Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The goods imported by the appellant are IC chips, which are incapable of stand-alone function or connection with any other device. The ICs are only capable of functioning as compressor/decompressor upon connection with external peripherals like power supply and interface.
by Manish Jain*, Ambarish Pandey** and Shruti Khanna***
A show cause notice was issued to the appellant, to recover Central Excise Duty payable on the impugned product, during the period of April 2011 to August 2012, on the grounds that the appellant had misclassified the product as fruit pulp or fruit drink, instead of lemonade.
The Tribunal noted that Rule 4A (1)(i) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 requires disclosure of service tax payable on the value of service provided, thus, it cannot include exempted services. Moreover, a proviso inserted to the Rule by an amendment cannot enlarge the scope of the provision, at best it is only clarificatory.
The Tribunal stated that for a place to fall within the ambit of a public place, the element of right of access of public was a necessary concomitant.
The Tribunal stated that no court has held that prohibited goods were to be released for re-export without payment of redemption fine. Such a stance would encourage importers smuggling/making improper import of goods, to take a chance with the law and if caught, request for re-export without a fine.
The Tribunal stated that there is no such condition in the Technology License Agreement which provides that royalty payment is a pre-condition for sale/import of raw materials and there is no evidence to establish how the royalty payment is linked to the import of raw materials.
“It is a well settled principle in the law that the taxing statute needs to be construed strictly according to the words phrases used in the statute; there can be no other interpretation when literal interpretation is unambiguous.”
The Tribunal opined that both service provider and service recipient were government undertakings and cannot be said to have any intention to evade the tax payment.
The Tribunal opined that once the coal companies have charged sales tax/VAT at the appropriate rate on the sale of coal to appellant and in turn, appellant has charged sales tax/VAT to the consumers of coal, the transaction is one of sale/purchase and not of rendering service.
The State Commission absolved Flipkart from any liability as it was merely facilitating the sale through its portal. However, it was noted that Flipkart should have displayed a strict attitude vis-à-vis breach of terms regarding sale of counterfeit products on its site.
“It is very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice is raised consideration is not collected. Therefore, it is very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies.”
“The services like wireline logging, perforation and other wireline related services involving mechanical jobs which were undertaken by appellant at the time of drilling an oil well are integrally connected with the mining of oil or gas and have a direct nexus with the drilling of a well.”
Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962 makes it obligatory to deposit the duty/penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that might be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance.
by Asish Philip Abraham* and Apeksha Bansal**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 21
“With coming into force of interest provisions, the revenue neutrality concept has undergone a change, so as to consider duty neutrality different from revenue (Duty+interest) neutrality. Latter at time may not exist, even if former is present.”
The present case reflects a tormenting situation where the opulent class is putting in blood, sweat and tears to reap the benefits of EWS reservation at the expense of the economically marginalized candidates. A calculated attempt at subverting the cherished constitutional vision of education for all is under scrutiny in this case.
As the service tax needs to be computed in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and as the assessee has not opted for the composition scheme, the matter is remitted back to the CESTAT for re-computation of the demands.
by Urja Joshi† and Amisha Upadhyay††
by Suvendu Kumar Pati†