Levy of penalties under Sections 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - Whether the CBIC Circular dated 31-12-2018, which deems the consignor or consignee to be the owner of the goods if the invoice or specified documents accompany the consignment, can be relied upon by the petitioner when the genuineness of the transaction and documents are in question - HELD - The said Circular cannot be applied in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or the documents is in doubt. The Circular is binding on the officers but it has to operate with... [Read more]

GST – Difference in weight mentioned in the invoice and the actual weight – Levy of penalties under Sections 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - Whether the CBIC Circular dated 31-12-2018, which deems the consignor or consignee to be the owner of the goods if the invoice or specified documents accompany the consignment, can be relied upon by the petitioner when the genuineness of the transaction and documents are in question - HELD - The said Circular cannot be applied in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or the documents is in doubt. The Circular is binding on the officers but it has to operate within the statutory framework and applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment, transaction and documents. The Circular cannot be treated as a shield to ward off legal scrutiny and shelve legal action in cases involving undisclosed transactions and dubious invoices/bills - In the present case, the GST authorities have doubted the existence of the petitioner's supplier and cited discrepancy in the weight of the goods, hence, the circular cannot be relied upon by the petitioner - The petitioner is left free to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal against the order impugned. However, the GST authorities are directed to release the petitioner's goods and conveyance upon payment of the penalty determined under Section 129(1)(a) and furnishing of security for the balance amount determined under Section 129(1)(b) – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 – Works contracts - Invoking of Rule 17(1)(g) of the APVAT Rules, 2005 - Petitioner, a company incorporated in the USA, entered into a sub-sea constructions and diving contract for offshore gas field - Respondent initiated proceedings and passed assessment orders raising demands on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained proper books of accounts as required under Rule 31 of the AP VAT Rules - Respondent invoked Rule 17(1)(g) of the APVAT Rules to levy tax at 12.5% on the total consideration received by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained the required... [Read more]

Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 – Works contracts - Invoking of Rule 17(1)(g) of the APVAT Rules, 2005 - Petitioner, a company incorporated in the USA, entered into a sub-sea constructions and diving contract for offshore gas field - Respondent initiated proceedings and passed assessment orders raising demands on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained proper books of accounts as required under Rule 31 of the AP VAT Rules - Respondent invoked Rule 17(1)(g) of the APVAT Rules to levy tax at 12.5% on the total consideration received by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained the required books of accounts - Territorial jurisdiction of the AP VAT Act - The petitioner contended that 80% of the work under the contract was executed beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast of Andhra Pradesh and hence, would fall outside the territorial limits under the AP VAT Act - HELD – The Respondent cannot insist on production of books of accounts required under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the petitioner had opted to offer its income on deemed basis of 10% gross receipts under Section 44BB(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and was not required to maintain such books of accounts. However, the respondent can ask for the accounts which are required to be maintained under Rule 31 of the AP VAT Rules. If the petitioner has produced such accounts, the respondent cannot invoke Rule 17(1)(g) to levy tax on the entire turnover at 12.5% - Further, the transactions that occurred beyond the territorial waters of 12 nautical miles from the coast would fall either within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone of India, which are under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. Neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have the power to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India – The matter is remanded back to the respondent to give the petitioner an opportunity to submit the entire records relating to the works contract and decide the assessment based on such records. The issues of whether the work was executed beyond 12 nautical miles and the applicable rate of tax is left open - The impugned assessment orders is set aside and the petition is disposed of by remand [Read less]

GST - Reimbursement of differential GST on Works Contracts - The petitioner was awarded several works contracts by various government agencies and authorities prior to the implementation of the GST regime. After the implementation of GST, the petitioner became liable to pay GST on these works contracts, which resulted in an additional tax burden - Whether the respondent authorities are required to reimburse the petitioner for the differential tax amount between the pre-GST KVAT regime and the post-GST regime – HELD - The tax component is an independent component which the petitioner does not retain as profit, but is a st... [Read more]

GST - Reimbursement of differential GST on Works Contracts - The petitioner was awarded several works contracts by various government agencies and authorities prior to the implementation of the GST regime. After the implementation of GST, the petitioner became liable to pay GST on these works contracts, which resulted in an additional tax burden - Whether the respondent authorities are required to reimburse the petitioner for the differential tax amount between the pre-GST KVAT regime and the post-GST regime – HELD - The tax component is an independent component which the petitioner does not retain as profit, but is a statutory payment that the respondents must honor. The respondents to follow a specific procedure to calculate the tax difference, which involves assessing the works executed pre-GST under the KVAT regime, deriving the rates of materials and KVAT items required for the balance works, deducting the KVAT amount, and adding the applicable GST - The respondents to sign a supplementary agreement with the petitioner for the revised GST-inclusive work value, and to reimburse the petitioner for the differential tax amount – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs – Import of cement, adoption of contemporaneous domestic RSP – Appellant imported Ordinary Portland Cement of Pakistan origin. Two Bills were classified under Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE for cement other than that cleared in packaged form, and one Bill under Sl. No. 1A(ii) for cement in packaged form with RSP exceeding Rs.190 - Department alleged that the cement was imported in 50-kg bags with RSP printed, and thus the Appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE - Whether cement imported and sold exclusively to industrial/institutional consumers is eligible... [Read more]

Customs – Import of cement, adoption of contemporaneous domestic RSP – Appellant imported Ordinary Portland Cement of Pakistan origin. Two Bills were classified under Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE for cement other than that cleared in packaged form, and one Bill under Sl. No. 1A(ii) for cement in packaged form with RSP exceeding Rs.190 - Department alleged that the cement was imported in 50-kg bags with RSP printed, and thus the Appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE - Whether cement imported and sold exclusively to industrial/institutional consumers is eligible for Sl. No. 1C benefit, irrespective of packaging and RSP printing - HELD - At the relevant time, there was no self-assessment; hence the out-of-charge (OOC) order under Section 47 was an assessment order - Once an out-of-charge order is made without self-assessment, it functions as an assessment order and cannot be reopened by a simple show-cause notice. To revise such an assessment, customs authorities must use specific legal procedures outlined in the Customs Act, such as a review under Section 129D or reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the SCN itself is without jurisdiction, rendering the demand void – Further, the fact that the cement was imported in 50 kg packaged bags does not disentitle the Appellant from the benefit of Sl. No. 1C, as the essential criterion is the nature of the buyer (industrial/institutional), not the form of packaging - Even cement in 50 kg retail-type bags qualifies for Sl. No. 1C so long as the buyers are industrial/institutional consumers and the fact that goods are in bags does not convert Industrial Sale into Retail Sale - The essential criterion for Sl. No. 1C is the nature of the buyer (industrial/institutional), not the form of packaging, and this condition is fully satisfied. Accordingly, the lower authorities erred in rejecting the exemption merely because the cement was packaged or had printed MRP - The Appellant is eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether Revenue can adopt contemporaneous RSP of domestic cement to re-fix RSP of imported cement - HELD - The Revenue's attempt to substitute the importer's declared RSP (lower) with the domestic cement manufacturers' RSP (higher) as the contemporaneous import price is impermissible. The RSP must be the RSP of the imported goods, not domestic goods, and there was no evidence of the importer selling the goods at a higher RSP than declared – The adoption of indigenous RSP for imported goods has been held impermissible. Thus, the demand based on enhanced RSP is factually baseless and legally untenable - Whether extended period under proviso to Section 28 is invokable - HELD – The invocation of the extended period is unsustainable, as there was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement. The dispute, at best, concerned the interpretation of the Notification, for which invoking the extended period is impermissible - Once the extended period fails, the penalty under Section 114A automatically fails. Further, the Appellant acted based on an interpretation consistent with earlier Tribunal decisions, and hence, the equal penalty under Section 114A cannot survive. [Read less]

Customs - Import of Distillate Oil, Seizure of cargo by customs authorities based on laboratory test report - Petitioner is involved in trading of industrial oil and other allied pursuits and is engaged in importing bulk liquid cargo of Distillate Fuel Oil SRFO - The test report indicated that the samples do not meet the requirements of Distillate Oil as per IS 16731:2019, particularly with respect to the Cloud Point parameter, and have the characteristics of Automotive Diesel Fuel as per IS 1460:2025. Based on this report, the Customs authorities seized the imported cargo - Whether the impugned Seizure Memo can be quashed... [Read more]

Customs - Import of Distillate Oil, Seizure of cargo by customs authorities based on laboratory test report - Petitioner is involved in trading of industrial oil and other allied pursuits and is engaged in importing bulk liquid cargo of Distillate Fuel Oil SRFO - The test report indicated that the samples do not meet the requirements of Distillate Oil as per IS 16731:2019, particularly with respect to the Cloud Point parameter, and have the characteristics of Automotive Diesel Fuel as per IS 1460:2025. Based on this report, the Customs authorities seized the imported cargo - Whether the impugned Seizure Memo can be quashed and set aside and seized cargo of the petitioner can be released - HELD - The seized cargo of the petitioner cannot be ordered to be seized solely on the basis of the parameter of cloud point, as it will be relevant only at the place, vessel, and time of use, and will depend on the end user - the petitioner cannot be discriminated, since the authorities have no definite opinions and the opinions vary so far as the parameter of Cloud Point is concerned. In view of the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the test report, it would not be correct to draw the inference that the cargo does not conform to the standards of Distillate Oil - The impugned seizure memo is quashed and the authorities are directed to release the bulk liquid cargo of Distillate Oil imported by the petitioner. The petitioner is, however, directed to file an end-use certificate before the Customs authority and fully participate in the investigation – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Service of Notices and Orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" Tab on GST Portal - Whether the service of notices and orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal is a valid mode of service - HELD - The service of notices and orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal is not a valid mode of service. Such uploading of orders under the additional tab, as opposed to the normal tab, cannot constitute due communication of the show-cause notice upon the party against whom an adverse decision is contemplated – The Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 mand... [Read more]

GST - Service of Notices and Orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" Tab on GST Portal - Whether the service of notices and orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal is a valid mode of service - HELD - The service of notices and orders through the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal is not a valid mode of service. Such uploading of orders under the additional tab, as opposed to the normal tab, cannot constitute due communication of the show-cause notice upon the party against whom an adverse decision is contemplated – The Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person. Since the petitioners were deprived of this opportunity, the impugned order is set aside and the adjudicating authority is directed to provide the petitioners with two weeks' time to file their reply to the SCN and conclude the proceedings thereafter – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax - Advertising Agency, Taxability of Performance Incentives under BAS – Respondent-assessee is an advertising agency that provides services to clients and books advertising space and slots in print and electronic media - Dept issued notice alleging that the performance incentives received by the respondent from media houses constitute a ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ and are therefore liable to service tax - Whether the performance incentives received by the advertising agency from media houses are liable to service tax - HELD - The advertising agency merely renders services to its clients as per their appro... [Read more]

Service Tax - Advertising Agency, Taxability of Performance Incentives under BAS – Respondent-assessee is an advertising agency that provides services to clients and books advertising space and slots in print and electronic media - Dept issued notice alleging that the performance incentives received by the respondent from media houses constitute a ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ and are therefore liable to service tax - Whether the performance incentives received by the advertising agency from media houses are liable to service tax - HELD - The advertising agency merely renders services to its clients as per their approved advertising plans and does not render any additional service to the media houses. Achieving revenue targets or benchmarks is part of the existing service and does not constitute a separate or additional service - The advertising agency has no agreement with the media houses to meet any target, nor is there any obligation on the media houses to provide incentives or discounts. The advertising agency clients are the advertisers who decide and approve the media plans suggested by the agency. Therefore, the advertising agency cannot have any obligation to the media houses. The incentives paid by the media houses are merely for achieving a particular target while carrying out the business for its clients – Further, the CBEC Circular No. 214/1/2023-ST clarified that for Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 to apply, there must be a contractual agreement where one party agrees to do or abstain from doing something in exchange for consideration from the other party. In the present case, the advertising agency does not have any such independent contractual arrangement with the media houses - The concurrent findings of the lower authorities that the performance incentives received by the advertising agency are not liable to service tax, is upheld – The Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Jurisdiction of DRI Officials under Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner's challenge the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as 'proper officers' to conduct proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the alleged demand under Sections 28(4) and 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 has fructified against the Petitioner - HELD - The Supreme Court in the review petition in Canon case has held that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated of... [Read more]

Customs - Jurisdiction of DRI Officials under Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner's challenge the jurisdiction of DRI Officials as 'proper officers' to conduct proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the alleged demand under Sections 28(4) and 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 has fructified against the Petitioner - HELD - The Supreme Court in the review petition in Canon case has held that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are 'proper officers' for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notices thereunder. Therefore, the challenge in the present petition regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI Officials to issue summons can no longer sustain - The alleged demand under Sections 28(4) and 28AAA is in the nature of an advisement to the Petitioner to pay the amount, failing which a Show Cause Notice would be issued. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and the demand has not yet fructified against the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Department has clarified that it does not intend to take any coercive steps at this stage and only seeks to record the Petitioner's statement during business hours - the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Department for recording the statement, subject to which no coercive steps of arrest shall be taken against the proprietor of the Petitioner – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs – Under-Valuation, Confiscation of goods, Penalty under Customs Act - Appellant accepted the charge that the design charges for the imported goods should have formed part of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules. An Order-in-Original was passed rejecting the declared value, redetermining the assessable value, confiscating the goods, and imposing a redemption fine and penalty on the appellant - Whether the Dept can confiscate the imported goods merely on account of non-declaration of the value of a portion of the imported goods, which otherwise complied with the tariff entries – HELD - The recor... [Read more]

Customs – Under-Valuation, Confiscation of goods, Penalty under Customs Act - Appellant accepted the charge that the design charges for the imported goods should have formed part of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules. An Order-in-Original was passed rejecting the declared value, redetermining the assessable value, confiscating the goods, and imposing a redemption fine and penalty on the appellant - Whether the Dept can confiscate the imported goods merely on account of non-declaration of the value of a portion of the imported goods, which otherwise complied with the tariff entries – HELD - The records clearly indicate the series of errors committed by the assessee in arriving at the proper assessable value. The value reflected in the B/E had been incorrect, and when confronted, the appellant conceded to the error. Subsequent investigations revealed further errors in the valuation of the consignment that also the appellant acceded to. Ultimately the valuation was rejected and the proper assessable value determined by the authorities and accepted by the appellant – Further, The Nil rate is in relation to a separate assessable commodity being ‘plans, drawings and designs’, and cannot be interpolated to mean design charges in respect of the Dryers, Heater and Cooler imported by the assessee, that constitute a distinct, separate assessable commodity - As the value reflected in the Bill of Entry did not correspond to the proper valuation determined by the authorities, the confiscation is valid under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The appellant had accepted the errors in valuation and paid the duty as per the enhanced value determined by the Dept. Therefore, Section 111(m) was clearly attracted and the confiscation is justified – The appeal is dismissed - Whether the Department was justified in imposing a redemption fine and penalty as a condition precedent for redeeming the goods, whose importation was otherwise permissible – HELD - The imposition of redemption fine and penalty was justified under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, respectively. Since the appellant had accepted the errors in valuation, the scope for discretion in imposing the penalty was limited. [Read less]

Service Tax - Export of Services - Refund claim on the ground that the service provided under the category of "consulting Engineers Services" was an export of services and not leviable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 as the services were consumed outside India - The Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to file the refund claim duly completed in all respects. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner's communication was only an interim and administrative communication and not an order - Dept case that since payment for said services has not be... [Read more]

Service Tax - Export of Services - Refund claim on the ground that the service provided under the category of "consulting Engineers Services" was an export of services and not leviable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 as the services were consumed outside India - The Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to file the refund claim duly completed in all respects. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner's communication was only an interim and administrative communication and not an order - Dept case that since payment for said services has not been received in convertible foreign exchange as stipulated in Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005, the condition required to be fulfilled for treating as export of services had not been fulfilled – HELD - The CESTAT held that since the services were rendered and consumed outside India, the service was beyond the taxable territory of India under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawa-Ima- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. that for offshore services, there should be a sufficient nexus between the rendition of services and the territorial limits of India. Thus, so far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, in wake of the fact that the appellant has provided services outside India, and which is not disputed, and his claim on service being outside taxable territory of India, coupled with the fact that the transaction in question was outside taxable territory of India, no substantial question of law worth the name emanates from the present Tax Appeal – The tax appeal stands rejected [Read less]

GST - Pre-SCN consultative notice under Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Order-in-Original are not tenable due to the lack of a pre-SCN consultative notice in terms of Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 – HELD - The amended Rule 142(1A) of the 2017 Rules, which came into effect on 15th October, 2020, replaced the word 'SHALL' with 'MAY' with respect to the issuance of a pre-SCN consultative notice. After this amendment, the issuance of a pre-SCN consultative notice is not mandatory, especially in cases of large-scale fraudulent availment of ITC involving multiple ... [Read more]

GST - Pre-SCN consultative notice under Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Order-in-Original are not tenable due to the lack of a pre-SCN consultative notice in terms of Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 – HELD - The amended Rule 142(1A) of the 2017 Rules, which came into effect on 15th October, 2020, replaced the word 'SHALL' with 'MAY' with respect to the issuance of a pre-SCN consultative notice. After this amendment, the issuance of a pre-SCN consultative notice is not mandatory, especially in cases of large-scale fraudulent availment of ITC involving multiple entities. In such complex transactions worth crores of Rupees, a pre-consultative notice would be meaningless, and parties usually do not voluntarily deposit the illegally obtained amounts even when searches are conducted. Therefore, the lack of a pre-SCN consultative notice does not render the impugned SCN and Order-in-Original as not tenable - The challenge to Notification No.79/2022-Central Tax is already pending before the Court in a separate writ petition and the decision in that case would bind the further proceedings in the present case - The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

In terms of Sec.10(1)(a) of IGST Act, the place of supply involving movement of goods shall be the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.

Central Excise – Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Transportation of goods – Eligibility to avail credit – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of various types of paper – Department issued show cause notice alleging that input service credit availed by Appellant on transportation of goods on basis of railway receipts and Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods (STTG Certificates) issued by Indian Railways for period prior to 27-8-2014 is inadmissible – Principal Commissioner disallowed CENVAT Credit availed by Appellant – Whether disallowance of credit ordered in impugned order is sustainab... [Read more]

Central Excise – Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Transportation of goods – Eligibility to avail credit – Appellant is engaged in manufacture of various types of paper – Department issued show cause notice alleging that input service credit availed by Appellant on transportation of goods on basis of railway receipts and Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods (STTG Certificates) issued by Indian Railways for period prior to 27-8-2014 is inadmissible – Principal Commissioner disallowed CENVAT Credit availed by Appellant – Whether disallowance of credit ordered in impugned order is sustainable – HELD – Appellant had been availing CENVAT Credit in respect of transportation of goods in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules on basis of railway receipts and STTG certificates issued by Indian Railways. STTG Certificates issued by Railways have been prescribed as a valid document for availing credit with effect from 27-8-2014 vide amendment brought out in Rule 9(1) of the Rules. STTG Certificate issued prior to 27-8-2014 was also a valid document for availing CENVAT Credit, as same contains all details as prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Rules. Appellant is eligible for availing credit on basis of railway receipts and STTG Certificates issued by Indian Railways for period prior to 27-8-2014. Disallowance of credit ordered in impugned order is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Customs – Import of goods – Demand of safeguard duty – Sustainability – Appellant imported Solar Photovoltaic Cells from Taiwan vide four bills of entry and claimed exemption of Safeguard Duty in terms of Notification No.19/2016-Customs – Proper officer granted exemption claimed by Appellant – Subsequently, Appellant imported 30 more consignments without payment of Safeguard Duty – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant is not eligible for exemption claimed towards Safeguard Duty – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Safeguard Duty – Whether impugned order confirming demand of ... [Read more]

Customs – Import of goods – Demand of safeguard duty – Sustainability – Appellant imported Solar Photovoltaic Cells from Taiwan vide four bills of entry and claimed exemption of Safeguard Duty in terms of Notification No.19/2016-Customs – Proper officer granted exemption claimed by Appellant – Subsequently, Appellant imported 30 more consignments without payment of Safeguard Duty – Department issued show cause notice alleging that Appellant is not eligible for exemption claimed towards Safeguard Duty – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Safeguard Duty – Whether impugned order confirming demand of Safeguard Duty is sustainable – HELD – After reassessment of four bills of entry filed by Appellant, consignments were allowed to be cleared without payment of any Safeguard Duty. In respect of subsequent 30 consignments imported by Appellant, Customs electronics system accepted self-assessment and did not raise any query about applicability of Safeguard Duty for such imports. If Revenue had any grievance in respect of re-assessed Bills of Entry or non-flagging of issue thereof in subsequent imports, it was for Revenue to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) to overturn the decision of lower authorities, but this was not done by them. Even on this ground alone, confirmed demand is not legally sustainable. Order under challenge is set aside – Appeal allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Sections 65(108) and 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Payment of technical meeting charges – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in printing and packaging business – Appellant made outward remittances in foreign currency towards annual membership fees to International Packaging Group (IPG) & International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) and pre-shipment inspection fees to Intertek – Department issued show cause notices proposing recovery of service tax by alleging that above payments constituted taxable imported services – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice –... [Read more]

Service Tax – Sections 65(108) and 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Payment of technical meeting charges – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in printing and packaging business – Appellant made outward remittances in foreign currency towards annual membership fees to International Packaging Group (IPG) & International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) and pre-shipment inspection fees to Intertek – Department issued show cause notices proposing recovery of service tax by alleging that above payments constituted taxable imported services – Adjudicating Authority confirmed demands as proposed in show cause notice – Whether annual membership/participation fees paid in foreign currency to IPG and IFPN are exigible to service tax – HELD – Appellant had paid participation fees and technical meeting charges to IPG/IFPN for attending periodic technical meetings held outside India. There was no evidence that IPG/IFPN have rendered any services to Appellant and condition of relationship of service recipient with service provider is absent. Services provided by a club or association to its own members remain outside ambit of service tax. Demand confirmed in respect of payments made by Appellant to IPG/IFPN is set aside – Appeals partly allowed - Payment of participation fees – Tax liability – Whether participation fees paid to British Safety Council for participating in sword of honour contest held abroad are exigible to service tax under the Act – HELD – Sword of Honour is an award scheme available to organisations that have achieved a five-star rating in their Five Star Occupational Health and Safety Audit. There is no evidence on record that during years of participation in contest, either Appellant have been awarded the honour in contest to show that services were imported into India. Transaction is an overseas contest/award adjudication performed outside India and does not fall within any taxable entry. Demand on this score is unsustainable and is set aside - Pre-shipment inspection charges – Demand of tax – Whether pre-shipment inspection charges paid to Intertek International Ltd. U.K. are exigible to service tax – HELD – Engagement between Appellant and Intertek emanates from a commercial contract, under which, Appellant obtained certification for its import consignments in order to facilitate acceptance of goods in importing country. Inspection and certification were performed by a private agency for a consideration. Activity bears the essential character of a technical inspection and certification service as understood in Section 65(108) of the Act. Payments made to Intertek attract service tax under category of Technical Inspection and Certification Service on a reverse charge basis. Demand confirmed in respect of pre-shipment inspection charges paid to Intertek is upheld - Invoking of extended period of limitation – Whether invocation of extended period of limitation is justified in facts and circumstances of case – HELD – Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act substitutes ordinary one year limitation by a longer period, where short-payment arises by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. Alleged non-payment came to light only pursuant to departmental audit and investigation. Appellant did not voluntarily disclose the disputed transactions nor did it place the relevant facts before Department at any earlier point. Appellant had not pleaded a bona fide legal doubt on taxability of transactions. Invocation of extended period of limitation is legally tenable. Appellant will be liable to pay tax for extended period together with interest. [Read less]

Service Tax – Export of Services or Intermediary Services - The Respondent-assessee is engaged in providing support services in India to foreign universities and institutions by arranging and facilitating student recruitment services - Whether the Respondent's services constitute "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules) and the place of provision of service is in India, or whether the services constitute "export of services" under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the place of provision is outside India – HELD - The Respondent directly provides serv... [Read more]

Service Tax – Export of Services or Intermediary Services - The Respondent-assessee is engaged in providing support services in India to foreign universities and institutions by arranging and facilitating student recruitment services - Whether the Respondent's services constitute "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS Rules) and the place of provision of service is in India, or whether the services constitute "export of services" under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the place of provision is outside India – HELD - The Respondent directly provides services to the foreign universities, with whom it has agreements, and does not merely arrange or facilitate the supply of services between two or more persons. The services rendered by the respondent constitute "export of services" under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the place of provision of service is outside India, the recipient of the service is located outside India, and the payment is received in convertible foreign exchange - The High Court relied on the decisions in Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Add. Commr. CGST Appeals-II, Delhi, K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr., S.T., Delhi-III, which held that a person who directly provides services is not an "intermediary" under the definition, and that the destination of services is determined by the location of the service recipient, not the service provider - The respondent's services do not qualify as "intermediary services" under Rule 2(f) of the POPS Rules. The CESTAT's order holding that the respondent's services constitute "export of services" is upheld - The Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility for CENVAT credit on use of Naphtha as fuel for generation of electricity within the factory - Appellant used Naphtha and furnace oil for generating electricity through gas turbine generators and steam turbine generators. The entire electricity generated from the gas turbine generator was used within the factory, while a small portion of the electricity generated from the steam turbine generator was wheeled out to the company's sister concerns - Whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on the Naphtha used as fuel for generation of electricity, including the portion wheeled out to sis... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility for CENVAT credit on use of Naphtha as fuel for generation of electricity within the factory - Appellant used Naphtha and furnace oil for generating electricity through gas turbine generators and steam turbine generators. The entire electricity generated from the gas turbine generator was used within the factory, while a small portion of the electricity generated from the steam turbine generator was wheeled out to the company's sister concerns - Whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on the Naphtha used as fuel for generation of electricity, including the portion wheeled out to sister concerns - HELD - It is not disputed by the Department that the electricity generated through the steam turbine is used for manufacture of final products within the factory premises. The definition of "input" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 includes goods used as fuel within the factory of production - Naphtha, when used in the first instance for generating electricity in the gas turbine generator, would fall within the contours of the definition of “input,” which includes goods used as fuel within the factory of production. However, the waste emerging from such usage viz. steam, which is again used for generating electricity, and a small quantity of which is wheeled outside the premises, would not attract the said definition - The emergence of by-products or waste products during the manufacturing process does not disentitle the manufacturer from availing CENVAT credit on the inputs used. Accordingly, the small quantity of electricity wheeled out to sister concerns was generated from the steam turbine, which was run on the waste steam generated during the use of Naphtha in the gas turbine generator, and hence, the credit on Naphtha cannot be denied on this ground - The CESTAT was incorrect in denying the CENVAT credit on Naphtha used as fuel for electricity generation within the factory – The Tribunal order is set side and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Recovery of pending dues before the statutory period of 90 days - Whether the authorities were justified in recovering the outstanding dues within a period of 17 days from the date of the order of the appellate authority, which was less than the statutory period of 3 months as provided under Section 78 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - The authorities were not justified in recovering the outstanding dues prior to the statutory period of 3 months as provided under Section 78 of the Act. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the demand as pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal, and therefore, the respondent... [Read more]

GST - Recovery of pending dues before the statutory period of 90 days - Whether the authorities were justified in recovering the outstanding dues within a period of 17 days from the date of the order of the appellate authority, which was less than the statutory period of 3 months as provided under Section 78 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - The authorities were not justified in recovering the outstanding dues prior to the statutory period of 3 months as provided under Section 78 of the Act. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the demand as pre-deposit for the purpose of filing an appeal, and therefore, the respondent authorities did not have the jurisdiction or authority to recover the remaining amount within the statutory period of 90 days - The impugned order passed by the appellate authority is set aside. The petition is allowed by remand [Read less]

Customs - Import of Acrylonitrile, Import permit, Registration requirements - Petitioners have been importing Acrylonitrile by classifying it under Tariff Item 29261000 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which specifically covers Acrylonitrile - Respondents insisted on the petitioners obtaining an import permit for Acrylonitrile under the Insecticides Act, 1968, despite the petitioners using it for non-insecticidal purposes in the manufacturing of their finished goods. The petitioners challenged the Public Notice issued by the respondents making it mandatory for them to obtain an import permit for Acrylonitrile for non-in... [Read more]

Customs - Import of Acrylonitrile, Import permit, Registration requirements - Petitioners have been importing Acrylonitrile by classifying it under Tariff Item 29261000 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which specifically covers Acrylonitrile - Respondents insisted on the petitioners obtaining an import permit for Acrylonitrile under the Insecticides Act, 1968, despite the petitioners using it for non-insecticidal purposes in the manufacturing of their finished goods. The petitioners challenged the Public Notice issued by the respondents making it mandatory for them to obtain an import permit for Acrylonitrile for non-insecticidal use - Whether the petitioners can be compelled to obtain an import permit for Acrylonitrile under the Insecticides Act, 1968, when they are using it for non-insecticidal purposes – HELD - The provisions of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, clearly exempt the import of any substance specified in the Schedule of the Act if it is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds, and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings. Since the petitioners have established that they are using Acrylonitrile, which is a substance specified in the Schedule of the Act, for the purpose of manufacturing synthetic rubbers, which is a non-insecticidal use, the provisions of the Act, including the requirement of registration and import permit, do not apply to them - The Kerala High Court in the case of The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. M. Chandrasekhar, held that the provisions of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, exempt the import of substances like Ethylene Di-Chloride (EDC) for non-insecticidal purposes from the requirement of an import permit - The Public Notice F. No. 04-01/2022-CIR-I dated 17.02.2022 is set aside to the extent it applies to the import of Acrylonitrile by the petitioners, as the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 – The petitions are allowed [Read less]

GST - Non-filling of vehicle registration number in Part-B of e-way bill - The goods were intercepted and penalty was levied as the Part-B of the e-way bill did not contain the vehicle registration number - Whether non-filling of vehicle registration number in Part-B of the e-way bill can attract a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/KGST Act or only a general penalty under Section 125 can be levied – HELD - The non-filling of the vehicle registration number in Part-B of the e-way bill is a curable defect and does not invalidate the e-way bill, especially when all other documents match the goods and vehicle - In the ab... [Read more]

GST - Non-filling of vehicle registration number in Part-B of e-way bill - The goods were intercepted and penalty was levied as the Part-B of the e-way bill did not contain the vehicle registration number - Whether non-filling of vehicle registration number in Part-B of the e-way bill can attract a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/KGST Act or only a general penalty under Section 125 can be levied – HELD - The non-filling of the vehicle registration number in Part-B of the e-way bill is a curable defect and does not invalidate the e-way bill, especially when all other documents match the goods and vehicle - In the absence of any material to show malafide intention or an intent to evade tax, such non-filling of the vehicle number cannot attract a penalty under Section 129. Instead, at most, a general penalty under Section 125 can be levied. The first appellate authority had correctly appreciated the facts and law in reducing the penalty, and the revisional authority erred in restoring the original penalty order - The order passed by the revisional authority is set aside and the appellate order is restored. The respondents are directed to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner, except the general penalty of Rs. 25,000 - The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Adjustment of pre-deposit against payment made under protest - The petitioner made payment under protest during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 had not been made – HELD - The Supreme Court in VVF (India) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra case held that any amount deposited under protest prior to an order of assessment/adjudication can be adjusted against the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The Respondent er... [Read more]

GST - Adjustment of pre-deposit against payment made under protest - The petitioner made payment under protest during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the mandatory 10% pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 had not been made – HELD - The Supreme Court in VVF (India) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra case held that any amount deposited under protest prior to an order of assessment/adjudication can be adjusted against the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The Respondent erred in not considering the pre-deposit made by the petitioner during the adjudication proceedings. Further, the additional payment made by the petitioner towards mandatory pre-deposit by utilising the balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger is also permissible and the same would constitute a valid pre-deposit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent to reconsider the appeal on merits without insisting on any additional pre-deposit – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Contravention of Rules 12(1) and 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 - Validity of 'H' Form covering transactions of more than one quarter – HELD – The Rule 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules adopts the provisions applicable to the 'C' Form mutatis mutandis to the 'H' Form. The second proviso to Rule 12(1) allows a single declaration in the 'C' Form to cover all transactions of sale taking place in a quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers. By virtue of Rule 12(10)(b), this provision applies to the 'H' Form as well. The Circ... [Read more]

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Contravention of Rules 12(1) and 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 - Validity of 'H' Form covering transactions of more than one quarter – HELD – The Rule 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (R&T) Rules adopts the provisions applicable to the 'C' Form mutatis mutandis to the 'H' Form. The second proviso to Rule 12(1) allows a single declaration in the 'C' Form to cover all transactions of sale taking place in a quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers. By virtue of Rule 12(10)(b), this provision applies to the 'H' Form as well. The Circular dated 11.04.2014, which relaxes the requirement of the second proviso to Rule 12(1) and allows declarations in the 'C' Form covering transactions beyond a single quarter, would equally govern the 'H' Form under Rule 12(10). Therefore, the 'H' Form covering transactions of more than one quarter cannot be held invalid – The Rule 12(10) does not mandate that the ‘H’ Form record transactions of sale for a single quarter of a financial year only – Further, The Circular dated 11.04.2014, in relaxation of the requirement of the second proviso to Rule 12(1), allows declarations covering transactions of sale that take place over more than one quarter of a financial year. Although the Circular refers specifically to the ‘C’ Form, a conjoint reading of Rule 12(1) and Rule 12(10) indicates that the circular issued regarding the ‘C’ Form applies mutatis mutandis to the ‘H’ Form. Hence, the Circular dated 11.04.2014 equally governs the ‘H’ Form under Rule 12(10) - The view taken by the Appellate Authority is one of the possible views, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not warranted merely on the ground that an alternative view is available - The order of the revisional authority is set aside, and the order in appeal passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) is restored - The appeal is allowed [Read less]