GST Council Sets 1% Rate for Affordable Housing, 5% for Other Residential Properties Without ITC Benefit.
News
GST
Recommendations of the 33rd GST Council meeting – Real estate sector – GST f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Recommendations of the 33rd GST Council meeting
GST
Dated:- 24-2-2019
Real estate sector is one of the largest contributors to the national GDP and provides employment opportunity to large numbers of people. “Housing for All by 2022” envisions that every citizen would have a house and the urban areas would be free of slums. There are reports of slowdown in the sector and low off-take of under-construction houses which needs to be addressed. To boost the residential segment of the real estate sector, following recommendations were made by the GST Council in its 33rd meeting held today:
2. GST rate:
i. GST shall be levied at effective GST rate of 5% without ITC on residential properties outside affordable segment;
ii. GST
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
exempted only for such residential property on which GST is payable.
6. Details of the scheme shall be worked out by an officers committee and shall be approved by the GST Council in a meeting to be called specifically for this purpose.
7. Advantages of the recommendations made:
The new tax rate in principle was approved by the Council taking into consideration the following advantages:-
i. The buyer of house gets a fair price and affordable housing gets very attractive with GST @ 1%.
ii. Interest of the buyer/consumer gets protected; ITC benefits not being passed to them shall become a non-issue.
iii. Cash flow problem for the sector is addressed by exemption of GST on development rights, long term lease (premium), FSI etc.
iv.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
supply without consideration
Query (Issue) Started By: – Madhavan iyengar Dated:- 24-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 24-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
After cgst amendment act 2018 wherein sec 7 clause (d) is deleted effective from 01/07/2017
query now any supply made with out consideration will it be liable to gst ( other than exceptions like import of services and transactions between related parties and items specified in schedule I without consideration)
Reply By
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ITC on Electric installation
Query (Issue) Started By: – Hiren Pathak Dated:- 23-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 2-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 11 Replies
GST
Dear All,
A company is setting up its manufacturing plant where in power supply by way of supplying and installation of various electric cable connection from main station outside factory premises to company sub station is required from state government. State government instructed company that company can itself set up this electric installation from thier nominated vendor but ultimate ownership of such electric installation (Assets) will remain with state government.
Now question is whether company can claim ITC of such electric installation which mainly constist of supplying and installing various electric cables?
Whether ownership of such electric installation will remain with state govenment and not with compnay, will it have any impact on ITC eligibility?
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
S
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hough the Company may get it done through some other person I.e. sub contractor. Also see .Explanation- (ii) to Section 16(2)(b) inserted vide CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 effective from 1.2.19
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Dear Experts,
Can we apply Sl.No.25 of Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 (as amended time to time) instant case and can we apply the ratio of decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of M/s. Torrent Power Ltd Vs. Union of India SCA No. 5343 of 2018. = 2019 (1) TMI 1092 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Can we consider as, the installation is undertaken as per the direction of the state government and title is not transferred by way of Invoice or anyother documents.
This is to enrich my knowledge through your guidence and views.
Thanks,
With Regards,
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Sh.Alkesh Jani Ji,
Neither Notification nor ratio of High Court judgement is applicable to this situation inasmuch as erection and installation activities ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
related services be used for any purpose other than for transmission and distribution of electricity. The principal supply and the related/ancillary services go hand in hand and one cannot be provided independent of the other. The upshot of this discussion is that the services provided by the petitioner are in the nature of composite supply and therefore, in view of the provisions of clause (a) of section 8 of the CGST Act, the tax liability thereof has to be determined by treating such composite same as a supply of the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity. Consequently, if the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity is exempt from levy of service tax, the tax liability of the related services shall be determined accordingly."
In view of above, can we say that such installation is ancillary service provided?
Thanks,
With due regards
Reply By Hiren Pathak:
The Reply:
Kasturi sir,
Little clarification in facts, My question
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply;
Illustration. – Where goods are packed and transported with insurance, the supply of goods, packing materials, transport and insurance is a composite supply and supply of goods is a principal supply;
(47) ”exempt supply” means supply of any goods or services or both which attracts nil rate of tax or which may be wholly exempt from tax under section 11, or under section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, and includes non-taxable supply.
108) ”taxable supply” means a supply of goods or services or both which is leviable to tax under this Act;
In view of the above, it can be easily arrived at the conclusion that composite supply consists of two or more taxable supplies and not one taxable and one exempt. Thus exempt supply is excluded from the scope of composite supply. So erection and installation is not ancil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and second whether electric installation (Lying of electric cable etc from main power supply station situated outside company premises to company manufacturing plant) can be termed as immovable or movable?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Sh.Hiren Pathak Ji,
No doubt yours is a manufacturing company but here is a question of what nature of service you are supplying/providing. In my view (based on various case laws), it is a works contract service which you are providing to State Govt. and no exemption is available to you. Now is the question of vendor's service. The vendor is working for you. In other words, we can say that that person is your job worker. So the vendor's service is also of the nature of service being provided by you. His service an integral part of the works contract service being provided. In Works Contract Service, ITC is available if utilised in providing the same output taxable service.So you can avail ITC on the strength of invoice to be issued by y
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s an immovable property. (Power station is an immovable property for which you will work.)There is a Board's circular to this effect and case laws.
You can easily trace out case laws in your support.
Reply By CASusheel Gupta:
The Reply:
The primary responsibility of laying of cable was of state government. SG authorised the company to purchase cable and install it on behalf of SG. The ownership shall rest with the SG.
The SG shall be required to bill the company including the cost of cabling (covered by section 15(2)(b)). Cost of cable though incurred by company shall be included in the value of supply of SG.
Applying the ratio of Torrent Power, the supply from SG to company shall be exempt supply. Being exempt, ITC should not be availed by company, though the bill in the name of company entitles it to avail ITC.
IMO in case the ownership does not rest with SG, section 15(2)(b) shall not be applicable since it can be presumed that SG has only installed the meter and cable was
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Free of Cost Supply – Valuation Implications
By: – CA Akash Phophalia
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 23-2-2019
In this article the author aims to enlighten its readers about the inclusion or non-inclusion of value of FOC material provided by the buyer/service receiver to the seller/service provider.2017
Statutory provisions related to valuation are principally carved out in the Section 15 of the CGST Act 2017. The relevant portion of the said provisions related to the concept clarified hereunder is mentioned as under:-
“Section 15 Value of taxable supply
(1)
(2) The value of supply shall include –
(a) ………………..
(b) any amount that the supplier is liable to pay in relation to such supply but which has been incurred by the recipient of the supply and not included in the price actually paid or payable for the goods or services or both;
(c) ……
(d) ……
(e) ………&helli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
omponent manufacturer (the two being not related persons or distinct persons) on FOC basis dose not constitute a supply as there is no consideration involved. Further, since the moulds and dies are provided on FOC basis by the OEM to the component manufacturer in the course or furtherance of his business, there is no requirement of reversal of input tax credit availed on such moulds and dies by the OEM.
1.2 It is further clarified that while calculating the value of the supply made by the component manufacturer, the value of moulds and dies provided by the OEM to the component manufacturer of FOC basis shall not be added to the value of such supply because cost of moulds/dies was not to be incurred by the component manufacturer and thus, does not merit inclusion in the value of supply in terms of section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act 2017.
1.3 However, if the contract between OEM and component manufacturer was for supply of components made by using the moulds/dies belonging to the compone
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er form the third party are ultimately supplied to the receiver for which tax invoice was raised and GST had been charged. Thus the absolute ownership of the tools gets transferred to the OEM. However, the physical possession of the tool remains with the applicant during manufacturing process or till the time they are removed by the receiver form the premised of the supplier.
Having regard to the clarification issued by the department as mentioned above and in the facts we need to ascertain the contractual obligation to provide tools in terms of the contract executed between the supplier and the receiver. Once it is established that the obligation to provide tools on FOC basis is on the receiver then the question of adding the amortized value for tools supplied by the receiver does not arise. Conclusively, in the given facts of the case the supplier is not required to add value of tools while calculating value of its principle supply of manufacturing of the product under Section 15(2)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Composition Scheme after Amendment(Supplying Goods as well as Service
Query (Issue) Started By: – Prem Choudhary Dated:- 22-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 25-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 12 Replies
GST
Dear Exper
We have heard that amended in Composition scheme for availing scheme for both supplier -goods or Services or both supplier.
However we have not find condition for availing scheme if supplier has supplier both goods and services.
please advice..
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Notification No. 02/2019-Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th January, 2019. Also see Section 5 of the CGST (Amendment )Act, 2018 (31 of 2018 effective from 1.2.2019
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
Sir,
According to Section 10 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 9, a registered person, whose aggregate turnover in the preceding financial year did
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
than those referred to in clause (b) of paragraph 6 of Schedule II), of value not exceeding ten per cent. of turnover in a State or Union territory in the preceding financial year or five lakh rupees, whichever is higher.]"
In view of this provision if a supplier makes supply of both goods and services under composition scheme, he can make supply of service upto 10% of the turnover (of what turnover of goods or turnover of both goods and services-not clear from the wordings employed by the legislature) during previous financial year. As the things stand as of noe the turnover is of both goods and services.
Reply By Prem Choudhary:
The Reply:
Sir
In our case , previous year total turnover is less then 1.5 crores and includes ₹ 10 lacs supply of services.
Pls advice we can opt composition scheme w.e.f 01.04.2019
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
In my view, 10% is of turnover of goods. You can opt for Composition Scheme but practically there is a huge loss to the asse
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
preserved properly. The composition scheme eliminates all the requirement. It reduces the cost of compliance. Further, GSTR-2A reconciliation is also not required to these person. Lot of headache is gone in matching the purchase shown in books vs sales uploaded by the vendor. Going ahead the buyer has to call the vendor and ask him to show the sales in GSTR-1 in B2B with proper GSTIN. The call centre type of work will increase in the business. Also, to claim credit the vendors needs to be withing 180 days. The payment tracking is also important to justify claims. Hence, the composition scheme is lucrative. Otherwise as said by collegue expert composition scheme is not beneficial.
Reply By Prem Choudhary:
The Reply:
Sir
Dealer is going to discontinue supply of Services and only supply of goods in future. We have confusion in condition related to to amendment that the "value not exceeding ten per cent. of turnover in a State or Union territory in the preceding financial year or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unting to ₹ 5 Lacs in condition is maximum limit of Service value in previous year for opting Composition Scheme.
Reply By Prem Choudhary:
The Reply:
Thank you so much for clarifying amendment of Composition Scheme.
One more Clarity is require for followings:-
Case- if dealers are supplying of goods, running canteen and providing service of courier in previous year.
Query:-
1. What are the rate applicable in case dealer want to opt Composition from 1.4.2019 ? whether Separate rate is applicable for canteen (5%) ? or single rate of entire turnover (1% ).
2 Sec-10(1)''For complying of Condition of up to 10% of total turnover or 5 Lacs'', Canteen supply is also consider as Service or excluding Canteen ?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
For mixed supplies under composition it is 6 % (CGST 3%+SGST 3%)
Reply By SHARAD ANADA:
The Reply:
Logic behind ₹ 5 Lakh is, suppose you have started business in the year 18-19 and do not have any turnover in previo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Input Credit
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ethirajan Parthasarathy Dated:- 22-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 23-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
A Business entity spends on interior including false ceiling and the service provider charges GST on works contract. The building is owned by the business entity. Is it eligible to take input credit of GST paid or interior including false ceiling.
Will situation be different if the building is rented premises.
Reply By KA
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Availement of Input Tax Credit on Motor vehicles
Query (Issue) Started By: Dated:- 22-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 23-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Can some one help me on below query ?
Recently through an amendment, Input Tax Credit is allowed on Motor Vehicles if the approved seating capacity is more than 13 persons ( Including Drivers ) , Input Tax Credit is admissible with out any restriction. The same is effective from 01-02-2019.
In the case of following situations ,
If the Date of Rendering of Services falls before 01-02-2019 [ Effective Date of Amendment ], But the Invoices for the same has been received after 01-02-2019 [ Effective Date of Amendment ] –
Can the recepient of the service claim th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
5) above (a) are same even after amendment w.e.f. 1.2.19.
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
Sir,
Section 17 (5) prescribes that "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely :-
[(a) motor vehicles for transportation of persons having approved seating capacity of not more than thirteen persons (including the driver), except when they are used for making the following taxable supplies, namely:-
(A) further supply of such motor vehicles; or
(B) transportation of passengers; or
(C) imparting training on driving such motor vehicles
Therefore motor vehicles for transportation of persons havi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ry and not others.
According to Section 13 (2) CGST Act, 2017 "the time of supply of services shall be the earliest of the following dates, namely :-
(a) the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, if the invoice is issued within the period prescribed under [* * *] section 31 or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier; or
(b) the date of provision of service, if the invoice is not issued within the period prescribed under [* * *] section 31 or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier; or
(c) the date on which the recipient shows the receipt of services in his books of account, in a case where the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) do not apply :
Therefore if the invoice is issued
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods manufactured under excise regime now written off
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 22-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 24-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
XYZ(Manufacturer) had transferred the unutilized CENVAT credit laying in balance as on July'17 to Electronic credit ledger under GST through TRAN – 1. They are holding certain manufactured stocks of excise regime which they now want to write off. Are they required to proportionately reverse
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST ON SKIN CARE PRODUCTS
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 22-2-2019
In general parlance, there are many products which are used as cosmetics or soaps which may have medicinal relevance or considered as 'Ayurvedic' in nature. 'Ayurvedic' is one discipline of medicine just like allopathy or homeopathy.
The issue of classification came up before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) of West Bengal in the matter of Akansha Hair & Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (4) TMI 811 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING , WEST BENGAL ; . However, this ruling has since been modified by Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal.
In the instant case, there was a manufacture of skin care preparations and issue was of classification of 33 such products. It was claimed that its skin care preparations are Ayurvedic Medicaments. They are meant for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, put up in packaging for retail sale and entirely correspond to the des
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
classification. The remaining products mentioned in the list submitted by them are not offered primarily as medicaments and, therefore, not to be included under Heading 3004. This ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.
It was also observed that medicaments are not defined under GST law or Customs Tariff applicable for goods classification in GST law. Further, for classification of skin care products as medicament, it is not sufficient that such a product manufactured as per authoritative text book, merely helps in controlling skin disease. Its curative or preventive value must be substantial, and product must be manufactured primarily to control or cure a skin-related disease. Further, it must he established that consumers use it primarily for treatment, mitigation, cure or prevention of specific skin disease or skin disorder. Since most of skin care preparations have both uses i.e. medicinal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
& Skin Care Herbal Unit Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (4) TMI 811 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING , WEST BENGAL] gave the ruling that:
"Preparations for the care of the skin namely, Rupam (Pimple Pack) and Pailab (Anti-Crack Cream), in the list submitted by the Applicant are classifiable as Medicament under Heading 3004 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Preparations listed as Swarnajyoti, Sunayana and Tarumitra-60 have not yet come into existence, and, therefore, no rulings are pronounced on their classification. The remaining products mentioned in the list submitted by them are not offered primarily as medicaments and, therefore, not to be included under Heading 3004."
It was held that to determine whether or not a product or a formulation is to be labelled as a 'medicament', it is necessary to consider its efficacy in treating or remedying an 'injury', an 'ailment' or an 'illness'.
The four products in question were Komal Parash and Romancho (Lavender, Va
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s Anil Kumar And Sons Versus Union of India And 4 Others
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1341 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 22-2-2019
Writ Tax No. – 221 of 2019
GST
Bharati Sapru And Piyush Agrawal JJ.
For the Petitioner : Vishwjit
For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Shukla
ORDER
Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 & 3, and Shri R.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4.
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the GST council respondent no.2 to make recommendations to the Commissioner to extend the time period for filing of GST Tran-1 in the case of the petitioner because hi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1424 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. 362 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 22-2-2019
APPEAL NO. ST/86812/2018 – A/85361/2019
Service Tax
DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri K.A. Photographer, Associate Vice President for Appellant
Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Rejection of refund claim made by the appellant on the ground that it failed to qualify the test of unjust enrichment is the subject matter of this appeal in this second round of litigation.
2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. claimed refund recalculated as Rs. 19,66,794/- for the period from April 2008 to September 2008 on commission received for export of services from a Singapore based company M/s Komatsu Asia Pvt. Ltd. against sale and services of its trucks in India. Appellant's
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rders. At the same time, the procedural aspect of filling the declaration and granting the refund to the appellant needs to be done. Accordingly I direct the appellant to file the declaration as required under Notification No. 12/2005 read with Export of Services Rules, 2005 before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority on receipt of such declaration, will process refund claims.”
20. In view of the foregoing discussions, I set aside the impugned order on merit with the direction to the refund sanctioning authority to sanction the refund/rebate subject to observance of the procedure and the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms with consequential relief, if any.”
3. Appellant complied with the orders, appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-I, Mumbai-VII and participated in the personal hearing, who vide his order dated 28.10.2016, made some adverse observation on the m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
through CENVAT credit except for the month of June, 2008. The payment under reverse charge was always required to be made through CASH only. Therefore the claim of the claimant that they made the Service Tax under reverse charge does not hold ground.
(iii) xxxxxxx
(iv) From the above bills, it can be seen that the claimant has received Rs. 9,37,714/- (inclusive of Service Tax) by way of foreign exchange remittance equivalent to USD 22,186/- from the foreign client and it was credited to their account. This is evident form FIRC no. 3129007336 for an amount of USD 22,176/-. It is therefore conclusively proved that the claimant has received the payment inclusive of Service Tax from the foreign customer. The claimant claims that they merely worked back from the said commission amount of Service Tax liability to be discharged by them under reverse charge and paid the said Service Tax amount from the actual service commission received by them. I find that once the invoice or bill has bee
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ice Tax and doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in this case.
(9) xxxxxxxxxx
10. The claimant has submitted the certificate of Chartered Accountant and foreign customer to prove that they have not recovered any amount of Service Tax from their customer. It is already proved that the amount received by the claimant from their foreign customer is inclusive of Service Tax, therefore the Certificate issued by C.A. has no relevance. The CA certificate is neither corroborative by any documentary evidence nor does it explain the method adopted for arriving at the conclusion that the Service Tax has not been recovered from the clients which puts the said certificate on a weak footing in view of the facts and documents discussed in the foregoing paras. Further the CA certificate alone cannot prove that the incidence of duty/tax has not been passed to the customers. For this proposition, I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in case of CCE, Chennai-II Vs. M/s Caterpillar India P
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
have already held in para 8 (iv) (ii) above that the payment made by the claimant is not under reverse charge and the same was made by them as a service provider and the amount has been collected from the client and paid to the government treasury, therefore the case law cited by them is not relevant in the instant refund claim.
12. To sum up, I hold that the “Business Auxiliary Services” provided by the claimant qualify as export of service. They have fulfilled the procedural aspect for claiming the rebate under Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005. However, the claimant has failed the test of doctrine of unjust enrichment in the instant refund claim, as the incidence of duty has already been passed to the clients/third party.”
4. Being aggrieved by the above rejection order, appellant preferred on appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and as the same yielded no fruitful result, it has approach this Tribunal seeking relief in this second round of litigation.
5. In the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g of the Adjudicating Authority that appellant had failed in the test of unjust enrichment, despite the fact that judicial decision regarding acceptance of Chartered Accountant certificate by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India – [2016 (339) ELT 21 (GUJ)] and Tribunal decisions reported in [2014 (34) STR 890 (Tri.-Mumbai)] in the case of Vodafone Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, [2018 (12) GSTL 316 (Tri.-Del.)] in the case of Western Union Financial Services Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi and [2015 (40) STR 699 (Tri.-Mumbai)] in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Vs. Vodafone (India) Ltd. were all in favour of appellant, for which he prayed to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. In response to such submissions, Shri Dilip Shinde, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent-department has supported the reasoning and rationality of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
appellant had submitted declaration in compliance to Notification No. 11/2005 read with Export of Service Rules, 2005 to the Adjudicating Authority and also made an alternative prayer in the grounds of appeal. In the first round of litigation, which was not made before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the first instance who passed order in favour of the appellant, the test of unjust enrichment was asked to be decided by the Refund Sanctioning Authority. This being so, rejection of refund is solely confined to the dispute concerning applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment to the appellant, since claim of refund was allowed to it and the same attained finality being unchallenged by the respondent department. Therefore, determination of such an issue is well within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for which hearing had been rightly preceded.
8. The test of unjust enrichment, in its limited applicability, is confined to the consideration as to who had borne the incidence of tax? If
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tution of India. It is not understood as to why the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority have ignored this documentary evidence and only placed their reliance on bifurcation of tax component in the invoice raised by the appellant, which appellant claims to have been prepared for the purpose of calculation of Service Tax liability only and on the basis of foreign exchange remittance as well as invoice copies, Commissioner (Appeals) had drawn a presumption that incidence of duty had passed on knowing, fully well that presumption/suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Despite the fact that Adjudicating Authority vide his order dated 28.10.2016 (page no. 12 of the appeal memo) under para 8 (iii) had given his observation that it was for the appellant to change/amend their CIF system to make it complacent as per their requirement and they have not done so. Further, when the service receiver denied to have born the incidence of tax, it is not understood as to wh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1484 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 22-2-2019
Appeal No. E/504/2012 – Final Order No. 40371/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M.N. Bharathi, for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that the appellants are inter alia manufacturers of cars. Pursuant to audit, it emerged that appellant had availed CENVAT credit on certain inputs like angles, channels and other items used for support of capital goods, in particular, hollow profiles and panels for use in paint shop. Department took the view that there cannot availment of CENVAT credit in respect of such items. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant which culminated in an order dated 7.9.2012, (impugned order), w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f the paint shop.
2.5 The adjudicating authority has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. – 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.LB) to conclude that input credit cannot be allowed in fabrication of items which are eventually embedded to earth. However, the said decision been overruled by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh as reported in 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chat.)
2.6 The ld. counsel submits that the issue has already been addressed and decided in favour of the appellant in a number of other judgments / decisions of High Court / Tribunal.
3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He further submits that the decision of the Vandana Global Ltd. by Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh has been appealed against by the department. Hence the matter is not settled.
4. Heard both sides.
5. We find ourselves in agreement with the ld. counsel that the matter in dispute is no longer res integra
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ase and held as follows :
“We do not find that amendment made in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 7-7-2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the Legislature wants to clarify the provision, it clearly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification on particular thing or goods and/or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively.”
6. That view has been quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CMA 3814/2014 and connections) decided on 10-7-2017 [2017 (355) E.L.T. 373 (Mad.)] to conclude that the said amendment cannot be treated as clarificatory. M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars also considered the issue
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
A.P. KAKKU ASSOCIATES Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), THRISSUR, COLLECTOR/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INT), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, THRISSUR
GST
2019 (3) TMI 268 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 22-2-2019
WA. No. 655 of 2019
GST
MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ.
For The Appellant : ADVS. SRI. A. KUMAR SMTG. MINI(1748) SRI. AJAY V. ANAND SRI. P. J. ANILKUMAR AND SRI. P. S. SREE PRASAD
For The Respondent : SRI V. K. SHAMSUDHEEN SR GP
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he conditions as prescribed in the statute, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is not bound by such prescriptions. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the authorities under the statute could not have passed an order otherwise than by fixing conditions as provided in the statute itself. This is precisely the reason why the assessee has approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
3. The assessee is a dealer registered in the State of Kerala and carrying on business. We also at the admission stage directed the Senior Government Pleader to get instruction as to whether the assessee is a habitual defaulter. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that as of now there is no un
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as of now, since it gives a separate cause of action to the assessee. Leaving such question open, we direct the assessee to pay the short fall which has been suffered by the Department that is 2,95,000/- to the Department directly within a period of three weeks from today. The Revenue Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance then. Along with such a deposit the assessee shall also furnish a simple bond without sureties, if not already furnished. The recovery shall stand stayed until the disposal of the first appeal on such conditions being satisfied. We make it clear that the we have not authoritatively pronounced on the assessee's right to get back the collection charges nor affirmed the State's entitlement for collection cha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Asean Aromatics Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (Circle) GST, Tamil Nadu State GST, Tambaram (Circle).
GST
2019 (3) TMI 269 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. 464 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 22-2-2019
W. P. No. 807 of 2019 And WMP. Nos. 888 & 890 of 2019
GST
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Jayachandran
For the Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Shafiq, Special Government pleader (Taxes) assisted by Mr. V.Haribabu, AGP (Taxes)
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dated 08.11.2018 cancelling his registration for non filing of returns of returns, on the ground that GSTR 3B returns have been filed upto December 2017 and GSTR-1 only UPTO August 2018.
2. Mr. K. Jaya
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of noncompliance along with tax dues, in order for the cancellation of the registration to be revoked.
5. Learned counsels have referred, in extenso, to a slew of circulars issued by the Centre (the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) and the State (the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) relaxing the time limits fixed for submission of returns for various periods.
6. I consciously refrain from referring to details of the circulars as neither of the learned counsels is in a position to explain with clarity what the prevailing position is with regard to the extended/applicable time limit for submission of returns. Suffice it to say that the overall impression that I get is that the authorities, both Centre and St
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fact that the petitioner has not engaged in any business transactions, on account of the cancellation of registration, for the last four (4) months as well as relevant circulars issued by the authorities till date, in disposing the application.
8. The petitioner will appear before the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial taxes on 04.03.2019 at 10:30 am or on a date as proximate to the aforesaid date as convenient to Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial taxes and communicated to the petitioner and orders will be passed by him on the Application within two (2) weeks thereafter.
9. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Case laws
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2019
LA/Bill-2/2019 Dated:- 22-2-2019 Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
ITANAGAR
–
NOTIFICATION
The 22nd February, 2019
No. LA/Bill-2/2019.-The following Bill introduced in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on the 21st February, 2019 is published under Rules 73 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly for general information.
BILL NO. 2 OF 2019
(As introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 21st February, 2019)
THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 2019
A
BILL
to amend the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (Act No. 7 of 2017).
BE it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh in the Seventieth-Year of Republic of India as follows,-
1. Short title and commencement : (1) This Act may be c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
race club including by way of totalisator or a license to book maker or activities of a licensed book maker in such club; and”;
(d) clause (18) shall be omitted;
(e) in clause (35), for the word, brackets and letter “clause (c)”, the word, brackets and letter “clause (b)” shall be substituted;
(f) in clause (69), in sub-clause (f), after the word and figures “article 371”, the words, figures and letter “and article 371J” shall be inserted;
(g) in clause (102), the following new Explanation shall be clarified that the expression “services” includes facilitating or arranging transactions in securities;”.
Amendment of section 7.
3. In the principal Act, in section 7, with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017,
in sub-section (1),
(a) in clause (b), after the words “or furtherance of business;”, the word “and” shall be inserted and shall always be deemed to have been inserted;
(b) in clause (c), after the words “a consideration”, the word “and” shall be omitted and the punctuatio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o shall, in respect of supply of specified categories of goods or services or both received from an unregistered supplier, pay the tax on reverse charge basis as the recipient of such supply of goods or services or both, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to such supply of goods or services or both.”.
Amendment of section 10.
5. In the principal Act, in section 10,
(1) in sub-section (1),
(a) for the words “in lieu of the tax payable by him, an amount calculated at such rate”, the words, brackets and figures “in lieu of the tax payable by him under sub-section (1) of section 9, an amount of tax calculated at such rate” shall be substituted;
(b) in the proviso, for the words “one crore rupees, as may be recommended by the Council.”, the words “one crore and fifty lakh rupees as may be recommended by the Council:” shall be substituted;
(c) in the proviso, for the punctuation mark “.”, the p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ection 16.
8. In the principal Act, in section 16, in sub-section (2),
(a) in clause (b), for the Explanation, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely: –
“Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, it shall be deemed that the registered person has received the goods or, as the case may be, services
(i) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of such registered person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to goods or otherwise;
(ii) where the services are provided by the supplier to any person on the direction of and on account of such registered person.”;
(b) in clause (c), for the word and figures “section 41”, the words, figures and letter “section 41 or section 43A” shall be substituted.
Amendment of section 17.
9. In the principal Act, in section 17,
(a) in sub-section (3), the following new Explanation s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or
(D) imparting training on flying such aircraft;
(ii) for transportation of goods;
(a) services of general insurance, servicing, repair and maintenance in so far as they relate to motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft referred to in clause (a) or clause (aa):
Provided that the input tax credit in respect of such services shall be available-
(i) where the motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft referred to in clause (a) or clause (aa) are used for the purposes specified therein;
(ii) where received by a taxable person engaged-
(I) in the manufacture of such motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or
(II) in the supply of general insurance services in respect of such motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft insured by him;
(b) the following supply of goods or services or both-
(i) food and beverages, outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, leasing, renting or hiring of motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft referred to in clause (a) or clau
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ries 84 and 92A” shall be substituted.
Amendment of section 22.
11. In the principal Act, in section 22,
(a) in sub-section (1),
(i) for the word “ten” the word “twenty” shall be substituted;
(ii) for the punctuation mark “.”, the punctuation mark “:” shall be substituted and thereafter the following new provisos shall be inserted, namely:
“Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakh rupees:
Provided further that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from a special category State in respect of which the Central Government has enhanced the aggregate turnover referred to in the first proviso, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds the amount equivalent to such enhanced turnover.”;
(b) in the Explanation, in clause
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e the Special Economic Zone in the same State”;
(b) in sub-section (2),for the proviso, the following new proviso shall be substituted, namely :-
“Provided that a person having multiple places of business in the State may be granted a separate registration for each such place of business, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.”.
Amendment of section 29.
14. In the principal Act, in section 29,
(i) in the marginal heading after the word “Cancellation”, the words “or suspension” shall be inserted;
(ii) in sub-section (1), in clause (c), for the punctuation mark “.”, the punctuation mark “:” shall be substituted and thereafter, the following new proviso shall be inserted, namely: –
“Provided that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, the registration may be suspended for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed.”;
(iii) in sub-section (2), in the proviso, for the punctuation mark “.”, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
In the principal Act, in section 35, in sub-section (5), for the punctuation mark “.”, the punctuation mark “:” shall be substituted and thereafter the following new proviso shall be inserted, namely: –
“Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any department of the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority, whose books of account are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India or an auditor appointed for auditing the accounts of local authorities under any law for the time being in force.”.
Amendment of section 39.
17. In the principal Act, in section 39, –
i. in sub-section (1),
(i) for the words “in such form and manner as may be prescribed”, the words “in such form, manner and within such time as may be prescribed” shall be substituted;
(ii) the words “on or before the twentieth day of the month succeeding such calendar month or part thereof” shall be omitted;
(iii) for the punctuation mark “.”, the punctua
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sion or incorrect particulars are noticed”, the words “in such form and manner as may be prescribed” shall be substituted;
(ii) in the proviso, for the words “the end of the financial year”, the words “the end of the financial year to which such details pertain” shall be substituted.
Insertion of new section 43A.
18. In the principal Act, after section 43, the following new section shall be inserted, namely: –
Procedure for furnishing return and availing input tax credit.
43A.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 16, section 37 or section 38, every registered person shall in the returns furnished under sub-section (1) of section 39 verify, validate, modify or delete the details of supplies furnished by the suppliers.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 41, section 42 or section 43, the procedure for availing of input tax credit by the recipient and verification thereof shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The procedure for furnishi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en furnished under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) but return thereof has not been furnished.
(7) For the purposes of sub-section (6), the recovery shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed and such procedure may provide for non-recovery of an amount of tax or input tax credit wrongly availed not exceeding one thousand rupees.
(8) The procedure, safeguards and threshold of the tax amount in relation to outward supplies, the details of which can be furnished under sub-section (3) by a registered person, –
(i) within six months of taking registration;
(ii) who has defaulted in payment of tax and where such default has continued for more than two months from the due date of payment of such defaulted amount, shall be such as may be prescribed.”
Amendment of section 48.
19. In the principal Act, in section 48, in sub-section (2), after the word and figures “section 45”, the words “and to perform such other functions” shall be inserted.
Amendment of section 49.
20. In the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
integrated tax;”.
Insertion of new sections 49A and 49B.
21. In the principal Act, after section 49, the following new sections shall be inserted, namely: –
Utilisation of input tax credit subject to certain conditions.
“49A. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 49, the input tax credit on account of State tax shall be utilised towards payment of integrated tax or State tax, as the case may be, only after the input tax credit available on account of integrated tax has first been utilized fully towards such payment.
Order of utilisation of input tax credit.
49B. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter and subject to the provisions of clause (e) and clause (f) of sub-section (5) of section 49, the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, prescribe the order and manner of utilisation of the input tax credit on account of integrated tax, central tax, State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be, towards payment of any such tax.”.
Amendment
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
b-section (4), for the punctuation mark “.”, the punctuation mark “:” shall be substituted and thereafter the following new Explanation shall be inserted, namely: –
“Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the word person shall include “distinct persons” as referred to in sub-section (4) or, as the case may be, sub-section (5) of section 25.”.
Amendment of section 107.
25. In the principal Act, in section 107, in sub-section (6), in clause (b), after the words “arising from the said order,”, the words “subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees,” shall be inserted.
Amendment of section 112.
26. In the principal Act, in section 112, in sub-section (8), in clause (b), after the words “arising from the said order,” the words “subject to a maximum of fifty crore rupees,” shall be inserted.
Amendment of section 129.
27. In the principal Act, in section 129, in sub-section (6), for the words “seven days” occurring at both the places, the words “fourteen days” shall be su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GSTR-3B Deadline Extended to February 28, 2019, for State J; February 22, 2019, for All Other States.
Notifications
GST
Due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B extended for the month of January,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Taxpayers Can Revise Form GST TRAN 2 Post-Submission, Ensuring Error Corrections and Accurate Filings.
Case-Laws
GST
Rectification/revision of Form GST TRAN 2 electronically or manually – The
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Credit on -COST allocation to Other unit -head of ineligible Credit items
Query (Issue) Started By: – Prem Choudhary Dated:- 21-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 23-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
Dear Expert
please advice on input tax credit is eligibility , One Manufaturing Company has 5 manufaturing units in different states and all unit has maintaining separate books and return in GST . And every month each unit is raising tax invoice on other units for cost incurred / facilities provided to employee of other units by using "SAC -998599 Other Support Service". However in Cost allocation invoice the component of following cost is also included :-
* Taxi Hire charges:- ( providing unit has paid G
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r services or both shall be available, where it is obligatory for an employer to provide the same to its employees under any law for the time being in force.
It is further clarified that that law may be State subject or Central subject. This amendment can be helpful to you, if you make efforts in the light of this latest amendment.
Reply By Prem Choudhary:
The Reply:
Thank you for reply,
Sir i want highlight that in case of Taxi hire charges GST is paid by providing units under RCM and debited to COST and Cost of Taxi hire allocate to other unit in SAC – 998599 'Other Support Services".. . The other unit has filling the return and paid IGST as Other Support Services in GSTR-1.
Our query is, whether COST recipient state can eli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
UTILISATION OF ITC AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 49A AND 49B
By: – Nitika Aggarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 21-2-2019
UTILISATION OF ITC AFTER INSERTION OF SEC 49A
In midst of changes vide CGST Amendment Act, 2018 there is an insertion of new sections i.e. 49A and 49B in CGST Act, 2017, which has paved its way in new direction. Let's analyze the impact of the same on the industry:-
Section 49(5) of CGST Act, 2017 provides the set off policies against the liabilities of CGST, IGST, SGST and UTGST from Input tax credit available. Prior to amendment in CGST Act, 2017 via CGST Amendment Act, 2018, Section 49(5) of the act reads as under:-
Section 49(5) of CGST Act, 2017:-
“(5) The amount of input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger of the registered person on account of
(a) integrated tax shall first be utilised towards payment of integrated tax and the amount remaining, if any, may be utilised towards the payment of central tax and State tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IGST
SGST & UTGST
SGST
SGST
IGST
CGST
UTGST
UTGST
IGST
CGST
Following are the examples for better understanding the aforesaid provision of the act:-
Example 1:-
When ITC of IGST is available and IGST liability is NIL
ITC
ITC Amount
Liability
1st Adjustment
2nd Adjustment
Balance to be Paid in Cash
Balance ITC
IGST
200
–
–
–
–
CGST
200
350
Rs.200-200 (CGST )
₹ 150-150 (IGST)
–
–
SGST
200
250
₹ 200-200 (SGST )
₹ 50-50 (IGST)
–
–
Example 2:-
When ITC of IGST is available along with the liability of IGST
ITC
ITC Amount
Liability
1st Adjustment
2nd Adjustment
Balance to be Paid in Cash
Balance ITC
IGST
200
50
Rs. (50-50)
(IGST)
–
–
150
CGST
200
350
₹ 200-200 (CGST )
₹ 150-150 (IGST)
–
–
SGST
200
250
₹ 200-200 (SGST )
50
–
However, the aforesaid position of set off against the ITC available after insertion of section 49A and 49B vide CGST Amendment Act, 2018 has been changed. Let's ana
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f any such tax.".
Payment for
First set off from
Then set off from
IGST
IGST
CGST and SGST
CGST
IGST
CGST
SGST
IGST
SGST
Example 1:-
When ITC of IGST is available and there is no liability of IGST
ITC
ITC Amount
Liability
1st Adjustment
2nd Adjustment
Balance to be Paid in Cash
Balance ITC
IGST
200
0
–
–
–
–
CGST
200
350
₹ 200-200 (IGST )
₹ 150-150 (IGST)
–
50
SGST
200
250
₹ 200-200 (SGST )
50
–
Example 2:-
When ITC of IGST is available along with the liability of IGST
ITC
ITC Amount
Liability
1st Adjustment
2nd Adjustment
Balance to be Paid in Cash
Balance ITC
IGST
200
50
(50-50)
IGST
–
–
–
CGST
200
350
Rs (150-150)
(IGST )
₹ 200-200 (CGST )
–
–
SGST
200
250
₹ 100-100 (SGST)
–
50
–
Now, this shall lead to accumulation of input tax credit on account of CGST, SGST and UTGST, which was fully utilized prior to insertion of section 49A. Cash flows of trade dealers might wedged
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
THRESHOLD LIMIT FOR REGISTRATION UNDER ‘GST’
By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 21-2-2019
Registration
Section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('Act' for short) provides for registration by every supplier under the Act. Section 22(1) of the Act that every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. The proviso to section 22(1) provides that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds Rs.10 lakhs.
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018 inserted second proviso to Section 22(1). The second proviso provides that the Government may, at the r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e turnover also exclude the value of inward supplies on which tax is payable by a person on reverse charge basis.
Person
The aggregate turnover of the following persons exceeding the threshold limit is liable to registration as supplier under GST Act-
* an individual;
* a Hindu Undivided Family;
* a company;
* a firm;
* a Limited Liability Partnership;
* an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, in India or outside India;
* any corporation established by or under any Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013
* any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India;
* a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies;
* a local authority;
* Central Government or a State Government;
* society as defined under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
* trust; and
* every artificia
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
itories were asked to select their option as to the threshold limit they want to raise the threshold limit or maintain status quo. It was one time measure of exercising the option. The increased threshold is for the benefit of micro, small and medium enterprises.
Effective date
The revised threshold limit as adopted by the States and the Union Territories will take effect from 01.04.2019.
Option of States
The following States/UTs opted to increase the threshold limit to ₹ 40 lakhs from ₹ 20 lakhs-
* Chhatisgarh;
* Jharkhland;
* Delhi;
* Bihar;
* Maharashtra;
* Andhra Pradesh;
* Gujarat;
* Haryana;
* Goa;
* Punjab;
* Uttar Pradesh;
* Jammu & Kashmir;
* Assam;
* Himachal Pradesh;
* Karnataka;
* Madhya Pradesh;
* Odisha;
* Rajasthan;
* Tamil Nadu; and
* West Bengal.
The following States/UTs opted to increase the threshold limit to ₹ 20 lakhs from ₹ 10 lakhs-
* Puducherry;
* Meghalaya;
* Mizoram;
* Tripura;
* Ma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sanghavi Land Developers Pvt Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai East
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1311 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-2-2019
APPEAL NO: ST/87344/2018 – A/85344/2019
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri Jitu Motwani, Advocate
Respondent: Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR)
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.3.2018 passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGPM, WRU, Mumbai in Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/DGPM/ WRU/APP-53/2017-18. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Appellants are liable for penalty u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The Appellant are engaged in the business of construction of residential complexes as well as renting of immovable property. The said construction activity has been brought under the service tax only w.e.f. 1.7.2010 by way of amendment in the existing Construction of Complex Services under section 65
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, immediately after pointing out by the said team, in the month of March, 2012 itself the Appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 19,79,927/- towards service tax applicable on construction services during the relevant period. Thereafter much belatedly a show cause cum demand notice dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the Appellant demanding the service tax amount, which according to the department the appellant had short paid by Rs. 1,47,072/- for the period from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2015, alongwith interest u/s. 75 and penalty u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1978.
3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant appeal they are only challenging the imposition of penalty u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also submitted that the Appellant are willing to deposit the amount of interest u/s. 75 ibid. According to him, the appellants were not aware about the final order of the Hon'ble High Court and therefore they did not deposit the service tax. But immediat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rvice. – If the Central Excise Officer in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter is satisfied that any person has, with intent to evade payment of service tax, suppressed or concealed the value of taxable service or has furnished inaccurate value of such taxable service, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to service tax and interest, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of service tax sought to be evaded by reason of suppression or concealment of the value of taxable service or the furnishing of inaccurate value of such taxable service :
Provided that if the value of taxable service (as determined by the Central Excise Officer on assessment) in respect of which value has been suppressed or concealed or inaccurate value has been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Central Excise Officer shall not issue any direction for payment by way of penalty wit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tional validity of the aforesaid amendments. There is no reason not to accept the reasoning given by the ld. counsel for the appellants that they were not aware about the final decision of the Hon'ble High Court, because as soon as the anti-evasion team visited the office of the appellants in the month of March, 2012 and informed them about the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and pointed out that they have not paid the service tax, immediately the appellants in the month of March, 2012 itself paid the service tax of Rs. 19,79,927/- upto date. Thereafter they are discharging their service tax liability regularly. After the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant has deposited the balance amount of service tax of Rs. 1,47,072/- in the month of February, 2017 which remained outstanding due to the calculation error for the period from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2015. It is clear that the Appellants were under bonafide belief that the writ petition is still pending and that's why the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ants were engaged in importing of rough diamonds and have paid commission to the brokers through whom they procured diamonds from DTC. If the department was aware of writ petition filed by the appellants and have filed an affidavit in September, 2006, nothing prevented them from issuing protective demand notices in order to safeguard the revenue. As has been already reproduced hereinabove, we find that bulk of the show cause notices were issued by the Revenue Department in 2011 invoking the periods as indicated against the details of individual appellants. In our view, the demand of the Service Tax liability by invoking the extended period in all these cases will not survive as Revenue was well aware of the activity of the appellant of remitting the payments to the broker as commission through proper banking channels, which has been mentioned in writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. In our considered view, the Revenue Department having filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble High
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
th interest and we do so, to that extent appeals are rejected.
10. This takes us to the issue of penalties imposed on the appellants under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that the appellant need not be visited by penalties under the various sections of the Finance Act inasmuch, they could have entertained the bona fide belief as to that their writ petition may be decided in their favour. Invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we find that the appellants have made out justifiable reason for setting aside the penalties imposed on them. Invoking the said provisions of Section 80 of the Act, we set aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants herein to that extent the appeals are allowed.”
6. The provisions under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, are pari materia. In the matter of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that unintentional and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s Swees Gems & Jewellery, M/s Aaradhya Impex Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur-I
Customs
2019 (2) TMI 1375 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 21-2-2019
Appeal No. C/53512-53513/2018-Cus. (DB) – Final Order No. 50283-50284/2019
Customs
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
Sh. Arun Goyal, Advocate – for the appellant
Shri Rakesh Kumar, DR – for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Bijay kumar :
All these appeals have been filed by the appellant on an identical issue and, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. The details of the adjudication order are as under :
S.No.
Bill of Entry
Name of Importer
Date of detention/seizure
1.
6045058 & 6046267 dated 19.4.2018
M/s Swees Gems & Jewelery
26.4.2018/8.8.2018
2.
6044641 & 6045969 dated 19.4.2018
M/s Aardhya Impex
26.4.2018/8.8.2018
2. In all these cases, the appellants have imported the consignment of rough diamond (precious stone) from Hong Kong
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
RI/DZU/JRU/19/INT-11/ENQ.23/2018/1866 dated 12.10.2018 to the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur. In the said letter of DRI, the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur was appraised of various difficulties in not issuing the Show Cause Notice within the prescribed time of six months from the date of detention/seizure of the goods. Being aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed these appeals before this Tribunal.
4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case, the appellant were not issued the Show Cause Notice and given opportunity to be heard before extending the time limit for issuance of Show Cause Noptice under provisions of Customs Act.
4.1 He referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh – 1989 (42) ELT 338 (SC) wherein it is held that extension of six months period for issuance of Show Cause Notice cannot be done by the Commissioner without hearing the appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
), wherein it is held that extension of period for retention of seized goods cannot be permitted without sufficient cause and without opportunity of being heard to the person from whose possession goods are seized
4.3 Ld. Advocate relied upon the following cases where similar view has been entertained by the respective Courts :
(i) Chunilal Damani Vs. Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex., West Bengal – 2000 (126) ELT 357 (Cal.)
(ii) K.K. Sukhani Vs. Union of India – 1999 (110) ELT 505 (Pat.).
(iii) Works of Art (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India & Others – 1998 (36) ELT 91 (Bom.).
4.4 The ld. Advocate also submitted that the amendment to the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018, will not alter the situation as for grant of personal hearing before the extension of Show Cause Notice. He, accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow release of seized goods for the violation of the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act.
5. Ld. AR,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
suance of Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner after applying his mind and considering the surrounding circumstances extended the time period for issue of Show Cause Notice by another six months.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the case record along with the investigation file submitted before the Bench by ld. AR. In these cases, the issue to be decided is as to whether after the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018 is there any need for issuance of the Show Cause Notice before the extension is permitted by another six months on the reasonable ground by the Commissioner/adjudicating authority. To resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate to refer the Section 110(2) before the amendment and also after the amendment vide Finance Act, 2018. The same is reproduced as under :
Section 110(2) before
Section 110(2) after
Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d as under:
“I also propose to make certain change to the Customs Act, 1962 to further improve ease of doing business in cross border trade, and to align certain provisions with the commitments under the Trade Facilitation Agreement. To smoothen dispute resolution processes and to reduce litigation, certain amendments are being made, to provide for pre-notice consultation, definite timelines for adjudication and deemed closure of cases of tose timelines are not adhered to.”
Clause 90 of the Bill seeks, to amend Section 110 of the Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where no order for provisional release of goods has been passed. We find that similar issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 75047-75048/2018 dated 17.1.2019 in the case of S.R.K. Metal & Industries & Pink Commercial, wherein it is held as under:
“Our atten
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g Authority has to give the proper reasoning by way of reasoned order after examining the requirement for extension of time period as per sub proviso 2 of Section 110. Question as to whether the person claiming restoration of the goods under Section 110 of Act is entitled to notice before time is extending, this flows from the circumstances that this is a quasi judicial proceeding, and also it goes beyond the doubt that rights of a person are likely to prejudicially affected, he is entitled to opportunity to put forwarded his case before the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the person from whom the goods have been seized, is entitled to notice of the proposal before Adjudicating Authority for the extension of original period of the six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act subject to the restriction that he is not entitled to the information about the investigation which is in possession of the Investigating Agency as there can be no right in any person to be informed whose
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
iscussed above, even after insertion of with new sentence in the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. In fact, we are of the view that after amendment not only the Show Cause Notice is required to be issued by the Adjudicating Authority, but he has also to give a reasoned order after hearing the Investigation Officer and also taking view of the affected party from whom seizure has been made as his personal right is being deprived of which emanate from the Section 110(1) of the Act that entitled him to got the goods returned which has been seized from his possession. This is also cleared from statements of objects in the Finance Act as discussed above.
13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is in violation in this provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act has held in the various decisions discussed above. We have also seen the note sheet order of the Ld. Commissioner in this case. It is seen from the order that the Commissioner while extending the ti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
at in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1), New Delhi vs. Vatika Township) [(2014) 0 SCC 670], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that law enacted in absence of a provision in the statue about the same being with of retrospective effect in the Clause of Finance Act, the amendment will have prospective effect only. In view of that also we find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the new amended provision has been applied for the seizure made during period when the amendment was not there in the statue.
14. In view of above our analysis as above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no legality for dispensing with the Show Cause Notices to the affected party even under the amended provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority has erroneously held that this is no need of issue of Show Cause Notice in the cases of extension at hand.
15. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow appeals with consequential relief as per law.”
7
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s H.M. INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1452 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 324 (Guj.) , [2020] 72 G S.T.R. 119 (Guj)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-2-2019
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1160 of 2019
GST
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ.
For The Petitioner (s) : ANANDODAYA S MISHRA (8038)
For The Respondent (s) : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Rule. Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to release all the bank accounts of the petitioner, as shown in paragraph12 of the memorandum of petition.
3. Vide order dated 06.02.2019, this Court had directed the respondent to forthwith release the attachment on the petitioner's cash credit acc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
00 maintained with the Bank of Baroda.
6. Heard Mr. A.S. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had reversed the input tax credit of Rs. 12,99,32,058/, against the total input tax credit taken in respect of M/s. Om Enterprises, M/s. Shivay Enterprises and M/s. Avi Enterprises. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already paid the initial demand of GST to the tune of Rs. 7,51,01,066/. Thus, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, in all, an amount of Rs. 13,52,00,000/stands reversed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, under instructions, states that, in all, a sum of Rs. 13,28,00,000/has been paid, either by way of reversal or otherwise. He, however, has submitted that as of now, the amount due and payable by the petitioner is Rs. 16.24 crores, out of which, o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eedings under section 67, 73 or 74 of the Act.
11. Under section 83 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. In the facts of the present case, while a liability of Rs. 14.62 crores had been estimated at the time when the order under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, the present estimate is Rs. 16.24 crores. Thus, the petitioner, upon conclusion of any proceedings that may be taken pursuant to the proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, may be liable to pay such amount. Admittedly, the petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 13,28,00,000/. In the opinion of this Court, considering the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently secured. Therefore, the provisional attachment of the above referred bank accounts of the petitioner is no longer justified.
12. For the foregoing reasons,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., Unit II Puducherry Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 26 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 21-2-2019
Appeal No. E/40098/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40374/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri K.S. Jain, Managing Director For the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Diesel Generating sets. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that while appellants were clearing their final products, they also cleared such excisable goods manufactured by them to their sister units, where the goods were consumed in the manufacture of final products. It also appeared that in respect of such goods cleared by them, they had not determined the value in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Va
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ontravention of the Rules cited above. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order No.150/2017 dt. 20.09.2017setaside penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs however did not interfere with the remaining portion of the order of original authority. Aggrieved appellants are in appeal before this forum.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Shri K.S. Jain, their Managing Director submitted that the issue is revenue-neutral since whatever the duty was paid by the appellant would have been taken as credit by their other unit. He also submits that demand is time-barred for the reason that the issue was under correspondence between the jurisdictional Range Officer and the appellants from 08.03.2004 and they had time and again clarified that they are not required to produce the CA-4 certificate.
3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri S. Govindarajan submits that for all clearances to their sister unit appellants were required to clear the goods at 115% / 110% of the cos
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the assessable value as 115% / 110% of such cost, as the case may be, to demand any duty liability. Instead, a very discernible shortcut, not supported by any provision of law, was adopted, namely, adding 15% to their invoice prices.
5.2 We find merit in the contention of the appellants that this issue in any case is revenue-neutral. That averment is supported by a slew of case laws / decisions of higher appellate forum. This very Bench in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs CCE Puducherry 2018 (360) ELT 1016 (Tri.-Chennai) has held as under :
“5. On considering the fact that the goods are cleared to the sister unit and also the fact that the appellant is eligible for credit on the duty paid, the entire exercise is a revenue neutral situation as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
