More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 on captively consumed Relays used in manufacture of Control Panels – HELD – Following the previous orders in the Appellant\'s own case, the issue is answered in favor of Appellant. The revenue was unable to demonstrate that the earlier orders were appealed against or reversed by a higher judicial forum - In view of the consistent rulings in the Appellant\'s favor on the same issue, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Central Excise - Valuation of aluminium die-cast components - Department included amortized cost of customer-supplied moulds and dies in assessable value - Whether amortized value of customer-supplied dies and moulds is includible in the assessable value of die-castings - HELD - The amortized value of dies and moulds supplied by customers or manufactured for customers and used in the manufacture of aluminium die-castings is includible in the assessable value of the finished goods. The statutory provisions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules clearly recognize that mould... [Read more]

Central Excise - Valuation of aluminium die-cast components - Department included amortized cost of customer-supplied moulds and dies in assessable value - Whether amortized value of customer-supplied dies and moulds is includible in the assessable value of die-castings - HELD - The amortized value of dies and moulds supplied by customers or manufactured for customers and used in the manufacture of aluminium die-castings is includible in the assessable value of the finished goods. The statutory provisions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules clearly recognize that moulds and dies supplied by the buyer represent a form of additional consideration, and their value must be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured using those moulds. Relying on the Larger Bench decision in Mutual Industries Ltd. and subsequent rulings, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that including the amortized cost of moulds would amount to double taxation – The moulds and castings are distinct excisable goods and that payment of duty on moulds does not preclude inclusion of their amortized cost in the assessable value of the finished castings - The amortised value of dies and moulds supplied by customers or manufactured for customers and used in the manufacture of aluminium die-castings is includible in the assessable value of the finished goods - The appeal is partly allowed with the demand restricted to the normal period of limitation, and the penalty imposed on the appellant set aside [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of ocean freight charges collected by a multimodal transport operator - Appellant arranges for the transportation of export/import cargo in containers by sea through shipping agencies. The appellant collects the negotiated and agreed amount from the customers as ocean freight charges in the case of exports and imports - Department of the view that the appellant had made arrangements with the shipping companies for the provision of international freight service for the transportation of goods on their own account and the ocean freight charges with markup received as 'consideration' for the services ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of ocean freight charges collected by a multimodal transport operator - Appellant arranges for the transportation of export/import cargo in containers by sea through shipping agencies. The appellant collects the negotiated and agreed amount from the customers as ocean freight charges in the case of exports and imports - Department of the view that the appellant had made arrangements with the shipping companies for the provision of international freight service for the transportation of goods on their own account and the ocean freight charges with markup received as 'consideration' for the services provided to their customers is liable to service tax - Whether the ocean freight charges collected by the appellant, who is a multimodal transport operator, are liable to service tax - HELD - The issue of taxability of ocean freight charges collected by a multimodal transport operator is no more res-integra and has been consistently decided in favor of the assessee by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal - The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, wherein it was held that the reimbursable expenses like freight charges cannot be included in the value of taxable services until the amendment made to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 14.05.2015 - Further, the activity of the appellant is one of trading in cargo space in containers, which is a principal-to-principal transaction and does not involve provision of any service - The department has not provided any evidence to show that the appellant is acting as an agent of the shipping lines or the exporters/importers. Accordingly, the demand of service tax on the ocean freight charges collected by the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act on Customs House Agent for facilitating smuggling of goods - The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, permitted the use of his CHA licence without due diligence and supervision, which facilitated the attempted smuggling of red sanders -Whether a penalty can be imposed on a CHA under Section 114 of the Customs Act in such a case - HELD - The Section 114 has two limbs, any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation, and abetment of such an act - The first limb does not require proof of consciou... [Read more]

Customs - Penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act on Customs House Agent for facilitating smuggling of goods - The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, permitted the use of his CHA licence without due diligence and supervision, which facilitated the attempted smuggling of red sanders -Whether a penalty can be imposed on a CHA under Section 114 of the Customs Act in such a case - HELD - The Section 114 has two limbs, any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation, and abetment of such an act - The first limb does not require proof of conscious and knowing involvement or abetment in smuggling. Once the act or omission of the person results in the goods being liable to confiscation, the penalty under Section 114 follows as a civil consequence, regardless of the person's intent - The appellant, as a CHA, was under a statutory obligation to ensure lawful clearance of goods and his omissions directly contributed to the attempted illicit export, thereby rendering him liable to penalty under Section 114 - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value - The importer, a trader and an importer of goods, imported Ferro Silicon and Magnesium Fello Silicon from Bhutan through Land Customs Station at Jaigaon. The department demanded differential duty by including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer contended that the FOB value is the deemed CIF value as there is no transit time and no-man's land between the Bhutan and India border, and hence the freight and insurance charges need not be added - HELD - On merits, the importer's... [Read more]

Customs - Inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value - The importer, a trader and an importer of goods, imported Ferro Silicon and Magnesium Fello Silicon from Bhutan through Land Customs Station at Jaigaon. The department demanded differential duty by including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer contended that the FOB value is the deemed CIF value as there is no transit time and no-man's land between the Bhutan and India border, and hence the freight and insurance charges need not be added - HELD - On merits, the importer's plea of FOB and CIF value being the same cannot be accepted without documentary evidence - As per the Valuation Rules, if the cost of transportation is not ascertainable, 20% of the FOB value has to be added towards freight charges and 1.125% towards insurance charges - The importer's declaration in the Bill of Entry cannot be considered a case of willful misstatement or suppression, as the importer had categorically stated the facts in the invoice cum challan. The case of bonafide belief/interpretation would not fall into the realm of suppression/willful misstatement, and hence the larger period of limitation is not invokable - The appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation [Read less]

Service Tax liability on foreign bank charges under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - The appellant realised export proceeds from its foreign buyers - The foreign and Indian banks recovered bank charges for services rendered to the appellant - Department opined that the services rendered by the foreign banks are taxable under 'Banking and Financial Services' and the appellant, being the recipient of services, is liable to discharge service tax under the RCM - HELD - In the appellant's own case for an earlier period, the Chennai Bench had set aside the demand of service tax on foreign bank charges under RCM. Following the ju... [Read more]

Service Tax liability on foreign bank charges under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - The appellant realised export proceeds from its foreign buyers - The foreign and Indian banks recovered bank charges for services rendered to the appellant - Department opined that the services rendered by the foreign banks are taxable under 'Banking and Financial Services' and the appellant, being the recipient of services, is liable to discharge service tax under the RCM - HELD - In the appellant's own case for an earlier period, the Chennai Bench had set aside the demand of service tax on foreign bank charges under RCM. Following the judicial discipline, there is no justifiable reasons to sustain the impugned order and set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Classification of Service, Composite contract for supply and installation of electrical goods - The appellant undertook composite contracts involving supply of electrical goods and installation services for BSNL and CPWD - Whether the appellant's activity can be classified under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' for the period prior to and after 01-07-2007 – HELD - The demand of service tax on the composite electrical contracts rendered by the appellant for the period prior to 01-06-2007 under the category "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" is untenable. The Supreme Court... [Read more]

Service Tax – Classification of Service, Composite contract for supply and installation of electrical goods - The appellant undertook composite contracts involving supply of electrical goods and installation services for BSNL and CPWD - Whether the appellant's activity can be classified under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' for the period prior to and after 01-07-2007 – HELD - The demand of service tax on the composite electrical contracts rendered by the appellant for the period prior to 01-06-2007 under the category "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" is untenable. The Supreme Court decision in CCE v. Larsen and Toubro, held that the charging provisions in the Finance Act, 1994 refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. Therefore, the classification of the appellant's activity under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" for the period prior to 01-06-2007 is not tenable - For the period after 01-07-2007, the Appellate Authority's finding of classifying the appellant's work under "Works Contract Service" for the period after 01-07-2007 is unsustainable as the SCN proposed classification under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" for the entire period - The Appellate Authority's finding of classification under "Works Contract Service" for the period after 01-07-2007 is beyond the scope of the SCN and set aside - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on insurance services used for authorized operations in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit - The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed refund claims for service tax paid on Group Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance of its employees and their family dependents, which were used for the authorized operations in the SEZ unit. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that these insurance services were not included in the list of input services approved by the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) of the Development Commissioner - Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of service t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on insurance services used for authorized operations in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit - The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed refund claims for service tax paid on Group Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance of its employees and their family dependents, which were used for the authorized operations in the SEZ unit. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that these insurance services were not included in the list of input services approved by the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) of the Development Commissioner - Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of service tax paid on the Group Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance of its employees and their family dependents, which were used for the authorized operations in the SEZ unit - HELD - The Notification No. 12/2013-ST, which governs the refund, does not require the services to be qualified as 'input services' under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The only mandate is that the services should be used for the authorized operations in the SEZ unit, which the appellant has satisfied - The mere non-inclusion of services in the list of UAC shall not be a ground for rejection of the refund claim, as the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 have an overriding effect over other laws - The 'General Insurance Business Services', which were approved by the UAC, include the Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the refund claims should be allowed, despite the insurance services not being included in the list approved by the UAC - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Deduction of 'administration charges' from sub-contractors' bills - Appellant claims the activities were CSR initiatives and that the recoveries were merely partial reimbursement of welfare expenses, not consideration for any service, and hence not taxable - Whether “administrative charges” is taxable under 'Support Services for Business or Commerce' under the Finance Act, 1994 or a reimbursement of welfare expenses not amounting to consideration – HELD - The deduction of 0.5% from sub-contractors' bills, initially termed as "administrative charges" and later renamed "rebate/discount", constitutes a tax... [Read more]

Service Tax - Deduction of 'administration charges' from sub-contractors' bills - Appellant claims the activities were CSR initiatives and that the recoveries were merely partial reimbursement of welfare expenses, not consideration for any service, and hence not taxable - Whether “administrative charges” is taxable under 'Support Services for Business or Commerce' under the Finance Act, 1994 or a reimbursement of welfare expenses not amounting to consideration – HELD - The deduction of 0.5% from sub-contractors' bills, initially termed as "administrative charges" and later renamed "rebate/discount", constitutes a taxable service under 'Support Services for Business or Commerce' and not a reimbursement of welfare expenses – The appellant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its claim that the deductions were towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities and mere welfare initiatives. The percentage-based recovery linked to the bill value indicates administrative and operational business support, not welfare, and the accounting treatment as "administrative charges" supports this view - The appellant's failure to produce relevant documents within its exclusive knowledge resulted in an adverse inference being drawn, shifting the onus of proof to the appellant - Further, there is no merit in the appellant's argument of double taxation, as the service tax paid by sub-contractors was for construction activities, while the present demand pertains to distinct services of administrative and operational support provided by the appellant to the contractors - The invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalties is upheld, considering the appellant's deliberate suppression of facts and intention to evade service tax – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value of imported goods - The importer claimed the FOB and CIF value were same as there was no transit time between the point of export in Bhutan and point of import in India, and hence no freight or insurance charges were payable - The Revenue contended that freight and insurance charges were required to be added to the FOB value under the Customs Valuation Rules – HELD - The importer's claim of FOB and CIF value being same was not supported by adequate documentary evidence. The terms and conditions in the invoice indicated the goods were dispatched at b... [Read more]

Customs - Inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value of imported goods - The importer claimed the FOB and CIF value were same as there was no transit time between the point of export in Bhutan and point of import in India, and hence no freight or insurance charges were payable - The Revenue contended that freight and insurance charges were required to be added to the FOB value under the Customs Valuation Rules – HELD - The importer's claim of FOB and CIF value being same was not supported by adequate documentary evidence. The terms and conditions in the invoice indicated the goods were dispatched at buyer's risk and the seller's responsibility ceased on the goods leaving the factory. Therefore, the inclusion of 20% of FOB as freight charges and 1.125% as insurance charges, as per the Customs Valuation Rules, is warranted on merit – However, the Revenue failed to prove suppression or willful misstatement by the importer, as the importer had clearly declared the FOB value in the Bill of Entry. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of deliberate default by the importer. Further, as the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the claim of suppression or intention to evade duty cannot be made out - The appeal is allowed on the grounds of limitation [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of PVC extrusion machine i.e. “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories” - HELD - The “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories are classifiable under Heading 8477, which covers machinery for working plastics. Having regard to the principal function of the machine as extrusion, the continuous nature of the process involved, and the applicability of Notes 3 and 4 to Section XVI relating to composite machines and functional units, the entire assembly, being an integrated extrusion system for the manufacture of PVC/CPVC pipes wherein the extruder performs the ... [Read more]

Customs AAR - Classification of PVC extrusion machine i.e. “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories” - HELD - The “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories are classifiable under Heading 8477, which covers machinery for working plastics. Having regard to the principal function of the machine as extrusion, the continuous nature of the process involved, and the applicability of Notes 3 and 4 to Section XVI relating to composite machines and functional units, the entire assembly, being an integrated extrusion system for the manufacture of PVC/CPVC pipes wherein the extruder performs the dominant and denning function and all other components operate in conjunction with and are subordinate thereto, merits classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8477 20 00 – “Extruders” - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of \'Oura Health ring/ Smart Ring’ and \'Sizing Kit\' - HELD - The product Oura Smart Ring/ Health Ring merits classification under CTI 903 18000 as “Other instruments, appliances and machines” and the Sizing Kit is classifiable under CTI 39269099 (other articles of plastic) of the First Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 - Ordered accordingly

Customs AAR - Classification of \'Kitchen Exhaust Hood exceeding 120 cm in width\' - HELD - The product “Kitchen Exhaust Hoods (exceeding 120cm. without fan)” merit classification under Heading 8414 80 and more specifically under sub-heading 8414 80 90-Other, of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Ordered accordingly

Services Tax - Taxability of services provided by foreign agents - The appellant is engaged in providing various services including operating a shipping line and functioning as a Multimodal Transport Operator. It appoints foreign agents to complete port formalities on behalf of its customers and pays commission to these agents in foreign currency - Whether the services provided by the foreign agents are taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' or 'Steamer Agent Services' under the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD - The services provided by the foreign agents cannot be classified as 'Business Auxiliary Services' as the appellant... [Read more]

Services Tax - Taxability of services provided by foreign agents - The appellant is engaged in providing various services including operating a shipping line and functioning as a Multimodal Transport Operator. It appoints foreign agents to complete port formalities on behalf of its customers and pays commission to these agents in foreign currency - Whether the services provided by the foreign agents are taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' or 'Steamer Agent Services' under the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD - The services provided by the foreign agents cannot be classified as 'Business Auxiliary Services' as the appellant is promoting its own business. Further, under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, the service tax liability is attracted when taxable services are received from a foreign service provider and the service-recipient is situated in India. Since the services are rendered abroad and not received in India, the question of liability to pay service tax under Section 66A does not arise for the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.06.2012. For the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014, as per the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, since the services are rendered and received abroad, the question of taxability under Reverse Charge Mechanism does not arise - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Transportation services – Demand of service tax based on third-party information received from the Income Tax Department showing receipts of income to the appellant - Whether the service tax demand is sustainable on merits and within the period of limitation - HELD - The demand for the period prior to October 2015 is barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued in December 2020, beyond the 5-year limitation period. For the remaining period from October 2015 to March 2016, there was no positive evidence of fraud or suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation - Further, the sh... [Read more]

Service Tax - Transportation services – Demand of service tax based on third-party information received from the Income Tax Department showing receipts of income to the appellant - Whether the service tax demand is sustainable on merits and within the period of limitation - HELD - The demand for the period prior to October 2015 is barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued in December 2020, beyond the 5-year limitation period. For the remaining period from October 2015 to March 2016, there was no positive evidence of fraud or suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation - Further, the show-cause notice was issued solely based on the third-party information from the Income Tax Department, without examining the appellant's books of accounts and records - Demand based solely on third-party information, without examining the assessee's records, are not sustainable - The appellant had submitted certificates from a Chartered Accountant and an affidavit explaining the nature of the transportation services and the applicability of the Reverse Charge Mechanism, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities - Further, the transportation services carried out by the appellant using its own vehicles without issuing consignment notes would fall under the 'Negative List' and not be subject to service tax - Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Demand on freight charges paid to goods transport operators (GTOs) - The appellant, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, paid freight charges to GTOs during the period 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998, a period during which service tax was applicable on GTO services. The revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest and penalties from the appellant - Whether the confirmation of service tax demand made on the appellant on the value of the taxable services rendered to the appellant by the goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 demanded under SCN dated 22.03.2002 is tenable - ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand on freight charges paid to goods transport operators (GTOs) - The appellant, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, paid freight charges to GTOs during the period 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998, a period during which service tax was applicable on GTO services. The revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest and penalties from the appellant - Whether the confirmation of service tax demand made on the appellant on the value of the taxable services rendered to the appellant by the goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 demanded under SCN dated 22.03.2002 is tenable - HELD - Relying on the decision of a coordinate bench in CCE Raipur v. Jaiswal Equipment & Holdings P. Ltd, it is observed that the SCN dated 22.03.2002 was issued under Section 73 of the Act alleging non-payment of tax and non-filing of returns, whereas the amended provisions (Section 71A) introduced a special return filing obligation for the recipients of GTO services, with a extended time limit up to 30-11-2003 - Without issuing a revised SCN under Section 73 read with Section 71A alleging non-payment of tax and non-filing of returns by the extended due date, the demand made basis the original SCN cannot be sustained - The decisions relied upon by the revenue were distinguishable on facts - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of 'Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog' - Whether the impugned products are classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as claimed by the appellant or under CTH 6806 2000 as claimed by the Revenue - HELD - Based on the technical literature provided by the manufacturer, the Chemical Examiner's report, and the certification issued by the British Ceramic Confederation, the impugned products are rightly classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as 'Fire clay bricks and shapes' - The products are ceramic in nature and are shaped before firing, satisfying the conditions for classification under CTH 6902. The Revenue's reliance o... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of 'Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog' - Whether the impugned products are classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as claimed by the appellant or under CTH 6806 2000 as claimed by the Revenue - HELD - Based on the technical literature provided by the manufacturer, the Chemical Examiner's report, and the certification issued by the British Ceramic Confederation, the impugned products are rightly classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as 'Fire clay bricks and shapes' - The products are ceramic in nature and are shaped before firing, satisfying the conditions for classification under CTH 6902. The Revenue's reliance on an invoice mentioning CTH 6806 2000 was not found sufficient to override the other evidence - Further, the Chemical Examiner's report, unless demonstrated to be erroneous, cannot be lightly brushed aside. As there was no suppression or misrepresentation of facts, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Eligibility for customs duty exemption on imported goods used for construction of roads - Appellant imported "Toll collection and traffic control equipments" during the period 2012 claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Revenue alleged that the conditions mentioned under the said notification, particularly Sl.No.9(a)(iii) and clause (b), were not fulfilled - Whether the appellant-1 is eligible for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Sl.No.368 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 on the imported goods used for construction of roads - HELD - The appellant has... [Read more]

Customs - Eligibility for customs duty exemption on imported goods used for construction of roads - Appellant imported "Toll collection and traffic control equipments" during the period 2012 claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Revenue alleged that the conditions mentioned under the said notification, particularly Sl.No.9(a)(iii) and clause (b), were not fulfilled - Whether the appellant-1 is eligible for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Sl.No.368 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 on the imported goods used for construction of roads - HELD - The appellant has sufficiently complied with the Condition No.9(a) of the said Notification. Though the name of the appellant was not specifically appearing in the Concession Agreement between the NHAI and the main contractor (appellant-2), the appellant was appointed as a sub-contractor by the appellant 2 pursuant to the Concession Agreement, which was duly communicated to NHAI and the Customs Department - The clarification issued by the Board through Circular No. 21/2013-Customs dated 16.05.2013, stated that non-mention of the name of the sub-contractor in the agreement signed between the contractor and the Government cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of the exemption notification - The allegation of non-compliance of Condition No.9(b) is incorrect, as once the project is completed, the contractor or sub-contractor is not required to wait to hand over the project for the remaining period of 5 years - The law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. Accordingly, the impugned order is aet aside and the appeals are allowed holding that the appellant-1 is eligible for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Sl.No.368 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service - Eligibility for immunity from penalty under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Short payment and non-payment on certain services - Appellant subsequently paid the entire tax and interest - Whether the appellant is entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The impugned order does not make out a case of fraud, willful misstatement, etc. with an intention to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment of duty or failure to obtain registration, absent of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement, is insufficient to attract the extended limitation period. In the circ... [Read more]

Service - Eligibility for immunity from penalty under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Short payment and non-payment on certain services - Appellant subsequently paid the entire tax and interest - Whether the appellant is entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The impugned order does not make out a case of fraud, willful misstatement, etc. with an intention to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment of duty or failure to obtain registration, absent of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement, is insufficient to attract the extended limitation period. In the circumstances, the provision of Section 73(4) of the Finance Act 1994 is not attracted, and the part of the impugned order imposing penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 is set aside – The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Customs - Confiscation of goods under prohibited import policy and subsequent relaxation of policy to restricted status - Whether the confiscated goods can be cleared for home consumption at the enhanced value in light of the subsequent amending notification changing the status of goods from 'prohibited' to 'restricted' - HELD - Although the confiscation and penalty were justified at the time of import when the goods were classified as "prohibited". The redemption for home consumption could have been allowed at the enhanced value sought by the appellant, in the light of the amending notification in force at the time of pa... [Read more]

Customs - Confiscation of goods under prohibited import policy and subsequent relaxation of policy to restricted status - Whether the confiscated goods can be cleared for home consumption at the enhanced value in light of the subsequent amending notification changing the status of goods from 'prohibited' to 'restricted' - HELD - Although the confiscation and penalty were justified at the time of import when the goods were classified as "prohibited". The redemption for home consumption could have been allowed at the enhanced value sought by the appellant, in the light of the amending notification in force at the time of passing the impugned order - A beneficial amending notification operates retrospectively, and where a legislation confers a benefit without inflicting a corresponding detriment, the presumption is that such legislation warrants a retrospective effect - Accordingly, the impugned order is modifies to permit clearance of the goods for home consumption after redemption, at the enhanced value as prayed for by the appellant, subject to payment of applicable duties, interest etc. - The appeal is disposed of accordingly, modifying the impugned order to the extent indicated [Read less]

Customs - Extra supply to compensate for damages during transport, Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignment of Computer Cabinet Cases and on examination, goods were found in excess of the declared quantity. The revenue authorities rejected the declared value and re-fixed the value based on the report of a Chartered Engineer, who opined that the goods were old and used, and were incomplete desktops - Whether the appellant has mis-declared the quantity and value of the imported goods – HELD - The excess quantity of 111 pieces out of 4,320 pieces is an insignificantly small nu... [Read more]

Customs - Extra supply to compensate for damages during transport, Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignment of Computer Cabinet Cases and on examination, goods were found in excess of the declared quantity. The revenue authorities rejected the declared value and re-fixed the value based on the report of a Chartered Engineer, who opined that the goods were old and used, and were incomplete desktops - Whether the appellant has mis-declared the quantity and value of the imported goods – HELD - The excess quantity of 111 pieces out of 4,320 pieces is an insignificantly small number. The clarification provided by the foreign supplier that the extra pieces were supplied to compensate for any damages during transport is reasonable. Thus, there is no mis-declaration of quantity with the intent to evade payment of duty - Regarding the issue of mis-declaration of value, the Chartered Engineer's opinion on the value of the goods was casual and unsupported by any evidence. The revenue also did not prove that the importer paid the foreign supplier in excess of the price shown in the invoices. Therefore, the re-determination of the value by the revenue is not warranted - The Tribunal also disagreed with the classification of the goods as incomplete computer systems, as the Chartered Engineer had used the terms "Computer Cabinet Cases" and "barebone systems" interchangeably. Without a Central Processing Unit (CPU), the system cannot be considered an incomplete or unfinished computer system. Merely a computer cabinet case for a computer system without CPU cannot be held to an incomplete or unfinished computer system - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of \'Dashcam\' - HELD - The subject goods do not fall under category of Digital Still Image Video Camera but are Digital Video recorder. Dashcams merit classification under CTI 8525 89 00 as other television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and concessional rate of BCD in terms of Sl. No. 289 of Notification No. 45/25-Cus., dated 24.10.2025 applicable in this case - Ordered accordingly

Central Excise - Reversal of common CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant, engaged in manufacture of printing and writing paper, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used commonly and opted for proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3A) - Department alleged that the appellant had incorrectly applied the formula by restricting it to common input services and by not properly including the value of electricity generated at windmills and traded goods. The appellant contended that for the purpose of Rule 6(3A), the term "total CENVAT credit" refers only to total common input serv... [Read more]

Central Excise - Reversal of common CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant, engaged in manufacture of printing and writing paper, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used commonly and opted for proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3A) - Department alleged that the appellant had incorrectly applied the formula by restricting it to common input services and by not properly including the value of electricity generated at windmills and traded goods. The appellant contended that for the purpose of Rule 6(3A), the term "total CENVAT credit" refers only to total common input service credit and not to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods - HELD - The appellant has correctly applied Rule 6(3A) by confining the computation to common credit and by including the value of electricity generated and trading turnover for the purpose of determining proportionate reversal. The interpretation adopted in the impugned orders, which loads exclusive dutiable credit into the formula and seeks to substitute the statutory option exercised by the appellant, is contrary to the scheme of Rule 6 and settled judicial precedent - Further, the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice to the extent it confirms demand on grounds not specifically alleged therein - The extended period of limitation under Section 11A is not invocable as there is no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts - Accordingly, the demands are set aside and the penalties imposed are also deleted - The appeals were allowed - Scope of Show Cause Notice - HELD - The adjudication cannot travel beyond the allegations in the Show Cause Notice. The SCN is the foundation of the case and defines the scope of adjudication. By confirming demand under an interpretation not put to the appellant's notice in the SCN and by effectively substituting the option chosen by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has enlarged the scope of the proceedings, which is legally impermissible - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 11A - HELD - Where the dispute is purely interpretational and the assessee has disclosed all relevant particulars in statutory returns, invocation of the extended period is impermissible in law. The department has not established any deliberate withholding of information. In the absence of any allegation in the Show Cause Notice establishing intent to evade duty with supporting material, the extended period cannot be sustained merely on interpretational differences - Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC - HELD - Where the dispute pertains to interpretation of statutory provisions and the assessee has acted on a plausible interpretation supported by judicial decisions, imposition of penalty is not justified. In the present case, there is no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts. Therefore, the essential pre-condition for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC is not satisfied. Accordingly, the penalties imposed were set aside. [Read less]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Calculation of Profiteering amount - DGAP alleged that the respondent had profiteered by not passing the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the home buyers through commensurate reduction in the prices of the flats – HELD - The profiteered amount should be calculated by considering the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then dividing the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer - The respondent had admitted to profiteering in its earlier submissions before the erstwhile National Anti-profiteering Authori... [Read more]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Calculation of Profiteering amount - DGAP alleged that the respondent had profiteered by not passing the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the home buyers through commensurate reduction in the prices of the flats – HELD - The profiteered amount should be calculated by considering the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then dividing the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer - The respondent had admitted to profiteering in its earlier submissions before the erstwhile National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) and the Delhi High Court. These judicial admissions are conclusive and cannot be reverted unless the respondent demonstrated that they were incorrect or made under a wrong assumption of fact - The respondent is liable to pay the profiteered amount along with 12% GST to the home buyers. The respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the profiteered amount from the date of payment of the last installment by each home buyer – Ordered accordingly - Methodology for determining profiteering – There is no fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering, and the determination of the profiteered amount has to be computed by taking into account the relevant and peculiar facts of each case - The DGAP had calculated the profiteering based on the total pre-GST period up to June 2017 and the post-GST period from July 2017 to November 2019. The DGAP had considered the total purchase value of goods and services for the project, the ratio of ITC to the purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, and the total area of the project to arrive at the profiteered amount per square feet, which was then multiplied by the total sold area to determine the total profiteered amount - The methodology adopted by the DGAP was in line with the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court, where the court had directed the authority to calculate the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then divide the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer - The Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that the DGAP's methodology was flawed and that the profiteered amount should be limited to the ITC on construction materials (goods) and not on input services. The Delhi High Court's judgment did not limit the ITC benefit to goods alone and that any benefit of reduction in tax rate or ITC, whether on goods or services, must be passed on to the consumers - The Tribunal upheld the methodology adopted by the DGAP in calculating the profiteered amount [Read less]

GST - Bail Application - Applicant charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for allegedly defrauding the department by wrongful availment of input tax – HELD - the department is empowered to invoke appropriate procedures for recovering and/or imposing penalties upon the applicant - In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail, subject to the applicant executing a bond of Rs.1,... [Read more]

GST - Bail Application - Applicant charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for allegedly defrauding the department by wrongful availment of input tax – HELD - the department is empowered to invoke appropriate procedures for recovering and/or imposing penalties upon the applicant - In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail, subject to the applicant executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount and complying with certain conditions - The application is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Imposition of penalty for abetment in fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit, Settlement of case by main party under SVLDRS - Bogus LRs showing transportation of copper ingots - HELD - The appellant's admission of issuance of bogus LRs clearly establishes his abetment in availment of fraudulent Cenvat Credit by M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the main party's case was settled under SVLDRS does not absolve the appellant of his wrongful deeds and its consequences - The penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Imposit... [Read more]

Central Excise – Imposition of penalty for abetment in fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit, Settlement of case by main party under SVLDRS - Bogus LRs showing transportation of copper ingots - HELD - The appellant's admission of issuance of bogus LRs clearly establishes his abetment in availment of fraudulent Cenvat Credit by M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the main party's case was settled under SVLDRS does not absolve the appellant of his wrongful deeds and its consequences - The penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Imposition of penalty on co-noticees when main party's case is settled under SVLDRS - The appellant argued that since the case of the main party M/s. Shriram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. has been settled under SVLDRS, 2019, the penalty on the co-noticees like him should not be sustained - HELD - Each co-noticee has to approach separately under SVLDRS for settlement of their case, and the settlement of the main party's case does not automatically absolve the co-noticees of their wrongful deeds and its consequences - The appellant's role in abetting the fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit by M/s. Shriram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. is duly established and hence, the penalty imposed on him under Rule 26 is justified - Appeal dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on cancelled services - The appellant, a real estate brokerage service provider, claimed a refund on the ground that some of their services rendered to customers were rejected and not provided either partly or wholly – Rejection of refund on the ground of limitation, being filed beyond one year from the date of payment of tax - Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The consistent view taken in various decisions is that refund claim of service tax paid under the existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in respect ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on cancelled services - The appellant, a real estate brokerage service provider, claimed a refund on the ground that some of their services rendered to customers were rejected and not provided either partly or wholly – Rejection of refund on the ground of limitation, being filed beyond one year from the date of payment of tax - Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The consistent view taken in various decisions is that refund claim of service tax paid under the existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of under the existing law and has to be paid in cash. However, such refund is subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 11B of CEA, which means that it is only in case of unjust enrichment that the refund amount can be denied. The refund application cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar under Section 11B - Once the booking has been cancelled and the amount has been refunded, there is no scope for rendering any service on which the Department can hold the amount towards service tax - the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is entitled to the refund subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of Section 11B(2) of CEA read with section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - The Adjudicating Authority to decide on the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment and granting an opportunity to the appellant to place on record the requisite documents in that regard – The appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Failure to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers – HELD – Respondent is directed to refund the profiteered amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the eligible homebuyers listed in the DGAP report - Interest is compensatory in nature and ensures restitution of the time value of money that rightfully belongs to the recipients, hence the respondent is liable to pay interest from the respective dates of collection of the excess amount until the date of refund - No penalty can be imposed as the provisions of Section 171(3A) came into force after the ... [Read more]

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Failure to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers – HELD – Respondent is directed to refund the profiteered amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the eligible homebuyers listed in the DGAP report - Interest is compensatory in nature and ensures restitution of the time value of money that rightfully belongs to the recipients, hence the respondent is liable to pay interest from the respective dates of collection of the excess amount until the date of refund - No penalty can be imposed as the provisions of Section 171(3A) came into force after the Occupation Certificate for the project was received – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Maintainability of appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after omission of the provision by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 and subsequent declaration of the NTT Act as unconstitutional – Department filed appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents-assessees objected to the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that the right to appeal under Section 35G was omitted by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (NTT Act) and could not be automatically revived even after the NTT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court – HELD – The Section... [Read more]

Central Excise - Maintainability of appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after omission of the provision by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 and subsequent declaration of the NTT Act as unconstitutional – Department filed appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents-assessees objected to the maintainability of the appeals, arguing that the right to appeal under Section 35G was omitted by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (NTT Act) and could not be automatically revived even after the NTT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court – HELD – The Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 were omitted by virtue of the provisions introduced through the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005. However, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India case the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the entire enactment was declared unconstitutional - When an unconstitutional amendment is struck down, the original provision is automatically revived. The Constitution Bench in Madras Bar Association had clearly stated that the jurisdiction to decide substantial questions of law vests only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and cannot be vested in any other body without impairing a core constitutional value - If the respondents' contention was accepted, it would lead to a legal vacuum, as the valid and constitutional provision under Section 35G would be inadvertently nullified, which the legislature would never have intended. After the declaration of the NTT Act as unconstitutional, the earlier provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and other similar provisions that were omitted by the NTT Act stand automatically revived, and there is no need for further legislative or judicial direction. Accordingly, the objection raised by the respondents was rejected as unsustainable - The appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are held to be maintainable and all appeals be heard separately on its own merit – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Uttarakhand AAR - Applicability of GST exemption on healthcare services provided by the applicant under a Government-funded public healthcare programme, Exemption to services provided by sub-contractor – Applicant is engaged in operating and managing Government-owned Urban Health & Wellness Centres (UHWCs) and Polyclinics under a government-funded public healthcare programme - The applicant delivers primary healthcare services to the public free of cost, strictly in accordance with government guidelines, without charging patients or generating any commercial revenue - Whether the operation and management of Gover... [Read more]

GST – Uttarakhand AAR - Applicability of GST exemption on healthcare services provided by the applicant under a Government-funded public healthcare programme, Exemption to services provided by sub-contractor – Applicant is engaged in operating and managing Government-owned Urban Health & Wellness Centres (UHWCs) and Polyclinics under a government-funded public healthcare programme - The applicant delivers primary healthcare services to the public free of cost, strictly in accordance with government guidelines, without charging patients or generating any commercial revenue - Whether the operation and management of Government UHWCs/Ayushman Arogya Mandirs and Polyclinics by the applicant constitute exempt "healthcare services by a clinical establishment" under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The applicant cannot be regarded as the supplier of exempt healthcare services under Entry 74 of the said notification. The applicant is merely the operating agency engaged for operation and management of government health care centres under an agreement with Braithwaite & Co. Limited, and the services supplied by the applicant are in the nature of contractual operational, managerial and administrative services provided to Braithwaite & Co. Limited, and not the provision of healthcare services by a clinical establishment – The services supplied by the applicant are liable to GST at the applicable rates and are not eligible for exemption under either Entry 74 or Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Ordered accordingly - Whether the said activities qualify as "pure services" provided to the State Government (through its designated PSU executing agency under formal MoU) in relation to Article 243W functions (public health, hospitals, dispensaries - Twelfth Schedule Entries 6, 8, 23), and are therefore exempt under Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The services provided by the applicant as a sub-contractor cannot be interpreted as services provided to the Urban Development Directorate, Government of Uttarakhand. Consequently, the benefit of exemption under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not available to the applicant. Further, the services supplied by the applicant involve ensuring that each centre is equipped with the required infrastructure, manpower and operational support, which is in the nature of a composite supply rather than pure services. [Read less]

The use of certain common elements like graphical designs, color, font, etc. on the packaging of products qualifies as a 'brand name' in N/No.2/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as inserted by N/No.28/2017-CT (Rate) dated 22.09.2017.

Service Tax - Joint ownership of commercial property, Taxability of rental income - The appellants are joint owners of a commercial property that they rented out to various lessees. They received one-third of the rental income each by cheque after deduction of TDS and disclosed their respective shares in their income-tax returns, paying tax accordingly. Separate service tax registrations were obtained by each appellant upon crossing the individual threshold exemption limit - Whether the joint owners should be assessed individually with separate slab exemptions, or collectively as an 'association of persons' without such ex... [Read more]

Service Tax - Joint ownership of commercial property, Taxability of rental income - The appellants are joint owners of a commercial property that they rented out to various lessees. They received one-third of the rental income each by cheque after deduction of TDS and disclosed their respective shares in their income-tax returns, paying tax accordingly. Separate service tax registrations were obtained by each appellant upon crossing the individual threshold exemption limit - Whether the joint owners should be assessed individually with separate slab exemptions, or collectively as an 'association of persons' without such exemption – HELD - The individual appellants as co-owners cannot be regarded as an 'association of persons' for the purpose of joint assessment of their total rental income under Service Tax. An 'association of persons' requires a meeting of minds and voluntary union with a shared objective, particularly the generation of income, which was absent in this case. The co-owners had not pooled resources nor acquired the property in the name of any association, and there was no evidence of joint management of the property. The rent was paid separately to each co-owner, with ownership shares being distinct and identifiable, indicating the absence of the essential element of volition required for the formation of an association of persons - Accordingly, each appellant is entitled to individual assessment and may avail the applicable slab exemption on an individual basis - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of the chemicals 'Carbosulfan' and 'Clomazone' - HELD - The product ‘Carbosulfan’ and ‘Clomazone’ are Technical Grade Chemicals. As per the technical write-up (Carbosulfan Technical and Clomazone Technical), both substances are specifically described and recognized as insecticides and herbicides - “Carbosulfan- Technical Grade and Clomazone-Technical Grade" to be used as insecticide and herbicide, are classifiable under C?H 3808, ?TSH 380891- insecticides and CTSH 380893- herbicide, more specifically under CTI 3808 91 41 and 3808 93 61 respectively, of the first schedule to the Custom... [Read more]

Customs AAR - Classification of the chemicals 'Carbosulfan' and 'Clomazone' - HELD - The product ‘Carbosulfan’ and ‘Clomazone’ are Technical Grade Chemicals. As per the technical write-up (Carbosulfan Technical and Clomazone Technical), both substances are specifically described and recognized as insecticides and herbicides - “Carbosulfan- Technical Grade and Clomazone-Technical Grade" to be used as insecticide and herbicide, are classifiable under C?H 3808, ?TSH 380891- insecticides and CTSH 380893- herbicide, more specifically under CTI 3808 91 41 and 3808 93 61 respectively, of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of the chemicals \"Cyantraniliprole\" and \"Clothianidin\" - HELD - The products \"Cyantraniliprole\" and \"Clothianidin\" are Technical Grade Chemicals. As per the technical write-up both substances are specifically described and recognized as insecticides. The subject goods i.e. “Cyantraniliprole- Technical Grade and Clothianidin-Technical Grade” are classifiable under CTH 3808, CTSH 380891- insecticides, more specifically under CTI 3808 91 42 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Ordered accordingly

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - E-commerce Operator - The applicant operates an e-commerce platform that connects vehicle owners/drivers (transporters) with customers who require transportation services for their goods. Customers can book transporters through the online portal or mobile app of the applicant - Whether the applicant satisfies the definition of an "E-commerce operator" or "Goods Transport Agency" – HELD - The applicant satisfies the definition of an 'e-commerce operator' under the GST Act as it owns, operates and manages a digital platform for facilitating the supply of transportation services between transporters... [Read more]

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - E-commerce Operator - The applicant operates an e-commerce platform that connects vehicle owners/drivers (transporters) with customers who require transportation services for their goods. Customers can book transporters through the online portal or mobile app of the applicant - Whether the applicant satisfies the definition of an "E-commerce operator" or "Goods Transport Agency" – HELD - The applicant satisfies the definition of an 'e-commerce operator' under the GST Act as it owns, operates and manages a digital platform for facilitating the supply of transportation services between transporters and customers. The applicant does not satisfy the definition of a 'Goods Transport Agency' as it is not involved in the actual transportation of goods by road, issuance of consignment notes or other ancillary activities. Though the service is ‘transportation of goods’, the supply of such service is through electronic platform. Therefore, the applicant qualify as an e-commerce operator - In addition to paying GST on the commission received from the transporters, the applicant, as an e-commerce operator, is required to follow the provisions of Section 52 of the CGST Act which mandate the collection of 'Tax Collected at Source' (TCS) at the rate specified by the Government notifications on the net value of taxable supplies made through the applicant's platform by the transporters. The applicant cannot be considered as a 'pure agent' for the limited purpose of collecting the entire transportation charges from customers and remitting the balance to the transporters, as the conditions specified in Rule 33 of the CGST Rules are not fulfilled – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Supply of solar power generating systems - Composite Supply vs. Works Contract - Assessing authority held that the services and goods supplied by the petitioner should be treated as a works contract, as the setting up of solar power generating systems would result in construction of immovable property – HELD - The very same issue had been considered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not would amount to a works contract - The supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not a works contract. The turnover of the pe... [Read more]

GST - Supply of solar power generating systems - Composite Supply vs. Works Contract - Assessing authority held that the services and goods supplied by the petitioner should be treated as a works contract, as the setting up of solar power generating systems would result in construction of immovable property – HELD - The very same issue had been considered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not would amount to a works contract - The supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not a works contract. The turnover of the petitioner should be taxed by treating it as a composite supply, and not a works contract – The petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs AAR - Classification of new off the road mining tyre of pattern WD989/RLB989 - HELD - The subject goods, namely WD989/RLB989 tyres of the brands WORRIOR/DOUBLECOIN proposed to be imported from China, exhibit the essential attributes of Truck and Bus radial types (TBR) and merit classification under HS Code 4011 20 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers \"new pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or lorries, Radials\" - Ordered accordingly

Customs AAR - Classification of product, viz. Optical Sheet-Complex – HELD - The subject goods are specifically designed for brightness enhancement in TV. The subject goods cannot be used independently or in any other apparatus except TV. The optical sheet complex is a part of television - On the basis of Note 2(b) of Section XVI, parts, suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 853... [Read more]

Customs AAR - Classification of product, viz. Optical Sheet-Complex – HELD - The subject goods are specifically designed for brightness enhancement in TV. The subject goods cannot be used independently or in any other apparatus except TV. The optical sheet complex is a part of television - On the basis of Note 2(b) of Section XVI, parts, suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropriate. Thus, the subject goods “Optical Sheet Complex” is classifiable under heading 8529 - Ordered accordingly - Classification of Optical Sheet-High Color – HELD – The term “mounted” means, devices must have electric connection points/terminals (e.g. pins, leads, balls, lands etc) or pads (connection point) mounted on a carrier. In the instant case, no such terminals/connection points are present. Therefore, quantum dots are not mounted but embedded. As the applicant itself submitted that in optical sheet high color quantum dots are embedded in polymer sheet and then encapsulated between barrier film therefore, quantum dots cannot be said as mounted. Therefore, optical sheet high color cannot be classified under CTH 9002 - The subject goods are specifically designed for better color quality in TV. The optical sheet high color is a part of television. On the basis of Note 2(b) of Section XVI, parts, suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropriate. Thus, the subject goods “Optical Sheet High Color” is classifiable under heading 8529. [Read less]

GST - Jurisdiction of the proper officer to initiate proceedings - The petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction as the Circular No.254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 conferred jurisdiction upon the officers enumerated in Table-I for the first time to pass orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the CGST Act, and the earlier Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 only conferred jurisdiction over the areas defined to the proper officer in respect of the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act - Respondent contended that the same officer, who had issued the show cause notice ... [Read more]

GST - Jurisdiction of the proper officer to initiate proceedings - The petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction as the Circular No.254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 conferred jurisdiction upon the officers enumerated in Table-I for the first time to pass orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the CGST Act, and the earlier Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 only conferred jurisdiction over the areas defined to the proper officer in respect of the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act - Respondent contended that the same officer, who had issued the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025, had passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, after issuance of the Circular dated 27.10.2025, and therefore, on the date of passing of the impugned Order-in-Original, the Proper Officer had the jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act – HELD - It is not the case of the petitioner that the proper officer was not clothed with the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Under sub-section (9) thereof, the proper officer can levy penalty, upon being satisfied of the evasion of tax of an amount equal to the tax. The same Officer, who had issued the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025, had passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, after issuance of Circular dated 27.10.2025. Therefore, on the date of passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, respondent No.2 i.e. the Proper Officer had the jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the Act - The Section 160 of the CGST Act, which deals with the Assessment Proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. The petitioner did not file a reply or participate in the personal hearings and did not question the issuance of notice on lack of jurisdiction. The show cause notice dated 02.05.2025 was acted upon, leading to passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, when, respondent No.2 had the jurisdiction to pass by virtue of the Circular dated 27.10.2025 - The issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is not tenable in law and rejected - The impugned proceedings do not suffer from any want of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Amalgamation of company and cancellation of erstwhile GSTIN - Whether the show cause notice and order-in-original against the erstwhile GSTIN of the petitioner company are valid after the amalgamation of the petitioner company and issuance of a fresh GSTIN - HELD – The petitioner had taken a plea that they are eligible to take ITC in lieu of the tax charged in respective invoices to the suppliers which were available with them. However, the petitioner had not taken a plea that the petitioner had taken a new Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the amalgamation of the company. They also did not point out that th... [Read more]

GST - Amalgamation of company and cancellation of erstwhile GSTIN - Whether the show cause notice and order-in-original against the erstwhile GSTIN of the petitioner company are valid after the amalgamation of the petitioner company and issuance of a fresh GSTIN - HELD – The petitioner had taken a plea that they are eligible to take ITC in lieu of the tax charged in respective invoices to the suppliers which were available with them. However, the petitioner had not taken a plea that the petitioner had taken a new Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the amalgamation of the company. They also did not point out that they had taken a new GST registration. Petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, neither participated in personal hearing - The issue involves questions of fact in light of the plea of amalgamation raised by the petitioner for the first time before the writ court - The petitioner to file an appeal with the statutory deposit, and the appellate authority is directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically taking into account the facts and circumstances – The petition is disposed of [Read less]