Here’s a Custom, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Weekly Flashback from 19 to 25 January 2025.
Table of Contents
No Service Tax Payable On Supply Of Cranes To Municipality: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Bhopal Crane Trading Co. Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is payable on supply of cranes to the municipality.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the effective control and possession with respect to cranes given to Bhopal Municipal Corporation (MCB) was not with the appellant. The appellant gets paid a fixed price per crane from MCB. The activity was that of giving cranes on ‘Hire’ instead of it being wrongly classified as ‘Supply of Tangible Goods’.
Sourcing Of Services For Group Companies Can’t Be Considered As “Business Support Service” In Absence Of Consideration: CESTAT
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Navi Mumbai
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that sourcing of services for group companies cannot be considered as “business support service” in absence of any consideration.
The bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) has observed that the mode of operation undertaken by the appellants in making payment for the services and getting the same reimbursed are not for provision of any service, but are only reimbursement for the services procured for their group companies. Thus, the reimbursement of the cost/expenses incurred by the appellants as per actual, cannot be regarded as consideration.
Imported Goods Not Capital Goods Imported Under EPCG Scheme: CESTAT Upholds Confiscation By Customs Dept.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs, Indore Versus M/s. Pratibha Syntex Ltd.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the confiscation by the customs department on the ground imported goods not capital goods imported under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme.
Burden Of Proving A Charge Of Undervaluation Lies Upon Dept: CESTAT
Case Title: PVC Heights Company Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the burden of proving a charge of undervaluation lies upon the department.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the department has wrongly rejected the declared assessable value of the impugned import vide four Bill of Entries. The re-determined value is, therefore, not acceptable. The confirmation of the differential duty of Rs.9,60,376 is, therefore, liable to be set aside along with the order of confiscation and the order imposing various penalties.
Parle Mango Bite And Kismi Toffee Manufacturer Entitled To Cenvat Credit: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s K N Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Parle Mango Bite and Kismi Toffee manufacturer is entitled to cenvat credit.
Benefit Of Export Of Services Can’t Be Extended To Intermediary Located In India: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that benefit of export of services could not be extended to an intermediary located in India.
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the benefit of customs duty exemption cannot be denied for not claiming it at the time of importation of raw materials.
Benefit Of Customs Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied For Not Claiming It At The Time Of Importation Of Raw Materials: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I
The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) has observed that order sought to deny the benefit of said exemption notification to the appellant for the reason that appellant had not claimed the same at the time of importation of these raw materials and hence could not have claimed the same subsequently at the time of clearance from EOU on de-bonding.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand On Amount Received As Pure Agents Or Reimbursement
Case Title: M/s. Sahara Ex-Servicemen Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Customs and Central Excise – Alwar
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand on the amount received as pure agents or on the amount of reimbursement is also not sustainable.
Licensed Custodianship Can’t Be Granted Along Port Authority: CESTAT
Case Title: Messrs Kesar Enterprise Ltd Versus CC
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that licensed custodianship cannot be granted along with other authority i.e. port authority.
The bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) has observed that the legal position brought out in letter dated 07.12.2011 of the DC Customs is proper and legal and supersedes any license which was given contrary to position stated in this letter even if earlier. The non consideration of the letter of the insurance company, which itself indicated that they were not capable of insuring the goods in the storage tank in view of there being no insurable interest was improperly not considered by the adjudicating authority in this matter.
Co-Noticee Eligible To Seek Waiver Of Penalty Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 If Main Noticee Is Issued Discharge Certificate: CESTAT
Case Title: Shri Ravi Seswani Versus Commissioner, Cgst & Central Excise – Indore
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the co-noticee eligible to seek waiver of penalty under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 if main noticee is issued discharge certificate.
Cenvat Credit Can Be Utilised For Payment Of Duty In Case Of Delayed Excise Duty: CESTAT Directs Interest Refund
Case Title: M/s Aman Pipes (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the excise department to refund the interest and held that the Cenvat Credit can be utilised for payment of duty in case of delayed duty.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Under RCM On Roads Transport Agency Services On Individual Truck Owners Services
Case Title: M/S Aaditya Constructions Versus Principal Commissioner Of CGST-Raipur Chhattisgarh
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on roads transport agency services on individual truck owners services.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that in order for an organisation to be a goods transport agency it must issue consignment notes. It is a well settled legal position that individual truck owners who do not issue consignment notes are not covered by the definition of goods transport agency and the services rendered by them are not exigible to service tax.
No Service Tax Payable On Transferring Trailers Or Trucks To GTA For Transporting Goods By Road: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Sudhir Road Lines Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur I
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax payable on transferring trailers or trucks to Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for transporting goods by road.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the mere fact that the appellant was registered for rendering taxable service of ‘Supply on Tangible Goods’ is not sufficient to prove that the impugned activity is taxable under category of supply of tangible goods. The registration otherwise cannot be the evidence to prove the same.
CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit Worth 59.68 Crores To Axis Bank On Tax Paid On Premium Mandatorily Required For Functioning As Banks
Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT Credit to Axis Bank on tax paid on premium mandatorily required for functioning as banks
No Service Tax Is Payable On Allocation Of General Administrative Expenses’ By Head Office: CESTAT
Case Title: Standard Chartered Bank Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX Mumbai South
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on allocation of head office executive and general administrative expenses’ by the head office.
The bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that the sharing of expenditure cannot be treated as services and no service tax is payable.
