SERVICE TAX SECTION
2012-TIOL-125-HC-MUM-ST + Master story
Master Marine Services Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Mumbai (Dated : October 18, 2011)
Service Tax - Appellant already paid Service Tax of about six Crores - Pre-deposit of 25 Lakhs ordered: The Tribunal observed that it was not concerned whether the Appellants had or not charged/collected service tax since it was their duty to file returns and pay service tax on time. The Tribunal did take notice of the fact that the Appellants had admitted their service tax liability of almost Rs . 5.71 crores . Taking note of the fact that the Appellants had paid an amount of Rs . 7 lakhs towards penalty, they were further directed to pay Rs . 50 lakhs towards the penalty. The Appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs . 25 lakhs within a period of four weeks instead and in substitution of the direction issued by the Tribunal. In the event, the Appellant fails to make deposit, as directed, necessary consequences under the law shall ensue. - Appeal partly allowed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M/s ASE Capital Markets Limited Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated : November 22, 2011)
Service Tax - Stock Broker Service - Demand of Service Tax on NSE/BSE transaction charges and DEMAT Charges - Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Stay granted in similar cases. Hence stay petition allowed. (Para 2) - Stay granted: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
M/s ADF Foods Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated : November 24, 2011)
Service Tax - Refund of Service tax paid on services used for export of goods - Terminal Handling Charges - Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges originally sanctioned, demanded under order of revision. Terminal handling charges is not one of the services notified in Notification No.41/2007-ST, which provides for refund of Service Tax paid on various services used in exported goods. Prima facie no case made out for waiver of pre-deposit. (Para 2 & 5) - Pre-deposit ordered: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
Clarification regarding admissibility of exemption under area-based Notifications No. 49/2003-CE and 50/2003-CE, both dated 10.06.2003 in specific situations – reg.
M/s ECE Industries Limited Vs CCE, Rohtak (Dated : July 8, 2011)
Central Excise - Refund - Reduction in invoice value after clearance of goods on account of price-variation clause - Whether the assessees are entitled for refund of the duty due to reduction in price on account of price variation clause after the clearance of goods.
HELD - As per Section 4, valuation is directly related to the time of removal and place of removal. The duty element is to be determined on the basis of time of removal of the goods, which is issuance of invoices. There is no provision under the Act where it is provided that in spite of payment of duty in terms of the price disclosed in the invoices at the time of clearance of the goods if subsequently lesser amount is received by the manufacturer in relation to such goods then the manufacturer would be entitled for reduction in the duty liability in relation to such goods and on that count for refund of the difference in the amount of duty. (Para 13 & 14) - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
M/s Ghatampur Sugar Co Ltd Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated : April 28, 2011)
Central Excise - Refund - Adjustment of arrears of revenue - Whether letter of Superintendent can be considered as a demand notice - Letters issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise cannot be treated as demands confirmed against the assessees. In the absence of evidence showing that there were confirmed demands pending against the assessee, adjustment out of refund sanctioned is not legal and proper. The amount so adjusted should be released. (Para 5.3 & 6) - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
Corrections in Public Notice No.80/(RE2010)/2009-14 dated 13.10.2011 and Public Notice No.83/(RE2010)/2009-14 dated 31.10.2011.
M/s Creative Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE, Hyderabad (Dated : September 21, 2011)
Customs - Stay/Application for waiver of pre-deposit -Import of Photo Composing System and Afga Type Setting Equipment availing benefit of Notification No. 90/94-Cus - BoEs assessed provisionally - Installation certificates not furnished within stipulated time period resulting in demand of differential duty and assessments finalized denying project import benefits - Appellants plea that installation certificates not furnished in time due to unforeseen circumstances acceptable - Tribunal in earlier instance in appellant's own case held that project import benefits cannot be denied for not furnishing installation certificates - Bank guarantee provided by appellant already encashed to recover dues partially - Prima facie case for waiver of deposit of balance dues - Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - Stay applications allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
M/s Dott. ING. Scandura Calibration & Instrumentation (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : September 7, 2011)
Customs - Valuation - Related party - Appellant is a 100% subsidiary of the overseas supplier acting as exclusive agent - As the seller settles the prices differently when it sells to third party customers as compared when it sells to the related buyer, declared value cannot be accepted in view of proviso (h) to Rule 4 (2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - No error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the level of price list price for unrelated buyer, minus adjustment of 5% for commercial level difference. - Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT