This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at taxscan.in, from June 22, 2024 to June 29, 2024.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that excise duty is not payable on the mark engraved on gold coins as it is just a house mark. The Tribunal viewed that the mark is not a brand name.
The two-member bench of Sulekha Beevi C. S. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that a mark intended for identifying the manufacturer cannot be considered to be a brand name as it is only a house mark. The CESTAT held that the mark on the gold coins only indicates the manufacturer or seller of the coins. The mark engraved on the gold coins is only a house mark and not a brand name or trade name. The demand of duty alleging that the gold coins bear a brand name cannot be sustained and set aside the same
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed a 6% annual interest under Section 129E of the Customs Act on the refund of duty for export iron ore fines.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anil Coudhary ( Judicial member) and A.K Jyotishi ( Technical member) allowed the appeal of assessee modifying the impugned order, directing to grant interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. So far the appeal of Revenue is concerned, there being no merits, and CESTAT dismissed the same.
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand on interest equivalent on overdraft or cash credit extended by cooperative banks.
The two-member bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) has observed that Notification No. 29/2004-ST clearly exempts service tax on interest income on overdraft/cash credit facilities, and it is required to be shown separately in the invoice, bill, or challan for the purpose.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that reimbursements for direct ABP operation costs as per written agreement are exempt from service tax.
Accordingly, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical member) set aside the confirmed demand for the extended period on account of time bar. Accordingly, CESTAT allowed the appeal both on merits as well as on account of limitation.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty imposed on the alleged clandestine removal of goods, stating that the demand of Central Excise Duty was not sustainable.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical member) held that the demand of Central Excise Duty was not sustainable against the appellant. As the demand of duty was not sustainable, consequently, no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed the cash refund claim based on Chartered Accountant‘s certification and books of account reflecting excise duty as refundable.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising P.K Choudhary (Judicial member) found that the tribunal in the case of M/s Pride Foramer vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, accepted the Chartered Accountant’s certificate as rebuttal of the presumption that duty burden had been passed on to the buyer and, accordingly, the Original Authority was directed to withdraw duty amount from the Consumer Welfare Fund and refund the same to the party. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and books of accounts for the period of dispute were produced by the assessee to show that the excise duty was retained as “excise duty refundable”.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the reimbursement of expenses, while includible in the assessable value, does not constitute the taxable value of the service.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ashok Jindal ( Judicial member) and K.Anpazhakan( Technical member) held that the reimbursable expenses were not includible in the taxable value of services, therefore, the tribunal hold that the reimbursable expenses in this case, are also not includable in the taxable value of service. Therefore, further hold that the appellant has correctly paid the service tax during the impugned period. Consequently, no demand of differential service tax is sustainable against the appellant
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that services provided to government authorities and public sector undertakings are not liable for service tax.
Further the two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramesh Nair ( Judicial member) and C.L Mahar ( Technical member) observed that the issue involved was interpretation of classification of service and admittedly service work provided to the Government Authority and Public Sector undertaking, the appellant’s bona fide belief that the activity was not liable to Service Tax cannot be doubted with. The services were provided to the Government Agency the transaction cannot be hidden hence the suppression of fact with mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax does not exist in the present case. Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax and consequential interest and penalties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority will not sustain.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has quashed the disallowance of CENVAT credit after determining that the applicability of the serial number of the Customs notification was decided unilaterally.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical member) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial member) noted that in the present proceedings, Revenue has sought to disallow entire cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the inputs and input services utilized in the manufacture of goods on which central excise duty was paid and ER-1 returns were filed. Further found that Revenue has unilaterally come to a conclusion without assigning any justification through the said show cause notice as to how the appellant was required to clear the goods under full exemption under serial No. 47A of Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. As per the provisions of law, Revenue should have issued the appellant with a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not clear the goods at nil rate of duty applying the provisions at serial No. 47A ibid.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has set aside the excise duty demand after finding no evidence to support allegations that mild steel billets were exported as alloy steel forgings.
Accordingly, the two member bench of the tribunal comprising K. Anpazhakan ( Technical member ) and Asok Jindal (Judicial member) held that there was no evidence available on record to substantiate the allegation of the Department that the Appellant has not exported the goods Alloy Steel Forgings. Thus, CESTAT held that Appellant has rightly claimed the rebate on the goods exported and the demands confirmed in the impugned order against them are not sustainable. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the demand of duty along with interest and penalty confirmed against Appellant.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has deleted the penalty for the short payment of service tax and determined that no service tax is applicable to information technology and software services.
The coram of Ashok Jindal ( Judicial member) and K. Anpazhakan ( Technical member) found that in this case initially the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax under the category of ‘Information Technology Software Service’ and matter came to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority demanding the service tax under the category Information Technology Software Services
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has set aside the demand for service tax on both manpower recruitment and supply service, as well as on renting immovable property.
CESTAT set aside the impugned order and demand of tax on both ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service’ and ‘Renting of Immovable Property Services’. All penalties are set aside.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has upheld the rejection of a refund claim, stating that refund claims for Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) on imported goods must be filed with jurisdictional customs officers within one year of payment.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising K. Anpazhakan ( Technical member ) observed that the judgements of the Delhi High Court cited by the appellant pertain to refund claims filed prior to the amendment carried out vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008. Thus, CESTAT found that the decisions cited by the appellant are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, CESTAT does not see any reasons for interfering with the impugned orders and the same were accordingly upheld.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the order, ruling that no service tax was payable due to the non-fulfillment of the stipulated event.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Anil Choudhary ( Judicial member) and A.K Jyotishi ( Technical member) found that admittedly appellant have not reached the stipulated event where it can raise invoice pursuant to supply of crude oil/gas to ONGC, during both the periods under dispute. Further find that the value of taxable turnover determined by the Commissioner in the impugned order is hit by proviso to Rule 3 of Point of Taxation Rules, as admittedly, the stipulated event for completion of service i.e., supply of crude oil/gas by the appellant to ONGC was not achieved
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not invokable in absence of invocation of extended limitation period.
The division bench of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) has observed that when the extended period of limitation is not invokable, the demand cannot be confirmed for the normal period of limitation for some of the same transactions. Though there is an amendment in Section 73 made by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. May 10, 2013 by inserting sub-section (2A), the period of dispute in the present case is prior to that. Therefore, this amendment will not be applicable.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
