CESTAT
Kopiko is classifiable as ‘sugar confectionery not containing cocoa’ under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; basis of product is sugar, glucose and not coffee: CESTAT
Kopiko contained flavour coffee to the extent of 1.57 %, whereas the majority ingredients were refined sugar 33.06%, liquid glucose 41.41%, other ingredients constitute to 11.81% and water at the rate of 12.5%.
Incentive of discounts declared for small/mid segment cars cannot be allowed to luxury model cars attracting higher rate of duty: CESTAT
In absence of any suppression or mis-declaration of the facts, larger period of limitation could not be invoked.
‘Registration of premises is not a condition precedent for availing CENVAT credit’; CESTAT sets aside order disallowing CENVAT credit
The services were not received by the appellant regarding which invoices have been issued to the appellant’s other two addresses, other than the address for which service tax registration has been taken, is contrary to the contention stated by Revenue in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.
IC-Codecs imported by Samsung India are classifiable as ‘electronic integrated circuits’, thus are exempted from customs duty: CESTAT
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.
Levy of SWS When Imports Made Availing “Scrip” Exemptions – Unending Controversy
by Manish Jain*, Ambarish Pandey** and Shruti Khanna***
CESTAT allows appeal by Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages challenging classification of ‘Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh’ as lemonade instead of fruit pulp or fruit drink
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.
‘Withholding exemption and demanding service tax was grossly illegal’; CESTAT sets aside order demanding service tax on interest earned on Overdraft and Cash Credit facilities
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.
‘Racetrack not meant for public access as a right, thus not exempted from tax’; CESTAT upholds order directing to pay service tax for construction of racetrack
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.
‘Releasing prohibited goods without fine is not a valid option’; CESTAT upholds order directing to pay redemption fine and penalty on re-export of prohibited goods
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.
‘Difference between amount payable as condition of import and sale of goods’; CESTAT quashes order including royalty in transactional value of imported raw materials
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.
Set top boxes covered under the definition of ‘input’ under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; Credit admissible to Dish TV India Ltd: CESTAT
“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.”
Reimbursement expenses & rent-free accommodation not part of total consideration for calculating Service Tax: CESTAT
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.
Purchasing coal from coal companies for reselling to consumers is not taxable service under Finance Act,1994: CESTAT
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.
Tribunals and Commissions Roundup April 2024 | Maggie Noodles consumer dispute, Bengaluru water crisis, Flipkart’s Liability, missing girls in Andhra Pradesh; and more
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.
BookMyShow is not receiving any consideration by allowing card companies to extend discount offers, thus not providing any service to them: CESTAT
“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.”
Wireline logging and perforation for drilling oil well deserves classification under mining services and not TTA services under Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT
“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, Customs Act] | Tribunal has discretion to dispense obligation to deposit duty/interest or penalty in cases of undue hardships: Delhi High Court
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.
Free Issue Material and Valuation under Tax: A Never Ending Dispute
by Asish Philip Abraham* and Apeksha Bansal**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 21
Demand of service tax u/s 73-A of Finance Act, 1994 incorrect when broadcaster’s service tax is collected and not retained: CESTAT reiterates
“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.”