CESTAT Weekly Flashback 03 To 09 November 2024.
Table of Contents
CENVAT Credit Refund Can’t Be Denied To Exporter Of Cricket Match Broadcasting Services On Minor Procedural Infraction: CESTAT – CESTAT Weekly Flashback
Case Title: Times Content Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And CGST, New Delhi
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to exporters of cricket match broadcasting services on minor procedural infraction.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has held that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural infractions. The procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirements. As long as a fundamental requirement is met, other procedural deviations can be condoned.
Self-Assessment By Taxpayer Is Only A Facility, Can’t Be Treated As Dilution Of Central Excise Officer’s Statutory Responsibility: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate Versus M/S Haamid Real Estate Pvt Ltd
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that self-assessment by taxpayers is only a facility, and cannot be treated as dilution of central excise officers’ statutory responsibility.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, (President) and P. V. Subba Rao, (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee was required to file the ST 3 Returns which it did. Unless the Central Excise officer calls for documents, etc., it is not required to provide them or disclose anything else.
Goods Transportation Upto Customer’s Premises Covered Under ‘Input Service’, Cenvat Credit Available: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s.A.C.C. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & and Central Goods and Service Tax
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cenvat credit is available on goods transportation upto customer’s premises as it is covered under ‘input service’.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the price charged to customers for goods on which central excise duty is paid is inclusive of freight. The Appellant engages transporters for outward transportation of goods and paying freight charges to the transporters. The Appellant also bore the risk of loss/damage during transit till the goods reached the doorstep of the customers. In this regard, the appellant also took transit insurance policy. The appellant also paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism on payment made to transporters and availing credit of the same.
Penalty On Co-Noticee Not Sustainable When Case Of Main Noticee Is Settled Under SVLDRS 2019: CESTAT
Case Title: Prakash Steelage Ltd. Versus C.C.E.& S.T. Bharuch
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty on co-noticee not sustainable when case of main noticee is settled under Sabka Vishwas – (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS 2019).
The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that once the duty demand case is settled under SVLDRS 2019, as per Scheme itself, there is a waiver of penalties on the main assessee against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees.
Service Tax Demand Proposed Under Wrong Head Is Not Sustainable: CESTAT
Case Title: Sun Outdoors Versus C.C.E & S.T.-Vadodara-I
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax demand proposed under the wrong head is not sustainable.
The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju, (Technical Member) has observed that the demand was raised under advertising service in the show cause notice whereas the adjudicating authority itself has confirmed the demand under the category of selling of space for advertisement, this demand pertaining to the period prior to 01.07.2012 where the category of service was significantly statutory, therefore, if the demand was proposed under the wrong head, the demand will not sustain under different head.
Nokia Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Sponsoring Team Participating In IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Nokia is not liable to pay service tax on sponsoring teams participating in IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the sponsorship agreement was within the exclusionary clause, which excludes sponsorship services in relation to sports events under the provisions of section 65 (105)(zzzn) of the Finance Act, 2006.
Whether Refund Can Be Denied To SEZ Unit Citing Limitation? CESTAT Refers Question To Larger Bench
Case Title: ZF Commercial Vehicle Control System India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has referred the question whether refund can be denied to SEZ unit citing limitation to the larger bench.
The bench of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has recommended the case to a larger bench to examine the issue whether the SEZ Act will have an overriding effect over the levy under the Finance Act 1994 or only on the exemption notifications issued thereunder. Further, whether a refund claim filed based on a notification under FA 1994 being set aside in the SEZ area, will be subject to time bar/ unjust enrichment.
