More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Custom - Hazardous goods & hazardous waste - appellant imported "Solvent Based Paints (Stock Lot)" which were confiscated by the Department on the ground that the goods were hazardous waste under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and prior permission was required for their import - denial of cross-examination of the expert witness - Whether the imported goods were rightly classified as hazardous waste – HELD - the conclusion that the goods were hazardous waste was not based on any chemical test or analysis, but solely on the warning labels on the containers - mere presen... [Read more]

Custom - Hazardous goods & hazardous waste - appellant imported "Solvent Based Paints (Stock Lot)" which were confiscated by the Department on the ground that the goods were hazardous waste under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and prior permission was required for their import - denial of cross-examination of the expert witness - Whether the imported goods were rightly classified as hazardous waste – HELD - the conclusion that the goods were hazardous waste was not based on any chemical test or analysis, but solely on the warning labels on the containers - mere presence of words like "hazardous", "flammable", "poison" on the containers does not automatically make the goods "hazardous waste" under the Rules, 2016. Further, the denial of cross-examination of the expert witness, particularly when his opinion was the sole basis for the classification, was a violation of principles of natural justice - The fact that the appellant had imported similar goods at other ports without any objection also lent credence to the appellant's submission that the goods were not hazardous waste - the impugned order is set aside by holding that the goods were not rightly classified as hazardous waste – the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Generation of electricity using coal as fuel - whether the fly ash generated during the burning of coal for power generation is a "manufactured goods" and, therefore, liable to excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - the fly ash generated during the burning of coal for power generation does not amount to "manufacture" as the coal is not a raw material for the end product (fly ash), but is used solely as a fuel for the generation of electricity - the burning of coal for the purpose of generating power and the emergence of fly ash in this process does not amount to manufacture, as the fly a... [Read more]

Central Excise - Generation of electricity using coal as fuel - whether the fly ash generated during the burning of coal for power generation is a "manufactured goods" and, therefore, liable to excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - the fly ash generated during the burning of coal for power generation does not amount to "manufacture" as the coal is not a raw material for the end product (fly ash), but is used solely as a fuel for the generation of electricity - the burning of coal for the purpose of generating power and the emergence of fly ash in this process does not amount to manufacture, as the fly ash is generated inevitably and not as a result of a manufacturing process - the fly ash generated by the appellant during the burning of coal for power generation is not a "manufactured goods" and not liable to excise duty – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Classification of Service - Call Centre Service, Business Auxiliary Service – appellant is engaged in providing customer care service to M/s Spice Communications Limited - Dept held that a part of the service rendered by the appellant would fall under Call Centre Service, which is exempt, and thereby, restricting Cenvat credit upto 20% - appellant contended that its customer services were not for the purpose of sales, telemarketing or payments and therefore, it cannot be described as call centre as defined under Notification No. 8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - Whether the service rendered by the appellant wo... [Read more]

Service Tax – Classification of Service - Call Centre Service, Business Auxiliary Service – appellant is engaged in providing customer care service to M/s Spice Communications Limited - Dept held that a part of the service rendered by the appellant would fall under Call Centre Service, which is exempt, and thereby, restricting Cenvat credit upto 20% - appellant contended that its customer services were not for the purpose of sales, telemarketing or payments and therefore, it cannot be described as call centre as defined under Notification No. 8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - Whether the service rendered by the appellant would fall under Call Centre Service or Business Auxiliary Service – invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD - the appellant's service was for providing customer care service, including registration of complaints, monitoring of the same till resolution, and collection of payments on behalf of the client, which are covered under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service - the service rendered by the appellant under the agreement with M/s Spice Communications Limited would fall under Business Auxiliary Service, and not Call Centre Service – further, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case as the Department was aware of the activities of the appellant since the audits conducted in 2005 and 2007, and the Department failed to establish any of the ingredients required for invoking the extended period of limitation, such as fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of the provisions with the intent to evade payment of service tax - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Proportionate Reversal of Cenvat Credit on unsold flats - appellant is engaged in the development of a real estate project and had undertaken the redevelopment of an existing housing society - appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on various input services - Department issued a show-cause notice proposing the proportional recovery of CENVAT Credit in respect of the unsold flats on the date of the completion certificate – Demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit availed on the input services used for the construction of the flats that later acquired the status of immovable property – HELD -... [Read more]

Service Tax – Proportionate Reversal of Cenvat Credit on unsold flats - appellant is engaged in the development of a real estate project and had undertaken the redevelopment of an existing housing society - appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on various input services - Department issued a show-cause notice proposing the proportional recovery of CENVAT Credit in respect of the unsold flats on the date of the completion certificate – Demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit availed on the input services used for the construction of the flats that later acquired the status of immovable property – HELD - the entitlement to CENVAT Credit has to be examined at the time of receipt of input services, and the subsequent conversion of a portion of the property into immovable property is irrelevant for the purpose of CENVAT Credit eligibility - consistent view has taken by this Tribunal and the High Courts that the denial of CENVAT Credit on this ground is impermissible – further, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case as the issue is purely interpretative in nature – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Valuation - Whether the accommodation provided by the service recipient-appellant to the security personnel of the service provider should be included in the taxable value of the security service - Department sought to include the notional value of the accommodation as part of the taxable value of the security service for the purpose of levy of service tax – HELD - as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the consideration for the purpose of service tax would include only the amount payable for the taxable service provided. In the present case, since there was no evidence of the servi... [Read more]

Service Tax – Valuation - Whether the accommodation provided by the service recipient-appellant to the security personnel of the service provider should be included in the taxable value of the security service - Department sought to include the notional value of the accommodation as part of the taxable value of the security service for the purpose of levy of service tax – HELD - as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the consideration for the purpose of service tax would include only the amount payable for the taxable service provided. In the present case, since there was no evidence of the service recipient paying any amount towards the accommodation provided to the security personnel, the same cannot be treated as part of the consideration and thus, cannot be included in the taxable value - the accommodation provided by the service recipient to the security personnel is not required to be included in the taxable value of the security service - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Classification of Service - appellant is engaged in assisting fire safety service to handle any emergency arising at the client's premises and to maintain fire and safety equipment in working condition - Department viewed that the appellant is providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Whether the activities undertaken by the appellant fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the appellant is liable to pay service tax – HELD - the appellant has taken contract for assisting various industrial units in maintaini... [Read more]

Service Tax – Classification of Service - appellant is engaged in assisting fire safety service to handle any emergency arising at the client's premises and to maintain fire and safety equipment in working condition - Department viewed that the appellant is providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Whether the activities undertaken by the appellant fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the appellant is liable to pay service tax – HELD - the appellant has taken contract for assisting various industrial units in maintaining of fire fighting maintenance and detection service including the maintenance and upkeep of fire fighting equipment installed at the various factory premises, and the payment is on a monthly lump-sum basis – in the work order, there is no contract for providing man power and the same is for specific purpose for fire fighting and to handle any emergent situation as well as for maintenance and keeping the fire fighting equipments in good condition - when the contract between the service provider and service recipient is of contract manufacturing, the demand under manpower supply cannot be made - impugned order-in-appeal is set-aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid on ocean freight charges pursuant to Gujarat High Court order holding levy of service tax on ocean freight as ultra vires - appellant filed refund claim for the amount paid, which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act – HELD - the refund claim filed by the appellant is within the limitation period as per the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which specifically deals with refund of taxes paid under the erstwhile laws - The Bombay High Court in Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. held... [Read more]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid on ocean freight charges pursuant to Gujarat High Court order holding levy of service tax on ocean freight as ultra vires - appellant filed refund claim for the amount paid, which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act – HELD - the refund claim filed by the appellant is within the limitation period as per the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which specifically deals with refund of taxes paid under the erstwhile laws - The Bombay High Court in Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. held that the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act override the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - the appellant is entitled to the refund of the service tax paid on ocean freight charges, as the levy was held to be ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – SEZ Unit – Refund – Respondent is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, claimed a service tax refund on services received for authorized operations within the SEZ - Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ, as the assessee was also engaged in operations outside the SEZ in DTA – Revenue’s contention is that since services related to erection, installation of transmission line for the transmission of power which is generated in the SEZ, the said transmission line is located outside SEZ area, it cannot be said that the service was exclusively... [Read more]

Service Tax – SEZ Unit – Refund – Respondent is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, claimed a service tax refund on services received for authorized operations within the SEZ - Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ, as the assessee was also engaged in operations outside the SEZ in DTA – Revenue’s contention is that since services related to erection, installation of transmission line for the transmission of power which is generated in the SEZ, the said transmission line is located outside SEZ area, it cannot be said that the service was exclusively used in the authorized operation of SEZ - HELD - the services received by the SEZ Developer for authorized operations in the SEZ are eligible for full service tax refund, despite the fact that the generated electricity was also supplied to DTA - the supply of surplus power to DTA as per Rule 47 of the SEZ Rules cannot be construed as the assessee carrying on any business other than operations in the SEZ - There is a distinction between "sales in DTA" under the SEZ Rules and "carrying on any business other than operations in SEZ" under the relevant service tax notification - the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the full refund of service tax refund claim on the services received for authorized operations in the SEZ, is upheld – Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - Appellant discharged service tax at the rate of 6.18% (50% of the applicable rate of 12.36%) under Notification No.30/2012-ST, claiming the benefit of the works contract service - appellant paid 50% of the tax due and the remaining 50% was paid by the service recipient - Revenue of the view that the bills raised by the appellant were for "Cleaning" and "Kiln Recanting Work", which did not fall under the category of works contract service, and hence the appellant was not eligible for the 50% rate under the notification – HELD - once the tax liability is discharged, regardless of the ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Works Contract Service - Appellant discharged service tax at the rate of 6.18% (50% of the applicable rate of 12.36%) under Notification No.30/2012-ST, claiming the benefit of the works contract service - appellant paid 50% of the tax due and the remaining 50% was paid by the service recipient - Revenue of the view that the bills raised by the appellant were for "Cleaning" and "Kiln Recanting Work", which did not fall under the category of works contract service, and hence the appellant was not eligible for the 50% rate under the notification – HELD - once the tax liability is discharged, regardless of the person who discharged it, the assessee cannot be asked to pay the tax again - Where the government has received the entire amount of tax, the assessee cannot be called upon to make payment, even if it had deposited some portion of the tax dues and the remaining portion was deposited by the service provider - the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Citi Bank N.A., held that when it comes to the question relating to taxing a single service, it is clear that there cannot be taxation more than once. Therefore, since the appellant had paid 50% of the tax due and the remaining 50% had been paid by the service recipient, the entire tax liability had been discharged, and there was no loss to the revenue for which they could claim that the duty had been short paid - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of Service Tax – appellant paid service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis for 'Goods Transport Operator Services' rendered between 1997 to 1999. The payment was made during March, April & October, 2002 for the Service Tax liability arising in the previous years - Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of the Service Tax amount paid, as the High Court had quashed the interest demand – HELD - the appellant had deposited the entire Service Tax amount without paying it "under protest". Even before the High Court, the appellant did not contest the basic Service Tax paid by them, but were only ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of Service Tax – appellant paid service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis for 'Goods Transport Operator Services' rendered between 1997 to 1999. The payment was made during March, April & October, 2002 for the Service Tax liability arising in the previous years - Whether the appellant is eligible for refund of the Service Tax amount paid, as the High Court had quashed the interest demand – HELD - the appellant had deposited the entire Service Tax amount without paying it "under protest". Even before the High Court, the appellant did not contest the basic Service Tax paid by them, but were only litigating the confirmed demand on account of interest. The High Court had only quashed the interest demand, and not the Service Tax liability itself - the appellant, being the user of the Goods Transport Operator services, is liable to pay the Service Tax. Since the appellant had already paid the Service Tax, they are not entitled to a refund – the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise – Classification of Activated Earth, Washed Clay – Respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacturing and clearance of 'Washed Clay' under the trade name 'BLEACH-9' - Department of the view that the product 'Activated Earth' or 'Washed Clay' or 'Bleach-9 Earth' manufactured by the respondent is rightly classifiable under chapter sub heading 38.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - assessee claimed that the product 'Bleach-9' is rightly classifiable under chapter sub heading 25.05 as 'Mineral substances not elsewhere specified (including clay, earth colours, natural abrasives, sulphurs, slate and stone... [Read more]

Central Excise – Classification of Activated Earth, Washed Clay – Respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacturing and clearance of 'Washed Clay' under the trade name 'BLEACH-9' - Department of the view that the product 'Activated Earth' or 'Washed Clay' or 'Bleach-9 Earth' manufactured by the respondent is rightly classifiable under chapter sub heading 38.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - assessee claimed that the product 'Bleach-9' is rightly classifiable under chapter sub heading 25.05 as 'Mineral substances not elsewhere specified (including clay, earth colours, natural abrasives, sulphurs, slate and stone)', which attracts NIL rate of duty - Whether the product 'Bleach-9' is classifiable under chapter sub heading 38.02 ('Activated carbon; activated natural mineral products') or chapter sub heading 25.05 ('Mineral substances not elsewhere specified (including clay, earth colours, natural abrasives, sulphurs, slate and stone)') of the CETA, 1985 – HELD - the adjudicating authority has rightly concluded that the product 'Bleach-9' manufactured by the respondent assessee is classifiable under chapter sub heading 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as 'Mineral substances not elsewhere specified (including clay, earth colours, natural abrasives, sulphurs, slate and stone)' - the technical opinion obtained from experts concluded that the 'Bleach-9' is raw clay and not 'Activated Clay/Earth', and that the properties of the raw clay washed with water would not differ from the natural clay - the department did not adduce any evidence to contradict these technical findings, and therefore, the product 'Bleach-9' is correctly classified under chapter sub heading 25.05 attracting NIL rate of duty - the classification of the product 'Bleach-9' under chapter sub heading 25.05 of the CETA, 1985, is upheld and Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Director's liability - Petitioner had purchased a property from the 5th respondent, who was director of the 6th respondent-company. The 6th respondent company was under liquidation and had arrears of sales tax under the APGST Act, 1957 – Respondent declared the purchase of the property by the petitioner as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act, on the ground that the transaction was done to evade payment of tax - Whether the proceedings under Section 17-A of the APGST Act, 1957 declaring the sale of property as void are valid – HELD - Section 16-B of the APGST Act, 1957 p... [Read more]

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Director's liability - Petitioner had purchased a property from the 5th respondent, who was director of the 6th respondent-company. The 6th respondent company was under liquidation and had arrears of sales tax under the APGST Act, 1957 – Respondent declared the purchase of the property by the petitioner as void under Section 17-A of the APGST Act, on the ground that the transaction was done to evade payment of tax - Whether the proceedings under Section 17-A of the APGST Act, 1957 declaring the sale of property as void are valid – HELD - Section 16-B of the APGST Act, 1957 provides that the director of a private company under liquidation can be held liable for the company's tax dues, but only after being given an opportunity to demonstrate that the non-payment of tax was not due to his negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. In the present case, no such opportunity was given to the 5th respondent, who was the director of the 6th respondent company - in the absence of fixation of tax liability on the 6th respondent company and non-recovery of the same from the 5th respondent, the proceedings under Section 17-A were premature - the proceedings under Section 17-A could be initiated again, provided the tax liability of the 6th respondent company is first fixed on the 5th respondent and he is given an opportunity to demonstrate that he is not liable for the non-payment - the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Classification of Electric Kettle, Incomplete/Unfinished Goods - Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of Import Tariff - respondent cleared imported goods declared as parts of an electric kettle, which were classified by the assessing officer as a complete electric kettle under Customs Tariff Item 8516 71 00 - the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and held that the imported goods should be classified as parts of an electric kettle under Customs Tariff Item 8516 90 00 - Whether the imported goods should be classified as a complete electric kettle or as parts of an electric kettle, in light o... [Read more]

Customs – Classification of Electric Kettle, Incomplete/Unfinished Goods - Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of Import Tariff - respondent cleared imported goods declared as parts of an electric kettle, which were classified by the assessing officer as a complete electric kettle under Customs Tariff Item 8516 71 00 - the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and held that the imported goods should be classified as parts of an electric kettle under Customs Tariff Item 8516 90 00 - Whether the imported goods should be classified as a complete electric kettle or as parts of an electric kettle, in light of the provisions of General Interpretative Rule 2(a) – HELD - the imported goods, comprising the kettle body, plastic lid, thermostat, base plastic top, and base plastic bottom, should be classified as a complete electric kettle under Customs Tariff Item 8516 71 00, in accordance with General Interpretative Rule 2(a) - even though the respondent required additional parts such as the kettle controller, sensor, electric wire, and ISI plug to assemble a complete electric kettle, the imported goods had the essential characteristics of a complete electric kettle, which is to heat water using electricity and turn off the heating when the required temperature is reached - under GIR 2(a), incomplete or unfinished articles that have the essential character of the complete article should be classified as the complete article, and that the lack of certain parts does not preclude the classification of the imported goods as a complete electric kettle – the impugned order is set aside appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Refund of CENVAT credit - Transitional provisions - appellant filed refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit which arose due to upward revision of the appellant's June 2017 ER-1 return, which was later paid by the appellant along with interest under the audit objection - Rejection of refund on the grounds that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and that there was no provision for cash refund of CENVAT credit under the existing law - Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act 2017 read ... [Read more]

Central Excise – Refund of CENVAT credit - Transitional provisions - appellant filed refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit which arose due to upward revision of the appellant's June 2017 ER-1 return, which was later paid by the appellant along with interest under the audit objection - Rejection of refund on the grounds that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 and that there was no provision for cash refund of CENVAT credit under the existing law - Whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act 2017 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 – HELD – the Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act 2017 provides for refund of CENVAT credit found admissible to the assessee in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the existing law, except the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - the CENVAT credit scheme was intended to provide for input tax neutralization, and therefore, the denial of cash refund solely on the basis that there is no specific provision for cash refund under the CENVAT rules is not legally sustainable - cash refund of CENVAT credit is permissible under the transitional provisions of Section 142 of the CGST Act 2017. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act 2017 – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Refund of CENVAT credit reversed in excess - appellants had excess CENVAT credit which they had provisionally reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during April-June 2017 - After the end of the financial year, it was found that the quantum of provisional reversal was in excess of the actual reversal warranted - appellants filed a refund claim for the excess CENVAT credit - Whether the appellants are eligible for refund of the excess CENVAT credit in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD – the Section 142(3) o... [Read more]

Central Excise – Refund of CENVAT credit reversed in excess - appellants had excess CENVAT credit which they had provisionally reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during April-June 2017 - After the end of the financial year, it was found that the quantum of provisional reversal was in excess of the actual reversal warranted - appellants filed a refund claim for the excess CENVAT credit - Whether the appellants are eligible for refund of the excess CENVAT credit in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD – the Section 142(3) of the CGST Act specifically provides that every claim for refund of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the existing law, and any amount eventually accruing to the claimant shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the existing law, except the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the objective of the CENVAT credit scheme was to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes and enable seamless flow of credit, and that denying cash refund of excess CENVAT credit would render the phrase "CENVAT credit" in Section 142(3) of the CGST Act otiose – further, the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act mandates that any amount accruing to the claimant shall be paid in cash. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to refund of the excess CENVAT credit in cash - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund of excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 – appellant reversed CENVAT credit attributable to exempt services on a provisional basis under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The final reversal amount was less than the provisional reversal, resulting in excess CENVAT credit - The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appellant is eligible for cash refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of t... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 – appellant reversed CENVAT credit attributable to exempt services on a provisional basis under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The final reversal amount was less than the provisional reversal, resulting in excess CENVAT credit - The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appellant is eligible for cash refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - the Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically provides for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or any other amount paid under the existing law to be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law - the CENVAT credit scheme was introduced to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes, and the transitional provisions under the CGST Act were meant to ensure a smooth transition from the earlier indirect tax regime to the GST regime - denying cash refund of the excess CENVAT credit solely on the ground that there is no specific provision for such refund under the CENVAT Credit Rules is not legally sustainable - the appellant is eligible for cash refund of the excess CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Export of goods, time limit for filing refund claims – appellant filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services used for export of goods, such as banking/courier/commission to foreign agent. The refund claims were partly allowed and partly rejected by the authorities - Whether the refund claim in respect of service tax paid on services provided by the Commission Agency located outside India, for the period April, 2009 to June, 2009, is admissible – HELD - as per the Instruction dated 1-1-2010 the refund scheme under the superseding Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 would be applic... [Read more]

Service Tax – Export of goods, time limit for filing refund claims – appellant filed refund claims for service tax paid on input services used for export of goods, such as banking/courier/commission to foreign agent. The refund claims were partly allowed and partly rejected by the authorities - Whether the refund claim in respect of service tax paid on services provided by the Commission Agency located outside India, for the period April, 2009 to June, 2009, is admissible – HELD - as per the Instruction dated 1-1-2010 the refund scheme under the superseding Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 would be applicable even for exports prior to its issuance, subject to the conditions that the refund claim is filed within one year from the date of export, and that no previous refund claim has been filed - In the present case, the appellant had fulfilled these two conditions, and therefore, the refund claim should not have been rejected. The conditions relating to submission of returns, ceiling limit of refund, and export of canalized items were not applicable in the present case - the refund claim filed by the appellant on 31.03.2010 for the period April-June 2009 is admissible – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Export of Services, Service Tax – Demand under Consulting Engineers Services on contracts entered into with foreign principals - Non-payment of service tax on various services provided during the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011, in relation to various projects - Whether the services rendered by the appellant as "Consulting Engineer" qualified to be export, during the period 01.04.2006 to 24.02.2009, under Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 – Liability to pay service tax on "Club or Association Service" and "other services" received during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 - extended period - HELD - ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Export of Services, Service Tax – Demand under Consulting Engineers Services on contracts entered into with foreign principals - Non-payment of service tax on various services provided during the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011, in relation to various projects - Whether the services rendered by the appellant as "Consulting Engineer" qualified to be export, during the period 01.04.2006 to 24.02.2009, under Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 – Liability to pay service tax on "Club or Association Service" and "other services" received during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 - extended period - HELD - the services rendered by the appellant to their overseas entities by preparing the drawings and designs and uploading the same to the Central Repository through the WAN for use by their overseas entities, irrespective of the fact whether the same drawings and designs were ultimately supplied to projects in India by their overseas entities, constitute export of services during the impugned period - the Tribunal’s decision in the cases of M/s Arcelor Mittal Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. and Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. held that the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance, and the phrase "used outside India" is to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India – Further, the payment made towards the use of professional associations and clubs abroad, which were utilized by the officers or employees of the company when they visited abroad for their professional work, cannot be taxed in India as the service was rendered and utilized abroad - no case for levy of penalty has been made as the appellant had a bonafide belief that the services being rendered to overseas entities are not taxable, and the department itself was in doubt and had to issue a series of circulars on the issue - demand of service tax which is already paid by the appellant, is confirmed, and the rest of the demand is set aside. All the penalties are set aside - the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Customs Duty - Countervailing Duty, Special Economic Zone, Immunity from Prosecution – appellant was accused by the CBI of entering into a criminal conspiracy with officials of the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) to evade payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on goods cleared from the KASEZ unit into the Domestic Tariff Area - appellant company was granted immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Settlement Commission. However, the trial court took cognizance of the case and dismissed the appellant's application for discharge - Whether... [Read more]

Customs Duty - Countervailing Duty, Special Economic Zone, Immunity from Prosecution – appellant was accused by the CBI of entering into a criminal conspiracy with officials of the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) to evade payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on goods cleared from the KASEZ unit into the Domestic Tariff Area - appellant company was granted immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Settlement Commission. However, the trial court took cognizance of the case and dismissed the appellant's application for discharge - Whether the appellant company was entitled to immunity from prosecution in view of the Settlement Commission's order granting it immunity – HELD - mere registration of an FIR does not constitute the initiation of prosecution and it is only after the filing of a chargesheet that cognizance is taken by the court. In this case, the appellant company had been granted immunity by the Settlement Commission prior to the registration of the FIR, and this immunity barred the prosecution from proceeding against the company – Further, the Commissioner (Appels) had found that the appellant company was not required to pay CVD based on the MRP, but on the invoice value, and the company was entitled to a refund of the amount paid. In light of these findings, the prosecution against the appellant company amounted to an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings against the company are quashed – the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Classification of coin blanks of copper alloys/ strips of copper/ coils of zinc & nickel, DTA Clearances – appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of coin blanks of copper alloys/strips of copper/coils of zinc & nickel - appellants classified the blanks manufactured by them under CETH 74094000 as copper plates, sheets and strips - Dept of the view that the coin blanks are classifiable under CETH 7419 as articles of copper, and consequently demanded duty on the DTA clearances, denied the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.23/2003, and imposed education cess and penalty – eligibil... [Read more]

Central Excise – Classification of coin blanks of copper alloys/ strips of copper/ coils of zinc & nickel, DTA Clearances – appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of coin blanks of copper alloys/strips of copper/coils of zinc & nickel - appellants classified the blanks manufactured by them under CETH 74094000 as copper plates, sheets and strips - Dept of the view that the coin blanks are classifiable under CETH 7419 as articles of copper, and consequently demanded duty on the DTA clearances, denied the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.23/2003, and imposed education cess and penalty – eligibility to benefit under Para 6.8(a) of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 – HELD - the coin blanks are classifiable under CETH 7419 as they have attained the essential character of an article, having a distinctive shape, size, and character, and are used specifically for minting coins - though for the purpose of classification, coin blanks and copper strips are classified separately, they are similar goods for the purpose of Para 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy, and the appellants are entitled to the DTA clearance benefit - the demand of education cess is set aside as it was already included in the computation of the aggregate customs duties, and penalty is also set aside the penalty as the issue involved legal interpretation - The classification of the coin blanks under CETH 7419 is upheld. The demand of duty on DTA clearances is set aside. The demands of education cess and penalty are also set aside - The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Intermediary Services or Export of Services - Extended Period of Limitation - appellant is an immigration consultant providing visa consultancy services to clients -Department alleged that the appellant's services fall under the ambit of 'Intermediary Services' – Demand of service tax along with interest and penalties invoking extended period - appellant contended that its services are 'Export of Services' and not 'Intermediary Services' - Whether the services provided by the appellant amount to 'Intermediary Services' or 'Export of Services' – HELD - after considering the definition of 'Intermediary Serv... [Read more]

Service Tax - Intermediary Services or Export of Services - Extended Period of Limitation - appellant is an immigration consultant providing visa consultancy services to clients -Department alleged that the appellant's services fall under the ambit of 'Intermediary Services' – Demand of service tax along with interest and penalties invoking extended period - appellant contended that its services are 'Export of Services' and not 'Intermediary Services' - Whether the services provided by the appellant amount to 'Intermediary Services' or 'Export of Services' – HELD - after considering the definition of 'Intermediary Services' as per the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and the various judicial precedents, it is held that the services provided by the appellant do not fall under the ambit of 'Intermediary Services' but are rather 'Export of Services' - in the appellant's own case, it was held that the appellant's referral services to foreign banks and universities are in the nature of 'Export of Services' and not 'Intermediary Services' - the extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as the activities carried out by the appellant were in the knowledge of the department. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Difference in Turnover between ITR and ST-3 Return – Recovery of service tax based on the difference in the turnover shown in the ITR and the taxable value declared in the ST-3 returns - HELD - the entire show cause notice did not discuss the nature of the service and its taxability. The demand was confirmed solely based on the information gathered from the Income Tax Department, without any proper enquiry or analysis of the nature of the activity rendered by the appellant - the demand based on Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS, without proper enquiry and analysis, is not sustainable – further, the burden ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Difference in Turnover between ITR and ST-3 Return – Recovery of service tax based on the difference in the turnover shown in the ITR and the taxable value declared in the ST-3 returns - HELD - the entire show cause notice did not discuss the nature of the service and its taxability. The demand was confirmed solely based on the information gathered from the Income Tax Department, without any proper enquiry or analysis of the nature of the activity rendered by the appellant - the demand based on Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS, without proper enquiry and analysis, is not sustainable – further, the burden to prove the allegations against the assessee rests on the department, which it has failed to discharge. The document relied upon by the department, i.e., the letter from the Additional Director General (EDW), Directorate General System & Data Management, Customs & Central Excise, was not produced by the assessee or seized from its premises, and hence, the presumption under Section 36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Time Limit for availing Input Tax Credit – Disallowance of input tax credit for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 – insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - matter needs to be reconsidered in light of the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which was made effective from 01.07.2017. The new sub-section (5) allows the registered person to take input tax credit in any return filed under Section 39 up to 30.11.2021, for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, notwithstanding the time limit prescribed under sub-section (4) - the order passed by the A... [Read more]

GST - Time Limit for availing Input Tax Credit – Disallowance of input tax credit for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 – insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - matter needs to be reconsidered in light of the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, which was made effective from 01.07.2017. The new sub-section (5) allows the registered person to take input tax credit in any return filed under Section 39 up to 30.11.2021, for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, notwithstanding the time limit prescribed under sub-section (4) - the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was in the absence of the consideration of the implication of the newly inserted sub-section (5) of Section 16 - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority to pass a fresh order, taking into consideration the implication of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act – the petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Scrutiny of Returns, Issue of multiple show cause notice - Petitioner seeking to quash two notices issued by the respondent under Section 61 of the JGST Act, 2017. The first notice sought an explanation regarding discrepancies in the quantity of stone/chips mining and dispatch, as well as the value of the dispatched stone chips, compared to the outward taxable supply declared in GSTR 3B and the second notice seeking further explanation regarding additional discrepancies related to inward supply value, IGST, CGST, and SGST - Whether the respondents had the jurisdiction to issue the second notice when the petitioner ... [Read more]

GST – Scrutiny of Returns, Issue of multiple show cause notice - Petitioner seeking to quash two notices issued by the respondent under Section 61 of the JGST Act, 2017. The first notice sought an explanation regarding discrepancies in the quantity of stone/chips mining and dispatch, as well as the value of the dispatched stone chips, compared to the outward taxable supply declared in GSTR 3B and the second notice seeking further explanation regarding additional discrepancies related to inward supply value, IGST, CGST, and SGST - Whether the respondents had the jurisdiction to issue the second notice when the petitioner had already responded to the first notice – HELD - since the petitioner had responded to the first notice, no prejudice was being caused to the petitioner in responding to the second notice - the second notice pointed out further discrepancies, and therefore, the petitioner should explain the alleged discrepancies as sought in the second notice for the authorities' consideration and follow-up action in accordance with the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act, 2017 - the writ petition is disposed of giving the petitioner liberty to explain the reasons sought in the second notice and the authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with the law – the petition is disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax - Multi-Modal Transport Operator, Reimbursement of Expenses, Financial Data Summary Sheets (FDSS) – Revenue appeal against the order of the CESTAT dropping demand of service tax on the income shown as non-taxable in the Financial Data Summary Sheets (FDSS) by the respondent, a Multi-Modal Transport Operator – HELD - The CESTAT had rightly observed that the demand cannot be sustained as it was based on obsolete provisions and under a category which ceased to exist. The non-taxable amount included customs duty, BAF & CAF charges, ocean freight and air freight, which were paid by the appellant on behalf of the... [Read more]

Service Tax - Multi-Modal Transport Operator, Reimbursement of Expenses, Financial Data Summary Sheets (FDSS) – Revenue appeal against the order of the CESTAT dropping demand of service tax on the income shown as non-taxable in the Financial Data Summary Sheets (FDSS) by the respondent, a Multi-Modal Transport Operator – HELD - The CESTAT had rightly observed that the demand cannot be sustained as it was based on obsolete provisions and under a category which ceased to exist. The non-taxable amount included customs duty, BAF & CAF charges, ocean freight and air freight, which were paid by the appellant on behalf of the clients and later reimbursed. Therefore, the same cannot be taxed as they are in the nature of reimbursements – the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Exemption, Legal Metrology, Retail Sale Price Declaration - Appellant imported certain goods and claimed an exemption of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus - Department denied this exemption on the ground that the Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder, as the Retail Sale Price (MRP) was not declared on the imported packages - Whether the Appellant is eligible for the 4% SAD exemption under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus, despite the alleged non-declaration of MRP on the imported packages. HELD - there is no requ... [Read more]

Customs - Exemption, Legal Metrology, Retail Sale Price Declaration - Appellant imported certain goods and claimed an exemption of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus - Department denied this exemption on the ground that the Appellant failed to comply with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Rules made thereunder, as the Retail Sale Price (MRP) was not declared on the imported packages - Whether the Appellant is eligible for the 4% SAD exemption under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus, despite the alleged non-declaration of MRP on the imported packages. HELD - there is no requirement under the Notification to declare the MRP in the import documents, and the requirement is only to affix the MRP on the retail packages. The Department's allegation that the Appellant failed to declare the MRP details in the import documents cannot lead to the presumption that the packages were not affixed with the MRP after the clearance of the goods - if the Dept had any reason to believe that the benefit of the Notification was claimed without complying with the requirement of affixing the MRP, the proceedings should have been initiated at the time of clearance, rather than issuing a demand at a later stage based on assumptions and presumptions - the Appellant is eligible for the 4% SAD exemption under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus – the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Revenue appeal against the decision of the Tribunal allowing the refund claims of respondent-assessee based on the Supreme Court's judgement in SRD Nutrients case, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries case - Whether the subsequent overruling of the SRD Nutrients judgement by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries case can be applied to nullify the refund claims that were already allowed based on the SRD Nutrients judgement – HELD - the refund claims rightly allowed based on the SRD Nutrients judgement which was prevailing at the relevant time, cannot be reopened or recove... [Read more]

Central Excise - Revenue appeal against the decision of the Tribunal allowing the refund claims of respondent-assessee based on the Supreme Court's judgement in SRD Nutrients case, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries case - Whether the subsequent overruling of the SRD Nutrients judgement by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries case can be applied to nullify the refund claims that were already allowed based on the SRD Nutrients judgement – HELD - the refund claims rightly allowed based on the SRD Nutrients judgement which was prevailing at the relevant time, cannot be reopened or recovered based on the subsequent overruling of the SRD Nutrients judgement in Unicorn Industries case. Allowing such recovery would lead to endless litigation, which goes against the principles of finality of judicial decisions and public policy - a subsequent overruling of a precedent cannot be applied to reopen or review past judicial decisions that attained finality. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court, Cause of Action, Doctrine of Merger – challenge to orders passed by the Revisionary Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Rejection of rebate claim for rebate of customs duty paid on the raw material purchased under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.21/2004- CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 - Whether the Bombay High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, when the Revisionary Authority which passed the impugned orders was located within its jurisdiction, even though the original adj... [Read more]

Central Excise - Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court, Cause of Action, Doctrine of Merger – challenge to orders passed by the Revisionary Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Rejection of rebate claim for rebate of customs duty paid on the raw material purchased under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.21/2004- CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 - Whether the Bombay High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, when the Revisionary Authority which passed the impugned orders was located within its jurisdiction, even though the original adjudication orders were passed by authorities situated in other High Court jurisdictions – HELD - the litigant has the right to choose to file the writ petition either before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication occurred, or before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Revisionary Authority which passed the impugned order is situated, as the order of the Revisionary Authority forms a significant part of the cause of action. The doctrine of merger is also applicable, whereby the original adjudication orders get merged into the Revisionary Authority's orders, making the latter the operative orders. Therefore, the Bombay High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions - the writ petitions filed are held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was not sustainable – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Service Tax – Demand under “Airport Service” - Monetary limit for filing appeals - Respondents are engaged in the business of in-flight catering services to various airlines. Based on intelligence, show cause notices were issued proposing to demand short paid service tax under the category of "Airport Service" on the amounts received for food and beverages services as well as laundry services provided to various airlines- The original authority set aside the demand on amounts in respect of food and beverages services, but confirmed the demand for the period post-1.7.2012 on the amounts received for laundry services. ... [Read more]

Service Tax – Demand under “Airport Service” - Monetary limit for filing appeals - Respondents are engaged in the business of in-flight catering services to various airlines. Based on intelligence, show cause notices were issued proposing to demand short paid service tax under the category of "Airport Service" on the amounts received for food and beverages services as well as laundry services provided to various airlines- The original authority set aside the demand on amounts in respect of food and beverages services, but confirmed the demand for the period post-1.7.2012 on the amounts received for laundry services. The department filed appeals against the order setting aside the demand for laundry services prior to 1.7.2012 - Whether the laundry services provided by the respondents would fall under the definition of "Airport Services" under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to 1.7.2012 – HELD - the definition of "Airport Services" under Section 65(105)(zzm) clearly states that the services have to be rendered by the Airport Authority or any person authorized by it in an airport or civil enclave. In the present case, the respondents are not authorized by the Airport Authority to provide laundry services - mere permission to enter the airport premises does not mean an authorization to provide service. Therefore, the order of the original authority setting aside the demand for laundry services prior to 1.7.2012, is sustained – Revenue appeals are dismissed - Whether the appeals filed by the department in respect of four appeals where the amount involved in each appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs, are maintainable – HELD - With regard to the four appeals (ST/40700-40703/2017) where the amount involved in each appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs, as per the litigation policy and the CBEC circular, each appeal has to be considered based on the monetary limit involved in that particular appeal, and there cannot be a clubbing of the amounts involved in all the appeals. Accordingly, these four appeals are dismissed on the ground of monetary limit. [Read less]

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit on Sample Vehicles exported for Testing purposes - appellant had sent certain sample vehicles to its associated companies outside India for testing, research and development purposes without receiving any payment – Denial of Cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing for sample vehicles - Whether the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing the sample vehicles that were exported for testing and research purposes without consideration – HELD - the testing of sample vehicles is an integral part of the manufacturing activity and the Cenvat credi... [Read more]

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit on Sample Vehicles exported for Testing purposes - appellant had sent certain sample vehicles to its associated companies outside India for testing, research and development purposes without receiving any payment – Denial of Cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing for sample vehicles - Whether the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacturing the sample vehicles that were exported for testing and research purposes without consideration – HELD - the testing of sample vehicles is an integral part of the manufacturing activity and the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used for manufacturing such sample vehicles is admissible - the Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that no export proceeds were realized or the final products were destroyed, as there is no such provision under the law - the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled in the appellant's own case for the earlier and subsequent periods - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Refund of CVD & SAD – Import under Advance Authorization – Failure to meet the export obligations – Appellant approached the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) for extension, but their request was rejected. Subsequently, the appellant paid the entire duty liability and filed a refund claim towards refund of CVD and SAD. The refund claim was rejected by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the CVD and SAD paid in cash under Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the refund in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act would be a... [Read more]

Central Excise – Refund of CVD & SAD – Import under Advance Authorization – Failure to meet the export obligations – Appellant approached the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) for extension, but their request was rejected. Subsequently, the appellant paid the entire duty liability and filed a refund claim towards refund of CVD and SAD. The refund claim was rejected by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the CVD and SAD paid in cash under Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the refund in cash under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act would be admissible only if the said refund is otherwise admissible for refund in cash under the existing law. In the present case, there was no provision for refund of the CVD and SAD in cash under the existing law, as the appellant had failed to meet the export obligations under the Advance Authorization - There are only limited provisions for the cash refund in the existing law in respect of refund of credit taken by the assessee i.e. Rule 5, 5A, and 5B of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, and admittedly the case of the appellants does not fall within these rules, therefore, in the event they were not entitled to refund of credit in cash in respect of CVD and SAD under the existing law, then the provisions of Section 142 would not make them otherwise entitled to the said refund in cash - input credit cannot be treated as a substantive right, and the entitlement of credit is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions and obligations. Merely because the duty was paid later, the appellant would not become entitled to the refund of the same amount in cash under the provisions of Sections 142(3) or 142(6) of the CGST Act - the appellant is not entitled to a refund of the CVD and SAD in cash under Section 142 of the CGST Act – the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

GST – Cancellation of registration – Vilotion of principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the registration by using fake documents and had failed to appear for a personal hearing or submit any documents in its favor - HELD - the show cause notice did not specify any intelligible reason for proposing to cancel the petitioner's GST registration, and the allegation that the petitioner had obtained the registration using fake documents was not mentioned in the show cause notice - the purpose of issuing a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to respon... [Read more]

GST – Cancellation of registration – Vilotion of principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the registration by using fake documents and had failed to appear for a personal hearing or submit any documents in its favor - HELD - the show cause notice did not specify any intelligible reason for proposing to cancel the petitioner's GST registration, and the allegation that the petitioner had obtained the registration using fake documents was not mentioned in the show cause notice - the purpose of issuing a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations on the basis of which an adverse order is proposed, and the impugned show cause notice failed to meet this requirement - the petitioner's GST registration was suspended from the date of the show cause notice, and the respondent did not provide any material to substantiate the conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the registration using fake documents - the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice – the impugned order and the show cause notice are set aside – the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration forthwith – the petition is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of Cenvat Credit – Export of Services - appellant claimed refund of the accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund application was partially allowed by the original authority - Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed and partially disallowed the refund claim, holding that the disputed services had no nexus with the output service exported by the appellant – HELD - since the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant was not disputed by the department, and the provisions of Rule 14 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 were not invoked for recove... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of Cenvat Credit – Export of Services - appellant claimed refund of the accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund application was partially allowed by the original authority - Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed and partially disallowed the refund claim, holding that the disputed services had no nexus with the output service exported by the appellant – HELD - since the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant was not disputed by the department, and the provisions of Rule 14 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 were not invoked for recovery of any irregularly availed Cenvat Credit, the nexus aspect between the input services and the output service cannot be questioned at the time of consideration of the refund application under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - the nexus aspect cannot be questioned while adjudicating the refund application under Rule 5, as it is a self-contained provision designed for the limited purpose of consideration of the refund application for the exportation of goods/services - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Extended Period of Limitation, Statutory Authority – appellant is a statutory authority established for promoting industrial development in the State of Odisha - Demand of service tax on the combined application fee for processing of application and the amount received from the Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) - Whether the demand of service tax pertaining to the extended period of limitation is invokable against the appellant, who is a statutory authority established for promoting industrial development in the State of Odisha – HELD - Demand pertaining to the extended period of limitat... [Read more]

Service Tax - Extended Period of Limitation, Statutory Authority – appellant is a statutory authority established for promoting industrial development in the State of Odisha - Demand of service tax on the combined application fee for processing of application and the amount received from the Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) - Whether the demand of service tax pertaining to the extended period of limitation is invokable against the appellant, who is a statutory authority established for promoting industrial development in the State of Odisha – HELD - Demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation is not invokable against the appellant, as it is a statutory authority established for promoting industrial development in the State of Odisha by providing necessary support services in favor of the Government of Odisha – Further, no service tax is payable by the appellant, and no penalty is imposable on the appellant - The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Penalty for incorrect calculation of service tax liability - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Quantification of Service Tax Liability - appellant failed to pay the full service tax on the gross receipts received from their service recipients, resulting in a short payment of service tax. The appellant also failed to file ST-3 returns within the prescribed time limit - show-cause notice proposing to demand the short-paid service tax along with interest and penalties – HELD - the service tax payment made up to 03.01.2013 iss not properly reflected in the impugned order – Further, the service... [Read more]

Service Tax – Penalty for incorrect calculation of service tax liability - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Quantification of Service Tax Liability - appellant failed to pay the full service tax on the gross receipts received from their service recipients, resulting in a short payment of service tax. The appellant also failed to file ST-3 returns within the prescribed time limit - show-cause notice proposing to demand the short-paid service tax along with interest and penalties – HELD - the service tax payment made up to 03.01.2013 iss not properly reflected in the impugned order – Further, the service tax liability up to 2011 should have been calculated on a receipt basis, as the appellant had not received the entire consideration from its customers – matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the service tax liability for the disputed period, taking into account the details and documents furnished by the appellant - Regarding the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, since the demand was solely based on the incorrect calculation of the service tax liability, and not on any suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of duty, the penalty was not warranted - the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is set aside – the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Rendering of Business Support Services to Group companies – appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the Business Support Services (BSS) – Denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground that the BSS services had no nexus with the appellant's manufacturing/output service activities - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on the BSS services provided by Tata Motors Ltd – HELD - the BSS services provided by Tata Motors Ltd. to the appellant had a close nexus with the appellant's manufacturing/output service activities, and the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on such services - the... [Read more]

Central Excise – Rendering of Business Support Services to Group companies – appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the Business Support Services (BSS) – Denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground that the BSS services had no nexus with the appellant's manufacturing/output service activities - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on the BSS services provided by Tata Motors Ltd – HELD - the BSS services provided by Tata Motors Ltd. to the appellant had a close nexus with the appellant's manufacturing/output service activities, and the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on such services - the Department had not disputed the classification of the services as BSS or the payment of service tax by Tata Motors Ltd., and therefore, the Cenvat Credit claimed by the appellant could not be denied - the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on the BSS services provided by Tata Motors Ltd – the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Job-work, Manufacturer – Appellant is a manufacturer of Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) classifiable under Chapter Heading 8517 7010 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 - appellant undertook the process of stuffing and soldering of components on the Printer Circuit Boards (PCB) supplied by the customers amounting to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellant claimed that they were only job-workers and the duty liability is on the suppliers of raw materials - Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on job work basis amounted to manufactur... [Read more]

Central Excise - Job-work, Manufacturer – Appellant is a manufacturer of Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) classifiable under Chapter Heading 8517 7010 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 - appellant undertook the process of stuffing and soldering of components on the Printer Circuit Boards (PCB) supplied by the customers amounting to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellant claimed that they were only job-workers and the duty liability is on the suppliers of raw materials - Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on job work basis amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the CEA, 1944 and whether the duty liability is on the appellant who is a job-worker or the suppliers of raw materials – HELD - The process of populating the PCBs by the appellant as a job worker amounts to manufacture. As long as there is transformation of a product into a new product marketable and commercially known, manufacture takes place. In the instant case, the plain PCBs are identified differently in the commercial/market parlance when compared to PPCBs, which is a transformation from one commodity to another and amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - The duty liability is on the appellant who is the job-worker and not on the suppliers of raw materials. The conditions laid down in the relevant Notifications, i.e. Notification No. 214/86-CE and Notification No. 83/1994-CE, are substantive in nature and non-compliance of which cannot be construed as merely procedural. The plea taken by the appellant that if the Principal Manufacturer has not authorized the appellant, then the liability will be on the Principal Manufacturer is not tenable as the clearances were made on principal-to-principal basis - The extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A cannot be invoked as the department was aware of the appellant clearing the job work goods without payment of duty in 2009 itself. Therefore, the demand can only be sustained for the normal period for the show-cause notice dated 07.03.2013 - The appeals are remanded for re-quantification of demand based on the observation that the appellant has produced documents to show that the suppliers have either cleared the goods under various exemptions or on payment of duty. The duty liability on the appellant gets reduced to that extent. The penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 are set aside – the appeals are disposed of [Read less]

Customs – Classification of Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed additive) – appellant imported "Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed additive)" classifying the impugned goods under CTH 2309-90-90 as 'Preparations of a kind used in animal feed' and cleared them on payment of BCD 20% and Nil IGST - Department case that the goods imported were intermixture of vitamin A and vitamin D3 and derivatives of Vitamin A, thus are classifiable under CTH 2932100 which attract higher duty – Demand of differential duty, interest and penalty - Whether the impugned goods "Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed ... [Read more]

Customs – Classification of Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed additive) – appellant imported "Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed additive)" classifying the impugned goods under CTH 2309-90-90 as 'Preparations of a kind used in animal feed' and cleared them on payment of BCD 20% and Nil IGST - Department case that the goods imported were intermixture of vitamin A and vitamin D3 and derivatives of Vitamin A, thus are classifiable under CTH 2932100 which attract higher duty – Demand of differential duty, interest and penalty - Whether the impugned goods "Vitamin AD3 (1000:200) IU/G (Feed grade/Feed additive)" are correctly classified under Chapter 29 (CTH 2936) or under Chapter 23 (CTH 2309) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – HELD - the goods in question are not obtained by processing of used/waste vegetable or animal material, as required for classification under Chapter 23 - as per the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), the impugned goods contain 53.2% Vitamins and the remaining elements are various carriers, stabilizers, etc. - the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), specifically includes intermixtures of vitamins under Chapter 29, even when they are not separate chemically defined compounds – as per Rule 3(a) of the General Interpretation Rules, the specific heading 2936 shall prevail over the residuary heading 2309. Further, the Supreme Court has emphasized the persuasive value of the HSN in interpreting tariff classifications - the impugned goods are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2936 of Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - the demand of differential duty along with interest is upheld. However, the imposition of penalty is set aside considering the confusion amongst importers regarding the classification of Vitamin AD3 during the relevant time – the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of registration with retrospective effect - Violation of principles of natural justice - the petitioner had applied for cancellation of its GST registration with effect from 30.11.2020 – challenge to the impugned cancellation order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 – HELD - the impugned cancellation order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was not informed by reasons - the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration should be effective from 08.02.2021, the date on which the petitioner had applied for cancellation... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of registration with retrospective effect - Violation of principles of natural justice - the petitioner had applied for cancellation of its GST registration with effect from 30.11.2020 – challenge to the impugned cancellation order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 – HELD - the impugned cancellation order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and was not informed by reasons - the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration should be effective from 08.02.2021, the date on which the petitioner had applied for cancellation, and not with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 - while the proper officer has the power to cancel a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect under the CGST Act/DGST Act, such action must be informed by cogent reasons and not be arbitrary or whimsical - cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration does not absolve it from being held accountable for any statutory non-compliance or from any liability under the statute, and the respondents are not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings for any statutory non-compliance or recovery of dues, if warranted, in accordance with law - the impugned cancellation order is set aside and the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration shall be operative with effect from 08.02.2021, the date on which the petitioner had applied for cancellation of its registration – the petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Challenge to levying of Cess while calculating the applicable tax under section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the contention regarding the levy of Cess was not raised before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) - an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to raise this ground before the JCTT (Appeals) – the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the issue regarding the levy of Cess - the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded

GST - Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 – Disallowance of input tax credit by filing GSTR-3B form for March 2019 on 01.11.2019 - Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the input tax credit despite the delayed filing of GSTR-3B Form – HELD - as per the amendments introduced by the Finance Act No.2 of 2024, the time for filing GSTR-3B forms for the periods 2017-18 to 2020-21 was extended to 30.11.2021. Since the petitioner had filed the GSTR-3B form for March 2019 on 01.11.2019, which was within the extended time limit, the petitioner was entitled to claim the input tax credit – disallowance of input tax credit is n... [Read more]

GST - Section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 – Disallowance of input tax credit by filing GSTR-3B form for March 2019 on 01.11.2019 - Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the input tax credit despite the delayed filing of GSTR-3B Form – HELD - as per the amendments introduced by the Finance Act No.2 of 2024, the time for filing GSTR-3B forms for the periods 2017-18 to 2020-21 was extended to 30.11.2021. Since the petitioner had filed the GSTR-3B form for March 2019 on 01.11.2019, which was within the extended time limit, the petitioner was entitled to claim the input tax credit – disallowance of input tax credit is not justified in view of the amended provisions – the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Classification of light green tinted float glass - Invocation of extended limitation period Fact - The petitioner imported light green float glass and classified it under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 70051010 - Dept issued a show cause notice seeking to reclassify the goods under CTH 70052110 and demanding differential duty - Whether the show cause notice should be quashed and the goods allowed to be cleared under CTH 70051010 – HELD - the show cause notice was liable to be quashed as it sought to reopen an issue that had been conclusively decided in favor of the petitioner by the appellate authorities - the... [Read more]

Customs – Classification of light green tinted float glass - Invocation of extended limitation period Fact - The petitioner imported light green float glass and classified it under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 70051010 - Dept issued a show cause notice seeking to reclassify the goods under CTH 70052110 and demanding differential duty - Whether the show cause notice should be quashed and the goods allowed to be cleared under CTH 70051010 – HELD - the show cause notice was liable to be quashed as it sought to reopen an issue that had been conclusively decided in favor of the petitioner by the appellate authorities - the test reports relied upon by the customs department disclosed substantially similar characteristics of the goods as those that had been accepted earlier for classification under CTH 70051010 - judicial discipline requires a subordinate authority to follow the orders of a higher appellate authority unless the same is successfully challenged – Further, the invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act was unjustified in the absence of any evidence of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement by the petitioner. Accordingly, the show cause notice is quashed and authorities are directed to clear the goods under CTH 70051010, subject to being satisfied that the consignments contain light green float glass (tinted non-wired type) – the writ petitions are allowed [Read less]

Customs - Refund of CVD - Interest on Delayed Refund – petitioner imported mobile phones and paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the rate of 12.5% instead of 1% due to limitations in the ICEGATE portal - petitioner applied for refund of the excess CVD paid. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act on the delayed refund of the excess CVD paid – HELD - the amount paid in excess was not "duty" in the legal sense, as the petitioner was not liable to pay the higher rate o... [Read more]

Customs - Refund of CVD - Interest on Delayed Refund – petitioner imported mobile phones and paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the rate of 12.5% instead of 1% due to limitations in the ICEGATE portal - petitioner applied for refund of the excess CVD paid. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act on the delayed refund of the excess CVD paid – HELD - the amount paid in excess was not "duty" in the legal sense, as the petitioner was not liable to pay the higher rate of CVD in the first place. Therefore, the limitation period under Section 27 would not apply, and the petitioner's claim for refund could not be rejected on the ground of limitation - when a payment is made under a mistake of law, the limitation period does not apply – Further, the respondents are liable to pay interest from the date of the original refund application, as the petitioner was compelled to litigate due to the unreasonable stand of the respondents - The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the respondents for their unjust and unfair stand - the respondents were directed to pay interest to the petitioner under Section 27A of the Customs Act from the date of the original refund application - the petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of Registration – Petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution - Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is a reasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on any trade, occupation or business – HELD - the power to cancel registration under Section 29(2) is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), as it is necessary for the effective administration and collection of taxes, which ... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of Registration – Petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution - Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is a reasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on any trade, occupation or business – HELD - the power to cancel registration under Section 29(2) is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), as it is necessary for the effective administration and collection of taxes, which is in the interest of the general public - the petitioners had not availed the statutory remedies within the prescribed time limit, even after the extension of limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic - the petition is dismissed upholding the cancellation of the petitioners' GST registrations and the dismissal of their delayed appeals - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Refund under Inverted Duty Structure – challenge to rejection of refund on account of inverted duty structure – Refund under second proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 – petitioner’s the refund application was rejected, however, subsequently, the Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was amended to include the term "Services" in the formula for refund, with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017 - Whether the petitioner is eligible to file a fresh refund application considering the retrospective amendment to the CGST Rules – HELD – earlier when this matter was taken up for consideration the Court ... [Read more]

GST - Refund under Inverted Duty Structure – challenge to rejection of refund on account of inverted duty structure – Refund under second proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 – petitioner’s the refund application was rejected, however, subsequently, the Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was amended to include the term "Services" in the formula for refund, with retrospective effect from July 1, 2017 - Whether the petitioner is eligible to file a fresh refund application considering the retrospective amendment to the CGST Rules – HELD – earlier when this matter was taken up for consideration the Court had ordered that in light of the retrospective amendment to Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the petitioner should be allowed to file a fresh refund application, which shall be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with the amended law - the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier refund application was correct at the time it was decided, but the subsequent amendment in the law necessitates a fresh consideration of the matter - having noted that already a refund sanction order has been issued in Form GST RFD-06 and taking into consideration the fact that payment advice has already been issued by the State GST authorities, the CGST authorities cannot be permitted to retain or hold back the amount which has been directed to be refunded in terms of the refund sanction order – the respondent is also directed to compute applicable interest on account of delayed payment and disburse the same to the petitioner together with the refund quantified in the refund sanction order - writ petition stands disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax – Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) - Transitional Provisions – Denial of refund of KKC credit filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Jurisdiction of CESTAT to decide the issue of refund of KKC credit, given the amendments to the transitional provisions under the GST law - Whether the appellant is entitled to a cash refund of the KKC credit under the transitional provisions of the GST law – HELD - The CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the issue of refund of KKC credit. The CGST Act's Repeal and Saving Cla... [Read more]

Service Tax – Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) - Transitional Provisions – Denial of refund of KKC credit filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Jurisdiction of CESTAT to decide the issue of refund of KKC credit, given the amendments to the transitional provisions under the GST law - Whether the appellant is entitled to a cash refund of the KKC credit under the transitional provisions of the GST law – HELD - The CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the issue of refund of KKC credit. The CGST Act's Repeal and Saving Clause under Section 174(2)(f)) clearly states that any proceedings, including appeals, instituted before or after the appointed day under the repealed Acts (like the Central Excise Act) shall be continued under those Acts as if the GST Act had not come into force. This empowers the CESTAT to decide the matter - The appellant is entitled to a cash refund of the KKC credit under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act. This provision mandates that any CENVAT credit found admissible in an appeal proceeding under the existing law (Central Excise Act) shall be refunded in cash, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the existing law - The Explanation 3 to Section 140 of the CGST Act, which sought to exclude CESS from the definition of "eligible duties and taxes," was not notified and hence not in force. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the cash refund of the KKC credit with applicable interest - The respondent-department is directed to pay the refund to the appellant – the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST – Failure to respond to the pre-show-cause notice - issue of Show-Cause Notice – Challenge to order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the petitioner had failed to respond to the pre-show-cause notice and the subsequent show-cause notice, and did not provide a proper explanation for the same - the petitioner, being a private limited company, cannot claim ignorance of the notices due to the unavailability of the Consultant - the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which the petitioner should hav... [Read more]

GST – Failure to respond to the pre-show-cause notice - issue of Show-Cause Notice – Challenge to order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the petitioner had failed to respond to the pre-show-cause notice and the subsequent show-cause notice, and did not provide a proper explanation for the same - the petitioner, being a private limited company, cannot claim ignorance of the notices due to the unavailability of the Consultant - the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, which the petitioner should have availed instead of approaching the High Court - The petitioner is directed to approach the appellate authority within 15 days, and the appellate authority is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

Customs – Jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to determine correct rate of Integrated Tax - Chargeability to ‘integrated tax’ on import of helicopters - appellant imported two helicopters and paid integrated tax at the rate of 5% as per the applicable notification - Customs authorities sought to recover differential duty alleging that the correct rate of integrated tax should be 28% on the ground that the helicopters were for "personal use" and not for "other than private use" - Whether the integrated tax at the rate of 5% paid by appellant on the import of the helicopters was correct or the appellant is liable t... [Read more]

Customs – Jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to determine correct rate of Integrated Tax - Chargeability to ‘integrated tax’ on import of helicopters - appellant imported two helicopters and paid integrated tax at the rate of 5% as per the applicable notification - Customs authorities sought to recover differential duty alleging that the correct rate of integrated tax should be 28% on the ground that the helicopters were for "personal use" and not for "other than private use" - Whether the integrated tax at the rate of 5% paid by appellant on the import of the helicopters was correct or the appellant is liable to higher rate of 28% - HELD - the issue of determining the correct rate of integrated tax falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Tax Officers under the GST laws and not within the jurisdiction of the customs authorities - the burden of proof is on the Revenue to establish the appropriate classification and rate of duty, which the Revenue failed to discharge in the present case - the levy of integrated tax is intended to provide continuity in the tax chain and not to accrue additional revenue, and therefore, the re-determination of the rate solely for the purpose of integrated tax is not justified – the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - E-way bill, Detention of goods – generation of e-way bill for supply of Engineering Lab Equipment - due to a breakdown of the initial vehicle, the petitioner updated the vehicle number in the e-way bill and dispatched the goods. The vehicle was intercepted by the authorities and a penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act for expiry of the e-way bill - Whether the imposition of penalty solely on the ground of expiry of the e-way bill, when the goods were accompanied by valid documents and the movement of goods was within the knowledge of the department – HELD - imposition of penalty solely on the g... [Read more]

GST - E-way bill, Detention of goods – generation of e-way bill for supply of Engineering Lab Equipment - due to a breakdown of the initial vehicle, the petitioner updated the vehicle number in the e-way bill and dispatched the goods. The vehicle was intercepted by the authorities and a penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act for expiry of the e-way bill - Whether the imposition of penalty solely on the ground of expiry of the e-way bill, when the goods were accompanied by valid documents and the movement of goods was within the knowledge of the department – HELD - imposition of penalty solely on the ground of expiry of the e-way bill is not justified - the intent to evade tax is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - In the present case, the petitioner had updated the e-way bill with the new vehicle number, and the details of the transaction were available on the GST portal. The authorities did not point out any discrepancy or material to suggest an intent to evade tax. Moreover, the authorities failed to provide any reasons for the penalty order, as required under the principles of natural justice - the impugned orders are quashed with direction to the authorities to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - E-way bills, breakdown of goods carrying vehicle – non-extension of the E-way bill - petitioner generated E-way bills for transporting iron cast from Ahmedabad to Noida, which were valid until 31.12.2022 - the truck was seized on 01.01.2023 on the ground that the E-way bills had expired. The petitioner claimed that there was a breakdown of the truck, and submitted the repair bill, but the authorities did not consider the same - Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the tax along with interest – HELD - not convinced with the defense taken up by the petitioner with regard to the breakdown of the vehicle... [Read more]

GST - E-way bills, breakdown of goods carrying vehicle – non-extension of the E-way bill - petitioner generated E-way bills for transporting iron cast from Ahmedabad to Noida, which were valid until 31.12.2022 - the truck was seized on 01.01.2023 on the ground that the E-way bills had expired. The petitioner claimed that there was a breakdown of the truck, and submitted the repair bill, but the authorities did not consider the same - Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the tax along with interest – HELD - not convinced with the defense taken up by the petitioner with regard to the breakdown of the vehicle because as per the E-way bill, the vehicle should have reached Noida on or before 31.12.2022 and as per the defense taken up by the petitioner, the vehicle was at Rajasamand on 31.12.2022 - If the vehicle was under repair in Rajasamand on 31.12.2022, there was no possibility of the vehicle reaching Noida before the expiry of the period of E-way bill. The petitioner thus should have applied for an extension of the E-way bill, which it failed to do, and consequently, the authorities were justified in seizing the goods - the writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST – Payment of pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger – Application of Division Bench judgment in M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. case - The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the 10% payment should have been made from the Electronic Cash Ledger - whether on filing an appeal the ten per cent of the due amounts are to be paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger or the Electronic Credit Ledger – HELD – while the Court is bound by the Division Bench judgment in M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court has stayed the observations in that judgment - Further, the Notification No. 53... [Read more]

GST – Payment of pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger – Application of Division Bench judgment in M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. case - The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the 10% payment should have been made from the Electronic Cash Ledger - whether on filing an appeal the ten per cent of the due amounts are to be paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger or the Electronic Credit Ledger – HELD – while the Court is bound by the Division Bench judgment in M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court has stayed the observations in that judgment - Further, the Notification No. 53/2023-CT dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Government on the recommendation of the GST Council, it has been specifically stated that at least 20 per cent of the 12.5 per cent remaining due and payable should be paid from the Electronic Cash Ledger. Hence, even the GST Council understood the ten per cent to be enabled for payment through the Electronic Credit Ledger – While we are not differing from the Division Bench judgment which being a Coordinate Bench binds us. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the Division Bench judgment and in such circumstances, especially since consideration of the appeal on merits is the question raised, the pending decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal should be considered on merits – the order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits, without insisting on the 10% payment being made from the Electronic Cash Ledger, considering the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the Division Bench judgment - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST – Maintainability of Writ Petition, Appellate Remedy – challenge to the show-cause notice seeking to levy GST at the rate of 28% instead of the prevalent rate of 18%, which the petitioners have been paying since 2017 - Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice is maintainable – HELD - mere issuance of a show-cause notice cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition. The petitioner has the right to file a reply to the show-cause notice and be heard before any order is passed, and any such order would be appealable under the CGST Act, 2017 - merely because the petitioner's counterparts have not... [Read more]

GST – Maintainability of Writ Petition, Appellate Remedy – challenge to the show-cause notice seeking to levy GST at the rate of 28% instead of the prevalent rate of 18%, which the petitioners have been paying since 2017 - Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice is maintainable – HELD - mere issuance of a show-cause notice cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition. The petitioner has the right to file a reply to the show-cause notice and be heard before any order is passed, and any such order would be appealable under the CGST Act, 2017 - merely because the petitioner's counterparts have not been issued similar show-cause notices, the same cannot be considered bad in law – the petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST – Cancellation of Registration - Opportunity of Hearing – issue of show-cause notice under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 - cancellation of registration on the grounds of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, without providing any supporting documents or opportunity of personal hearing – HELD - the cancellation of registration without providing an opportunity of hearing and consideration of the petitioner's request for adjournment is invalid - the respondent authorities have shown "undue haste" in passing the impugned order of cancellation without granting the petitioner a hearing and witho... [Read more]

GST – Cancellation of Registration - Opportunity of Hearing – issue of show-cause notice under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 - cancellation of registration on the grounds of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, without providing any supporting documents or opportunity of personal hearing – HELD - the cancellation of registration without providing an opportunity of hearing and consideration of the petitioner's request for adjournment is invalid - the respondent authorities have shown "undue haste" in passing the impugned order of cancellation without granting the petitioner a hearing and without considering the reasons for the adjournment request - the respondent displayed a "total inhumane approach" to the facts of the case by not granting sufficient time to the petitioner - the order of cancellation is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law – the petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - appellant is engaged in trading of sealing machines manufactured by various independent units called Decentralized Mother Units (DMUs). The DMUs claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Revenue alleged that the DMUs are dummy units created and controlled by the appellant to claim SSI exemption, and the appellant is the actual manufacturer of the sealing machines - Revenue also alleged that the sealing machines were incomplete when received by the appellant and became complete and marketable only after the appellant's processes of q... [Read more]

Central Excise – SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - appellant is engaged in trading of sealing machines manufactured by various independent units called Decentralized Mother Units (DMUs). The DMUs claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Revenue alleged that the DMUs are dummy units created and controlled by the appellant to claim SSI exemption, and the appellant is the actual manufacturer of the sealing machines - Revenue also alleged that the sealing machines were incomplete when received by the appellant and became complete and marketable only after the appellant's processes of quality check, branding, packaging, and providing warranty - Whether the clearance value of sealing machines manufactured by the DMUs be denied the benefit of SSI exemption and the duty be demanded from the appellant as the 'manufacturer' - imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – HELD - The evidence on record does not show any pervasive financial control or management control of the appellant over the DMUs. The negotiations, understandings, and business support provided by the appellant to the DMUs are in the nature of commercial relations and do not make the DMUs as dummy units - The sealing machines manufactured by the DMUs were complete and marketable when received by the appellant, and the subsequent processes of branding, packaging, and providing warranty do not amount to 'manufacture' - Revenue failed to establish the appellant's control over the DMUs or the incompleteness of the sealing machines. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption, and the demand on the appellant as the 'manufacturer' is not sustainable. Consequently, the issue of confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalty on the appellant, and penalty on other appellants under Rule 26 become academic and set aside – the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid during the Financial Year 2016-2017 under the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Limitation, Unjust Enrichment – Admissibility of refund claim filed long after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax – HELD - refund claims have to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the respective statutes within the prescribed period of limitation - the Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994, prescribes a limitation period... [Read more]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid during the Financial Year 2016-2017 under the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Limitation, Unjust Enrichment – Admissibility of refund claim filed long after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax – HELD - refund claims have to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the respective statutes within the prescribed period of limitation - the Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994, prescribes a limitation period of one year from the "relevant date" for filing refund claims. Since the petitioner's refund claim was filed much later, no direction can be issued to the respondent to consider the claim beyond the period of limitation - the views expressed in the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.3E Infotech vs CESTAT and another, is incorrect and cannot be applied to the facts of the case - the petitioner's refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Transition of pre-deposit amount - Demand for recovery pre-deposit on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to transition the pre-deposit amount as unutilized input tax credit under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - Whether the petitioner was entitled to transition the pre-deposit amount as unutilized input tax credit under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit amount made under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, as a condition for filing an appeal against the earlier assessment order - the respondents could have appropriated only the b... [Read more]

GST - Transition of pre-deposit amount - Demand for recovery pre-deposit on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to transition the pre-deposit amount as unutilized input tax credit under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - Whether the petitioner was entitled to transition the pre-deposit amount as unutilized input tax credit under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit amount made under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, as a condition for filing an appeal against the earlier assessment order - the respondents could have appropriated only the balance tax liability from the pre-deposit amount, and the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the remaining amount - the issue is revenue neutral, as the Dept was duty-bound to refund the pre-deposit amount pursuant to the revised assessment order, which substantially dropped the demand - impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Refund, export of services - Petitioner entered into Reward Agreements with Xiaomi Hong Kong (Xiaomi HK) under which the petitioner was required to undertake activities to promote Xiaomi products and increase their market penetration in India - Xiaomi HK agreed to pay monetary rewards to the petitioner upon achievement of certain sales targets - petitioner claimed refund of input tax credit under the CGST Act on the ground that the rewards received from Xiaomi HK amounted to 'export of services' under the IGST Act. The refund claims were rejected by the authorities - Whether the transaction between the petitioner and... [Read more]

GST - Refund, export of services - Petitioner entered into Reward Agreements with Xiaomi Hong Kong (Xiaomi HK) under which the petitioner was required to undertake activities to promote Xiaomi products and increase their market penetration in India - Xiaomi HK agreed to pay monetary rewards to the petitioner upon achievement of certain sales targets - petitioner claimed refund of input tax credit under the CGST Act on the ground that the rewards received from Xiaomi HK amounted to 'export of services' under the IGST Act. The refund claims were rejected by the authorities - Whether the transaction between the petitioner and Xiaomi HK under the Reward Agreements constitutes a 'supply' of service under the CGST Act, 2017 and qualifies as 'export of service' under the IGST Act entitling it to refund of ITC – HELD - A perusal of the material on record including the various contentions and written submissions of both sides are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the various factual and legal contentions and submissions made by both sides have not been addressed correctly or properly by the Appellate Authority - the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's refund claims in accordance with law – the impugned orders passed by Appellate Authority are set aside and the petition is allowed by remand [Read less]

GST - Assessment order for the period 2018-2019 - Disallowance of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the claims were lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the disallowance of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the claims were lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is valid, in view of the amendment introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which inserted Section 16(5) to the CGST Act – HELD - the reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for disallowing the Input Tax Credit under Section 16(4) may no longer survive in light of the n... [Read more]

GST - Assessment order for the period 2018-2019 - Disallowance of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the claims were lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the disallowance of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the claims were lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is valid, in view of the amendment introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which inserted Section 16(5) to the CGST Act – HELD - the reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for disallowing the Input Tax Credit under Section 16(4) may no longer survive in light of the new provision, which allows the registered person to claim ITC in any return filed up to 30th November 2021 for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 - the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to re-do the assessment by taking into account the amendment made to the CGST Act through the insertion of Section 16(5) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 - petitioner is permitted to file their objections on the other issues within four weeks, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the submissions and pass appropriate orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner – the writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax – Taxability of Foreign Currency Expenditure - demand of Service Tax on the ground that the value of service was booked as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' in the books of account - Whether the entire amount booked as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' in the appellant's books is liable to Service Tax – HELD - the lower authorities had assumed that the entire amount shown as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' was paid to a foreign service provider and, therefore, the entire amount was liable to Service Tax – out of the total amount certain amount was neither paid to foreign company nor in foreign currency, but was ... [Read more]

Service Tax – Taxability of Foreign Currency Expenditure - demand of Service Tax on the ground that the value of service was booked as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' in the books of account - Whether the entire amount booked as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' in the appellant's books is liable to Service Tax – HELD - the lower authorities had assumed that the entire amount shown as 'Foreign Currency Expenditure' was paid to a foreign service provider and, therefore, the entire amount was liable to Service Tax – out of the total amount certain amount was neither paid to foreign company nor in foreign currency, but was paid to M/s Shriram EPC Ltd. in India in Indian Rupees, on which M/s Shriram EPC Ltd. had already discharged the Service Tax - the amount paid to M/s Shriram EPC Ltd. in Indian Rupees is not liable for Service Tax, hence, to determine the actual nature of the transaction, the documents such as ledgers, vouchers, invoices, and payment particulars should be verified - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh – appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Classification of Natural Fiber Composite (NFC) boards - Whether the NFC boards manufactured by the applicant, comprising natural fibers, calcium carbonate, recycling waste and PVC resin would be classifiable as "wood and articles of wood" under Chapter 44 and attract 12% GST – HELD - the NFC boards manufactured by the applicant, primarily made of coconut husk or rice husk powder, would be more appropriately classified under CTH 44.11.93 as "Others" and not as "wood and articles of wood" under Chapter 44 - the boards manufactured from agricultural crop residues like rice husk would fall und... [Read more]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Classification of Natural Fiber Composite (NFC) boards - Whether the NFC boards manufactured by the applicant, comprising natural fibers, calcium carbonate, recycling waste and PVC resin would be classifiable as "wood and articles of wood" under Chapter 44 and attract 12% GST – HELD - the NFC boards manufactured by the applicant, primarily made of coconut husk or rice husk powder, would be more appropriately classified under CTH 44.11.93 as "Others" and not as "wood and articles of wood" under Chapter 44 - the boards manufactured from agricultural crop residues like rice husk would fall under the category of "other ligneous materials whether or not agglomerated with resins or other organic binding substances" - as per Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate), such fiber boards manufactured from agricultural crop residues are subject to 12% GST, irrespective of their classification under the Customs Tariff – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Valuation, captive consumption – appellant cleared the goods availing the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 – valuation of stock transfer of "Mosquito Repellent Refills" to sister unit, which were sent to a job worker for making a combo pack - Department alleged that the appellant adopted MRP based valuation for goods stock transferred to the sister unit, resulting in over-valuation and excess refund of excise duty under the said notification – Validity of recovery of alleged erroneous refund of excise duty without challenging the original refund sanction orders - whether the va... [Read more]

Central Excise - Valuation, captive consumption – appellant cleared the goods availing the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 – valuation of stock transfer of "Mosquito Repellent Refills" to sister unit, which were sent to a job worker for making a combo pack - Department alleged that the appellant adopted MRP based valuation for goods stock transferred to the sister unit, resulting in over-valuation and excess refund of excise duty under the said notification – Validity of recovery of alleged erroneous refund of excise duty without challenging the original refund sanction orders - whether the valuation of goods cleared to the sister unit should be determined under Rule 4 or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 – HELD - without challenging the original refund sanction orders, the department cannot proceed with the recovery of the alleged erroneous refund under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act - parallel proceedings for recovery of refund cannot be launched without revising the refund sanction orders - Further, the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules would apply only in cases where the entire production of goods is captively consumed, and not in a situation where the goods are partly cleared to independent buyers and partly to the sister unit - following the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad, it is held that the valuation of goods cleared to the sister unit should be determined under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules – it is held that, the department cannot proceed with the recovery of the alleged erroneous refund without challenging the original refund sanction orders, and that the valuation of goods cleared to the sister unit should be determined under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules - the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order [Read less]

GST – Generation of one e-way Bill for multiple invoices - Petitioner dispatched goods under four invoices in one truck, but could not generate separate e-way bills - The vehicle was intercepted and proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner appealed against the orders to the appellate authority, who passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal, without considering the petitioner's request for adjournment - Whether the ex parte order passed by the appellate authority, without considering the petitioner's request for adjournment, was a violation of the principles of natural justice – HE... [Read more]

GST – Generation of one e-way Bill for multiple invoices - Petitioner dispatched goods under four invoices in one truck, but could not generate separate e-way bills - The vehicle was intercepted and proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner appealed against the orders to the appellate authority, who passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal, without considering the petitioner's request for adjournment - Whether the ex parte order passed by the appellate authority, without considering the petitioner's request for adjournment, was a violation of the principles of natural justice – HELD - the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner's request for adjournment was not considered, and the order was passed ex parte - the appellate authority was expected to have given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order - the impugned order is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to restore the appeal to its file and decide the same in accordance with law after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing – the petition is allowed [Read less]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Classification of activity of Habitality upgradation works onboard ship - applicant contend that the activity of habitality upgradation works onboard ship falls under the ambit of "Maintenance, repair or overhaul services in respect of ships and other vessels, their engines and other components or parts" as per the Entry 25 of Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as added by Notification No. 02/2021 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 02.06.2021 - whether the services provided by the applicant qualify as "Maintenance, repair or overhaul services" (MRO services) in respect of ... [Read more]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Classification of activity of Habitality upgradation works onboard ship - applicant contend that the activity of habitality upgradation works onboard ship falls under the ambit of "Maintenance, repair or overhaul services in respect of ships and other vessels, their engines and other components or parts" as per the Entry 25 of Notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as added by Notification No. 02/2021 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 02.06.2021 - whether the services provided by the applicant qualify as "Maintenance, repair or overhaul services" (MRO services) in respect of ships and vessels as per the amended notification – HELD - The services provided by the applicant, while related to a naval vessel, do not primarily constitute maintenance, repair, or overhaul in the conventional sense. Instead, they appear to be in the nature of upgradation or renovation works - The contract involves substantial supply of goods along with installation services, which differentiates it from pure MRO services. There is no evidence of a comprehensive maintenance agreement or that the works involve restoring malfunctioning equipment to working condition - the services provided by the applicant do not primarily constitute maintenance, repair, or overhaul services as envisaged in the notification, the contract is more in the nature of a works contract involving supply and installation of goods - the tender work rendered by the applicant does not fall under the scope of Entry 25(ib) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 02/2021 Central Tax (rate) dated 02.06.2021 – ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR - Levy of GST as “pre-packaged and labelled” goods - Taxability of export of processed frozen shrimps (HSN:0306), packed in individual printed pouch/box, further packed inside a printed master carton (of up to 25 kgs each) containing the design, label and other particulars provided by the buyer - Whether the export of processed frozen shrimps (HSN:0306), packed in individual plain pouch/box, further packed inside a plain master carton (of up to 25 kgs each) liable to GST – HELD - supply of shrimps in pouches or boxes of upto 25kg, which duly pre-packaged and labelled as per Legal Metrology ... [Read more]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR - Levy of GST as “pre-packaged and labelled” goods - Taxability of export of processed frozen shrimps (HSN:0306), packed in individual printed pouch/box, further packed inside a printed master carton (of up to 25 kgs each) containing the design, label and other particulars provided by the buyer - Whether the export of processed frozen shrimps (HSN:0306), packed in individual plain pouch/box, further packed inside a plain master carton (of up to 25 kgs each) liable to GST – HELD - supply of shrimps in pouches or boxes of upto 25kg, which duly pre-packaged and labelled as per Legal Metrology Act 2009 and the rule made there under is a taxable event and it is not an exempted / nil rated supply - GST would be applicable @ 5% on the supply of “pre-packaged and labelled” shrimps, capacity upto 25 kgs, irrespective of the fact whether it is for domestic supply or for exported outside the country, as long as they are specified commodities that are pre-packaged - As per the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the rules made there under, since the inner packing is printed and is having pre-determined quantity it immediately attains the characteristics of pre-packaged and labelled' category, meant for retail sale, irrespective of the fact whether the outer packaging is printed or not. Under these circumstances, the inner packaging which ranges from 250 grams to 2 kilograms becomes liable to GST, as the same fall within the ambit of 'pre-packaged and labelled' category which is mandated to bear the declarations – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 - Export of goods procured from an Indian company undergoing liquidation - Zero-rated supply, Letter of Undertaking (LUT) – applicant, a Singapore based company, is in the process of procuring certain goods/assets from M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, an Indian company undergoing liquidation, with the intention to export them to Myanmar - Whether the outward supply of goods procured by the applicant from an Indian company undergoing liquidation can be treated as zero-rated supplies and can be exported without payment of tax against a LUT. HELD - the state... [Read more]

GST – Andhra Pradesh AAR – Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 - Export of goods procured from an Indian company undergoing liquidation - Zero-rated supply, Letter of Undertaking (LUT) – applicant, a Singapore based company, is in the process of procuring certain goods/assets from M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, an Indian company undergoing liquidation, with the intention to export them to Myanmar - Whether the outward supply of goods procured by the applicant from an Indian company undergoing liquidation can be treated as zero-rated supplies and can be exported without payment of tax against a LUT. HELD - the stated transaction is neither an exempted supply nor an export of goods/services, and therefore, it cannot be treated as a zero-rated supply under Section 16 of the IGST Act - the applicant, being a foreign company without any place of business or GST registration in India, cannot be considered as the exporter of the goods. The delivery of the goods would take place within the territory of India, and hence, the place of supply would be the location where the goods are delivered to the applicant, i.e., the premises of Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited. Accordingly, the question of export of the goods without payment of tax against a LUT does not arise in this case - the outward supply of goods procured by the applicant from an Indian company undergoing liquidation cannot be treated as zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act – Ordered accordingly [Read less]