Author: admin_gst

Goods and Services Tax – 14/2018 – Dated:- 8-10-2018 – MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION No. 14/2018-Union territory Tax New Delhi, the 8th October, 2018 G.S.R. 1004(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017) and section 96 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) and rule 103 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Central Government, hereby, notifies the Constitution of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories as mentioned in column (2) of the Table below with the Members as specified in column (3) of the said Table, namely:- TABLE Sl. No. Name of Union territory of the Authority for Advance Rulin

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 15/2018 – Dated:- 8-10-2018 – MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION No. 15/2018-Union territory Tax New Delhi, the 8th October, 2018 G.S.R 1005 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017) and section 99 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, hereby, notifies the Constitution of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories as mentioned in column (2) of the Table below with the Members as specified in column (3) of the said Table, namely:- TABLE Sl. No. Name of Union territory of the Authority for Advance Ruling Name and designation of the Member (1) (2)

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 510 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 84 (N. A. P. A.) – Profiteering – Benefit of reduction in the rate of tax – Maggi – reduction of rate of tax from 18% to 12% – increase in the base price of the product – benefit of the reduction of GST rate not passed, as base price increased – violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – quantum of profiteering.
–
Whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on the above product had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant or not?
–
Held that:- The base price of the product was ₹ 3.96/- per pack before 15.11.2017 which was increased to ₹ 4.17/- per pack by the Respondent after the rate of tax on the product was reduced from 18% to 12% vide Notification dated 14.11.2017 and the product was sold to the recipients @ ₹ 4.67/- per pack. The Respondent was required to sell the product @ ₹ 4.43/- per pack due to reduction in the tax rate and

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Gms. products – Held that:- The Respondent has no such liberty to arbitrarily decide in respect of which products he would pass on the benefit and in respect of which products he would not pass such benefit. As per the provisions of Section 171 of the Act the benefit has to be passed on to each recipient and the same can not be selectively granted or denied. It is also clear that the Maggi Noodle pack of 35 Gms. is distinct from a 70 Gms. pack and both the packs may be bought by the different recipients/customers and hence the benefit accruing to one customer can not be given or denied to another nor can the benefit given to one set of customers arbitrarily enhanced and set off against the another. No such adjustments are permissible under the Act.
–
Quantum of profiteering – Held that:- The quantum of profiteering is determined as ₹ 90,778/- including the profiteering of ₹ 2,253/- made by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

, TECHNICAL MEMBER Present:- None for the Applicant No. 1. Sh. Bhupender Goyal, Assistant Director (Costs) for the Applicant No.2. None for the Respondent. ORDER 1. An application through email dated 29.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 stating that he had purchased Maggi Noodle packs, each weighing 35 Gms., having Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹ 5/- (here-in-after referred to as the product ) from the Respondent on 06.11.2017 vide invoice No. N1611 and on 28.11.2017 vide invoice No. N1867. The above Applicant had also alleged that prior to 15.11.2017, the Respondent was charging 18% GST on the product s base price of ₹ 3.96/- per pack, however, after the GST rate was reduced from 18% to 12% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had started charging 12% GST on the product s increased base price of ₹ 4.17/- per pack. Thus, the Applicant No. 1 ha

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Respondent was called upon by the DGAP to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate had not been passed on to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in the price. The Respondent was also asked to suo-moto determine the quantum of benefit not passed on and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice. Certain documents viz. Balance Sheet, GST Returns (1 & 3B), details of outward taxable supplies etc. were also sought from the Respondent by the DGAP. Incidentally the date of invoice No. N1611 was found to be 05.11.2017 instead of 06.11.2017 on examination by the DGAP. The period covered by the current Investigation is from 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018. The Applicant No. 1 was given an opportunity vide email dated 12.06.2018 by the DGAP to inspect the non-confidential reply furnished by the Respondent, however, he did not avail of the said opportunity, instead, he had sent a letter dated 15.06.2018, informing that he had got cla

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

and around 25 paise to the ultimate consumer which would have been inconvenient to both the retailer and the consumer whereas on Maggi Noodles pack of 70 Gms. bearing MRP of ₹ 12/- per pack, the benefit on account of GST rate reduction for the retailer would have been approximately 56 paise against which the respondent had reduced the price by 92 paise with reduced MRP of ₹ 11/- and thus, the benefit in respect of ₹ 5/- MRP pack had been passed on by reducing the price of other packs of Maggi Noodles by more than what was required. Therefore, the Respondent had claimed that the benefit of GST rate reduction had been passed on in respect of Maggie Noodles as a whole. The Respondent had also submitted the following documents: – a) Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account for the year 2016-17. b) Copies of the GSTR- 3B returns for the period from October, 2017 to February, 2018. c) Copies of the GSTR-1 returns for the period from October, 2017 to February, 2018. d) GST TRA

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ion of not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 12% on the product w.e.f. 15.11.2017 but instead the Respondent has contended that in the case of the product the MRP of which was ₹ 5/-, the benefit of GST rate reduction to the Applicant No. 1 as retailer and to the ultimate consumer would have been 21 paise and 25 paise respectively, which would have been inconvenient to both due to legal tender issues. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent has contended that he has passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction in respect of 70 Gm. pack of Maggi Noodles bearing MRP of ₹ 12/- by reducing the price for the Applicant No.1 and the ultimate consumer by 92 paise and Re. 1/- respectively, which was much more than the required reduction of approximately 56 paise for the above Applicant. The DGAP has also submitted that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 required that any reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or se

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

te reduction to the recipients of the product including the Applicant No. 1. Accordingly, the DGAP has calculated the profiteered amount of ₹ 90,778/- including the profiteered amount of ₹ 2,253/- charged by the Respondent from the Applicant No.1 as has been shown below:- (Amount in Rs.) Sr.No. Product MRP 1st Nov. to 14th Nov. 2017 15th Nov. 2017 to 28th Feb. 2018 Commensurate Price per unit Profiteering Per unit Total Profiteering Amount Charged Base Price GST Rate Qty. Sold Amount Charged Base Price GST Rate Qty. Sold A B C D E F G H I J K L=112% of E M=[H-L] N=[K*M] 1 MAGGI 2-MIN Mas Ndls 35Gms 5.00 4.67 3.96 18% 12468 4.67 4.17 12% 382048 4.43 0.24 90,778/- Total Profiteering on sale of the Product 90,778/- 5. The DGAP has also reported that the Applicant No.1 vide his letter dated 15.06.2018 has sought to withdraw his application and requested for closure of the case, however, he has contended that as the application filed by the above Applicant had been investigated

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

31.08.2018 was received on 05th Sept, 2018 from the Respondent stating that he had submitted his final reply vide his email/letter dated 21st Aug, 2018 which should be taken in to account while passing order in the present proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Authority had accorded last opportunity of hearing to the Respodent on 10th Sep, 2018 but the Respondent did not attended therefore, there was no other alternative except to proceed against the Respondent exparte. 7. Perusal of the letter dated 21.08.2018 written by the Respondent shows that he has stated that he had already filed his submissions before the DGAP and had also submitted the necessary information/documents before him and there were no additional submissions that were intended to be submitted over and above the one submitted earlier before the DGAP and his case should be decided keeping in view his earlier submissions. The Respondent has re-iterated that he had not profiteered and duly passed on the benefits w

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him. (3). The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed. 171. (1) 10. It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case as well as the invoices dated 05.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 that the base price of the product was ₹ 3.96/- per pack before 15.11.2017 which was increased to ₹ 4.17/- per pack by the Respondent after the rate of tax on the product was reduced from 18% to 12% vide Notification dated 14.11.2017 and the product was sold to the recipients @ ₹ 4.67/- per pack. The Respondent was required to sell the product @

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tax rate due to the problem of legal tenders as he had no legal authority to fix MRP arbitrarily. It was for the customers to furnish the required legal tenders and therefore, the Respondent can not be allowed to resort to profiteering. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has alredy issued detailed instructions vide it s Notification dated 16.11.2017 for notifying the reduced MRP which have not been followed by the above Respondent. 12. It is further apparent from the record that the Respondent has contended that he had passed on the benefit in respect of the product by way of reducing the MRP of the 70 Gms. products. The Respondent has no such liberty to arbitrarily decide in respect of which products he would pass on the benefit and in respect of which products he would not pass such benefit. As per the provisions of Section 171 of the Act the benefit has to be passed on to each recipient and the same can not be selectively granted or denied. It is also clear that the Maggi Noodle pack

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

377; 88,525/- along with the interest at 18% P.A. till the date of deposit in the respective Central or State Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 14. It is evident from the above that the Respondent had denied benefit of the reduction in GST rate to the consumers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and had also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the above Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him. 15. Further, the Authority, as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 562 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Taxability – extended warranty services on vehicles provided to customers – part of amount retained by appellant – case of Revenue is that the amount retained by the appellant is taxable under authorised service station services and appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amounts retained with applicable interest.
–
Held that:- The genesis of the issue as to what is the amount retained by the appellant in the entire case records has not been considered by the lower authorities in these proceedings. The affidavit filed by the appellant herein indicates some figure which needs to be considered by the first appellate authority to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the refund application filed by the appellant is acceptable or otherwise.
–
The issue of correct tax liability on the amounts retained by the appellant needs to be considered, then the adjudicating authority needs to reconsider the issue in respect of correct amount r

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

re not offering the said consideration for service tax; that they have availed common input service tax credit of ₹ 24,75,562/- and did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a demand notice was issued demanding service tax of ₹ 19,81,588/- on the extended warranty under authorized service station for the period April 2006 to March 2011 and demanding irregular credit of ₹ 24,75,562/-. After due process, the demand was confirmed by Addl. Commissioner, Service Tax. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before first appellate authority alongwith a stay petition contesting that they had collected such extended warranty amounts on behalf of M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited and had remitted such amounts to them after retaining certain part of the amount. While disposing of the stay petition, Commissioner (Appeals) ordered pre-deposit of 50% of service tax confirmed and deposit of 100% irregular input serv

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

aw rejected the refund claim. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after granting an opportunity of representing the case and considering the submissions made by the appellant and his Counsel, came to a conclusion that the impugned order-in-original rejecting the refund claim was correct and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel after taking the Bench through the case records submits that the entire plea of the appellant has been misconstrued by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the issue of discharging service tax liability on the amounts received as extended warranty is liable to be paid, is finalized by the first appellate authority in their own case by the Order-in- Appeal No. 95/2013 (H-II)S.Tax, dt.29.07.2013 and there is no appeal filed, but he draws attention to the findings of the first appellate authority in the said order and submits that the firs

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

show cause notice went on a presumption that the amounts collected by the appellant are retained while the factual position is that the amounts have been collected from the customers but transferred to Hyundai Motors India Limited after retaining the amount due to appellant. He files an affidavit of Asst. Manager, Accounts of the appellant. 5. Ld. DR reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that there is no dispute as to the facts that the appellant herein is providing extended warranty on vehicles to their customers as directed by M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited. For giving such services, appellant receives consideration from the customers. It is seen from the records that the entire case made up by the Revenue is on the ground that the amounts collected from the customers for extended warranty services given needs to be taxed while it is the case of the appellant that the amounts collected towards extended warranty

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

sides, would mean that appellant herein is required to discharge service tax liability on the amount retained by him. It is also undisputed that during the proceedings which were initiated on the appellant, they had deposited substantial amount and if the service tax liability due is less than the amount, refund of differential amount is due to them. 7. I find that the genesis of the issue as to what is the amount retained by the appellant in the entire case records has not been considered by the lower authorities in these proceedings. The affidavit filed by the appellant herein indicates some figure which needs to be considered by the first appellate authority to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the refund application filed by the appellant is acceptable or otherwise. 8. In view of the foregoing, the issue of correct tax liability on the amounts retained by the appellant needs to be considered, then the adjudicating authority needs to reconsider the issue in respect of correct am

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 635 – ITAT CHENNAI – TMI – SSI exemption – scaffoldings / propping equipments supplied to some of the construction companies on job work basis – case of appellant is that they have not undertaken any manufacture of goods and in fact the goods are manufactured by the job workers – Held that:- There is no mahazar drawn up to show that there were any machinery at the premises at the time of inspection. It is also not noted anywhere whether there were raw materials or finished products in the said premises of M/s. Lakshmi Scaff and Vel Scaff on the date of inspection i.e. 8.12.2006. If the department had conducted inspection in the premises, they should have drawn up a mahazar showing the stock of raw materials and finished products lying in the premises. So also the activities carried out in the premises should reflect in the documents prepared at the time of inspection. There is nothing to show that there were machines in the premises or raw materials and finished products

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

n – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/239/2009 – 42528/2018 – Dated:- 8-10-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri S. Jaikumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER BENCH Brief facts are that the appellant is the Proprietor of M/s.Lakshmi Scaff situated at Ambattur, Chennai and M/s. Vel Scaff situated at Balaji Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai. These firms were not registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on the information received, the Preventive Unit of Central Excise visited the factory premises of both M/s. Lakshmi Scaff and M/s. Vel Scaff on 8.12.2006. During the course of visit, the officers noticed that in addition to sale of scaffoldings / propping equipments, these firms had also undertaken manufacture and supply of scaffoldings / propping equipments to some of the construction companies on job work basis. It appeared that no exe

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

roadly summarized as under:- 2.1 That the manufacturing of scaffolding/shuttering etc., was carried out through independent job workers after procuring purchase orders for such items from the customers. 2.2 The appellant concern being proprietary concern does not have any machinery and facility to manufacture any of the items in question. There is no allegation in the entire notice that the appellant possesses required machineries for manufacture of the above items; 2.3 No panchanama was drawn evidencing machineries available at appellant s premises for manufacture for goods such as drilling machine, shuttering machine, welding machine, cutting machine etc., and further the adjudicating authority has recorded in the impugned order that there was lacuna in the investigation as establishing the presence of machinery in appellant s premises. 2.4 In para 17 of the impugned order it is stated that department initiated the inquiry based on anonymous complaint dated 06.12.2006 and visited the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rs where the appellants office are situated, who confirmed that the premises was let out for godown purpose and no machineries were erected therein. Also submitted a certificate from Jurisdictional Village administrative officer of M/s.Lakshmi Scaff and M/s. Vel Scaff, who certified that there were no machineries installed in the said premises. 2.7 Entire demand is arrived based on the sale value mentioned in the file captioned Lakshmi 04-05 sales bills maintained by the appellant at the premises of M/s. Lakshmi Scaff without any other corroborative evidence. 2.8 The show cause notice has failed to record the fact as to whether the appellant had sufficient manpower/ purchase and consumption of raw materials/ basic infrastructure/machineries to manufacture such goods; 2.9 The affidavits submitted by the job workers would also support the contention of the appellant. 2.10 The respondent has brushed aside the depositions of the job workers on the grounds that those were subject to doubt,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

3 The appellant submits that demands of duty cannot be confirmed based on assumption and presumption and it requires cogent evidence to establish manufacture. 2.14 The department had miserably failed to produce even a single evidence to prove that the appellant had actually engaged in manufacture of the said goods at their premises. 2.15 It is a settled principle of law that suppliers of raw materials cannot be held as manufacturers to levy excise duty on the goods manufactured by Job workers. 3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus appeared and argued on behalf of the department. He submitted that the contention of the appellant that there were no machineries at the time of inspection by the officers and therefore the allegation that the appellant has not manufactured scaffoldings / propping equipments is without any basis. He submitted that there is no requirement of any sophisticated machinery for manufacturing finished products like scaffoldings / propping equipments. Mere drilling, welding,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

engaged job workers to manufacture the goods is only an afterthought after issue of the show cause notice. He relied upon the statement of Shri A. Ganesan and argued that in the statement dated 8.12.2006, he has admitted that they were manufacturing and supplying scaffoldings / propping equipments on job work basis. In fact, the construction companies had given order to the appellant for manufacturing the goods which is very much clear from the statements recorded at the time of inspection. The contention of the appellant that they have supplied the raw materials to job workers who had in fact manufactured the finished goods has been proved to be false by the very fact that many of the job workers given in the list provided by the appellant did not exist at all. On investigation conducted by the investigative team, as per the directions of the adjudicating authority, it was brought out that the persons in some of the addresses given by the appellant did not exist. The appellant had giv

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

s at the time of inspection. It is also not noted anywhere whether there were raw materials or finished products in the said premises of M/s. Lakshmi Scaff and Vel Scaff on the date of inspection i.e. 8.12.2006. If the department had conducted inspection in the premises, they should have drawn up a mahazar showing the stock of raw materials and finished products lying in the premises. So also the activities carried out in the premises should reflect in the documents prepared at the time of inspection. There is nothing before us to show that there were machines in the premises or raw materials and finished products. The appellants contend that they were only suppliers to the construction companies and the premises were used as godown only. The appellant has furnished a certificate of the concerned Village Officer in which it is stated that the premises does not contain any machinery. The said certificate seen in page 101/102 of the paper book shows that during July 2006 there were no ma

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

these operations. Mere fact that there were no machines in the premises at the time of inspection would lead to the strong inference that the appellant has not carried out any manufacturing activity in both the premises. 5.1 The argument of the ld. AR is that since the appellant has sold such goods to various construction companies, the only inference that can be made is that the appellant has manufactured such goods. We are not able to agree with this argument. The appellant has given list of 16persons who had done the manufacturing activity as job workers. The adjudicating authority formed an investigation team to carry out inquiry with regard to these 16 persons. Statements were recorded from some of these persons. Six out of them admitted to have done the job work and supplied goods to appellant but denied to have issued / signed the delivery challans which were produced by the appellant. These persons were subjected to cross-examination. In cross-examination they accepted to have

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

that no panchanama was drawn on the date of inspection to reflect the activities if any carried out in the premises. The said para is reproduced as under:- Although as per records, the premises was visited by the Departmental Officer on8.12.2006, yet it does not appear whether any pnachanama etc. of the activities carried on in these premises was drawn by the officers. There is no further investigation by the department on this count. 5.3 So also in para 16, it is seen noted that the investigation team had traced many of the job workers out of the 16 job workers given by the appellant. The relevant portion reads as under:- The investigation team reported that out of 16 job workers six job workers (Category A) were traced in their location given in the affidavit who accepted to having done job work for the noticee and gave details of such work done yet denied the figures of job work shown to have been done in the affidavits. They also disowned the documents submitted by the noticee. 5.4

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

sumed that Shri A. Ganesan has manufactured the impugned goods. In our view, the statement given by Shri A. Ganesan does not put forth any evidence that he has manufactured such goods. In para 22, the adjudicating authority has noted as under:- No doubt there are certain lacuna in the investigation as to the establishment of presence of machinery, manufacturing activities etc. in the premises of the noticee. It is settled law that defence case cannot be advanced by pin pointing loop holes / deficiencies in the investigation. Moreover, the inculpatory statements of the noticee in the very beginning of the investigation perhaps stalled further investigation in this direction. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that Shri A. Ganesan, the noticee has failed to prove that he has not manufactured the impugned goods but only got manufactured through job workers. 5.5 It is for the department to establish the clandestine manufacture of goods by the appellant. In the present case, the d

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 174 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Classification of services – loading, transport and unloading of coal from mining – whether classified under GTA Service or under the head Cargo Handling Services? – Held that:- It can be seen from a plain reading of 65A (2)(b) that the classification in the case of combined service is to be decided by analyzing the fact as to which service gives essential character to the service being performed – in the present case the essential character of the service for which contract has been entered by the service provider is that the service received are for transportation of coal for mining area to the railway siding and the activity of loading/ unloading mechanically or otherwise is in our view, is only incidental to the activity of transportation of the cargo in these cases.
–
The service provided by the appellants have rightly been classified in the Goods Transportation Agency service.
–
This issue has already been examined by the Hon’

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ppellants were doing loading, transport and unloading of coal from mining under the category of Cargo Handling Services . 2. The basic issue before us for adjudication is that whether the department is correct in holding that the service provided by the above mentioned appellants falls under the category of cargo handling services as defined under section 65 (105) (zr) read with section 105 (23) of the Finance Act, 1994 or whether the service tax is correctly been paid by recipient of the service under Goods Transportation Agency service on reverse charge basis. In this regard, it will be appropriate to have a look at the sample contract with regard to above mentioned appellant Description of work Distance Quantity Rate Value Period Loading of coal into Wagons by Pay Loader by mechanical means at BG Siding of Bench Area 0.40 KM 500000 MT each Rs.4.80/ MT Rs.2400000/- 10(Ten months) 32. The rates are based on ruling price of diesel as on 18.08.2009 i.e. ₹ 37.01/Ltr. 33. Escalation

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

f taxable services – (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub-clause (105) of Section 65; (2) When for any reason, a taxable service, is prima facie, classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the sub-clause which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to sub-clauses providing a more general description; (b) composite service consisting of a combination of different services which cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of a service which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; (c) when a service cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a) or clause (b), it shall be classified under the sub-clause which occurs first among the sub-clauses which equally merit consideration.] 4. It can be see

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tivity undertaken by the assessee of transporting of coal from the pithead of the mines to railway siding is more appropriately classifiable under service head of Transport of Goods by road services. The relevant extract of the above judgment is reproduced herein below: 6. Be that as it may, even if the relied upon judgment in the case of Arjuna Carriers (supra) is of no consequence to the present case, we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the respondent i.e. transportation of coal from the pit-heads to the railway sidings within the mining areas is more appropriately classifiable under Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Act, namely, under the head transport of goods by road service and does not involve any service in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas as provided by Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Act. 7. In view of above, we find no merit in the impugned order, the same is set-aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (operative part of the order p

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 836 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Rectification of mistake – It is the case of Revenue that the appeal numbers mentioned in the final order should be “ST/257/2007 and ST/258/2007” instead of ST/447 & 448/2007 – Held that:- There is no error in mentioning the appeal numbers in the final order dated 21.06.2017 of the Tribunal.
–
Yet, another error brought to the notice of the Bench is that in the Final Order No. A/30852-30853/2017, dated 21.06.2017 of the Tribunal, it did not mention the Order-in-Original No. 12/2007(ST), dated 24.08.2007 passed by CCE, Trichy. We do find that this is a typographical error and accordingly, the above said Order-in-Original is to be included on the first page of the Final Order dated 21.06.2007

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

appeal adjudicating authority was Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy). Against such an order, assessee preferred a appeal before the Bench of the Tribunal in Chennai. Subsequently, they made a miscellaneous application for transferring of these appeals to Bangalore Bench. The said miscellaneous application was disposed of by Miscellaneous Order No. 41916/2014, dated 10.11.2014 and Asst. Registrar, CESTAT, Chennai, was directed to place the appeals before Hon'ble President for passing necessary order. CESTAT, New Delhi by a letter dated 02.12.2014 communicated that these two appeals of Kei Rsos Maritime Limited (Appeal Nos. ST/257, 258/2007) stands transferred to Bangalore Bench. When these appeals were received at Bangalore Bench, t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 987 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of Export duty – shipping bill which was assessed was not challenged – rejection of refund on the ground that shipping bills filed by the appellants reached finality and since there is no appeal against such order, refund claims are not maintainable – Held that:- The issue regarding the refund claims filed on the ground that the shipping bill which was assessed was not challenged on similar issue came before the Bench in the case of CCCE & ST, Guntur vs. Ashapura Minechem Limited [2018 (9) TMI 764 – CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that
If the assessment is taken to be final, the calculation of the duty is certainly wrong because the rate of duty on iron ore with Fe content less than 62% was only ₹ 50/MT and not ₹ 300/MT. It was the responsibility of the assessing officer to correctly assess the export duty payable and he made a mistake. The customs officers are well within their powers to correct these mistakes und

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

. 03/2008 (G) (D) Cus, dt. 12.12.2008 C/259/2009 CCT, Guntur GST Stel Limited OIA No. 04/2008 (G) (D) Cus, dt. 31.12.2008 C/289/2009 CCT, Guntur GST Trimex Minerals Pvt. Ltd. OIA No. 02/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dt. 30.01.2009 C/290/2009 CCT, Guntur GST Beml Midwest Ltd. OIA No. 03/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dt. 30.01.2009 C/428/2009 CCT, Guntur GST Prathyusha Associates Shipping Pvt. Ltd. OIA No. 04/2009 (G) (D) Cus, dt. 30.03.2009 2. The issue involved in all these appeals is regarding refund claims filed by the respondents herein in respect of iron ore fines exported through Krishnapatnam Port. In appeal Nos. C/289/2009, C/290/2009 and C/428/2009, refund claims were sought to be rejected by show cause notice on the ground that shipping bills filed by the appellants reached finality and since there is no appeal against such order, refund claims are not maintainable. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order, after following due process of law, allowed the claims for refund recording that he is

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

han 62%, the export duty is ₹ 50/- per MT; undisputedly, appellant paid the export duty at ₹ 300/- per MT, but the shipping bill being finally assessed and unchallenged, the route of refund cannot be taken for challenging assessments. 5. The issue regarding the refund claims filed on the ground that the shipping bill which was assessed was not challenged on similar issue came before the Bench in the case of CCCE & ST, Guntur vs. Ashapura Minechem Limited [2018(9)TMI 764-CESTAT-Hyd.)], wherein this Bench after considering all the arguments in para 5 held as under. 5. We have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the assessment was not re-opened. However, Sec.154 of the Customs Act empowers the officers to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes in any decision or order. In this case, the duty was paid at the higher rate but the assessment was made subject to the outcome of the test reports of the chemical examiner. In fact, if the chemical exami

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

mity in the order of the Asst. Commissioner or in the order of the (4) Appeal No: C/439/2009 first appellate authority upholding the Order-in-Original. The appeal filed by the revenue is liable to be rejected and we do so. The above reproduced ratio squarely applies on all the appeals. 6. As regards the appeal Nos. C/228/2009 and C/259/2009, we find that the argument of Revenue in these cases against sanctioning of the refund is only on the ground that the shipping bill was not challenged. It is seen from the records that shipping bills in all these appeals were assessed with the remark that export duty is collected subject to outcome of the Dy. Chief Chemist report. Respondents in these two cases also paid the export duty at ₹ 300/- per MT and the report of the Dy. Chief Chemist clearly indicates that Fe content was less than 62% only and the respondents are required to discharge export duty only at ₹ 50/- per MT. In our view, the adjudicating authority has correctly sanct

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – ashok dalmia – Dated:- 6-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 6-10-2018 – TRADER takes service of transporter whose RC BOOK AND PAN NUMBER AND BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE. Transporter transports the goods on behalf of trader WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY CONSIGNMENT NOTE to the trader.Trader is confused whether RCM is applicable on such kind of transportation charges paid directly to LORRY OWNER when no consignment note has been issued.kindly guide whether the RCM i

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of goods – RBD Palm Stearin – there is specific Tariff Item 1511 90 30 for ‘Refined bleached deodorized palm stearin’. Therefore, the product ‘Refined bleached

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Development Authorities – exempt entity or not – Taxability of supply of goods and services – Whether the Development Authorities formed and constituted under Uttar Pradesh Ur

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of goods – Waste/by-product – Mahua De-oiled cake/De-oiIed Rice Bran is a by-product occurred during the solvent extraction process, which is used as an ingredi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Canned Pineapple Slices, dipped in Sugar Syrup comes within Tariff item no. 2008 – Taxable @12% of GST – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Supply of goods or Supply of services? – use of explosives in the blasting activity – the situation as narrated by the applicant is a composite supply of goods and services an

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Exemption from GST – the training imparted by the applicant to create interest in students for more advance form of mathematics so as to enhance their thinking capacity and me

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of goods – Rate of tax – Slate for Teacher’ – ‘Slate for Student’ – the same are clearly designed to be used for writing or drawing with slate pen and chalk. –

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – RSuresh Goud – Dated:- 6-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 8-10-2018 – Dear Sir,We are running Hospital under public charitable trust Hospital. Hospital Units are Exempted from GST,However we made GST Registration under GST in order to account for reverse charges,rent etc. We are selling our Old UltraSonography machine,which was purchased on 23/03/2011 for ₹ 18,59,000.Written down Value of above said machine as on today works out 5,09,912.Now we are sellin

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GUIDANCE NOTE ON ANNUAL RETURN OF GST – Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 6-10-2018 News – Press release

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 278 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KERALA – TMI – Classification of supply – medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to the patients admitted for diagnosis – composite supply – Whether the medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients for diagnosis or treatment would be considered as “Composite Supply” and eligible for exemption under the category ‘health care services’?
–
Held that:- The in-patient services are classified as exempted service under the sub-group 9993 11. Patients are only admitted to a hospital when they are extremely ill or have severe physical trauma. As far as an inpatient is concerned, hospital is expected to provide lodging, care, medicine and food as part of treatment under supervision till discharge from the hospital. The nature of the various services in a bundle of services will help in determining whether the services are bundled in

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

supply of medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients for diagnosis or treatment are naturally bundled and are provided in conjunction with each other, would be considered as “Composite Supply” and eligible for exemption under the category ‘health care services’. – AAR No. KER/24/2018 Dated:- 6-10-2018 – SHRI. B.G. KRISHNAN IRS AND SHRI B.S. THYAGARAJABABU B.Sc., LLM, MEMBER Authorized Representative: Mr. K. Sivarajan, Mr. Srihari, Mr. Shubham Mishra The applicant is a multi-specialty teniary care hospital providing health care services. They have categorized the patients as Out-Patients and In-Patients for the administrative convenience. The out-patients are those who visit the hospital for routine check-ups or clinical visits. The in-patients are those who are admitted in to the hospital for the required treatment. The in- patients are provided with stay facilities, medicines, consumables, implants, dietary food and other

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

or the best possible treatment of the health issues are conducted. If there is no supply of medicines, consumables or implants, not only the health care service but also the life will also be at stake. Being a composite supply the principal supply is predominant and the room rent and dietary food provided to in-patients are ancillary supply. The applicant sought for an advance ruling on the following: Whether the medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing health care services to patients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis or treatment would be considered as Composite Supply of health care services under GST and consequently exemption under Notification No.12/2017 read with Section 8(a) of GST? The authorized representative of the applicant was heard. It is stated that, the medicines, consumables and implants used in the course of providing diagnosis or treatment to the in-patients would be part of composite supply of health care services vide classificatio

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

h other used in the ordinary course of providing the health care services to the in-patients. Medical consultation service, nursing services, supply of medicines, consumables and implants are integral services of health care. Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax exempt health care services provided by an authorized clinical establishment, The applicant is providing health care services to its patients. The medicines and surgical items supplied to the patients under medical prescription of doctors is incidental to the health services rendered in the hospital entitled to exemption being health care services. There are several decisions pertaining to the point that the supply of medicines, surgical items, etc to the patients in the course of treatment by hospital cannot be said to be sale. The issue is examined in detail. Health care services provided by a clinical establishment an authorized medical practitioner or para medics are exempted vide Sl.No.74 of Notification No.12/2017-CT (Rate

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ture of services is such that one of the services is the main service and other services combined with such service are in the nature of incidental or ancillary services which help in better utility of main service. Hence the medicines, implants, room provided on rent, dietary food advised by nutritionists etc used in the course of providing health care services to the patients admitted for diagnosis or treatment in the hospital or clinical establishment is undoubtedly naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The patients expect to receive health care services by way of an appropriate diagnosis, appropriate medicines as well as relevant consumables or implants required to make sure that they get the best possible treatment. Hence the medicine and allied goods supplied to inpatient are indispensable items and it is a composite supply to facilitate health care services. This authority has already given a Ruling in this regard vide order No. KER16/2018 Dt.26.09.2018 = 2018 (1

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tside the hospital. In both places medicines dispensed based on prescription. Hence there is no privilege for the hospitals that are dispensing medicine to outpatients. Therefore pharmacy run by hospital dispensing medicine to outpatient or bye standers or others can be treated as individual supply of medicine and not covered under the ambit of health care services. Hence such supply of medicine and allied goods are taxable. Government of India vice Circular No.27/01/2018-GST Dt.04-01-2018 has clarified that room rent in hospital is exempted. As for as inpatients are concerned, room facility in a hospital is one limb of bundled service of health care. The clarifications issued based on the approval of 25th GST Council Meeting held on 18-01-2018 [F.No.354/17/201B-TRU Dt.12-02-2018, it was clarified that food supplied to the inpatients as advised by the doctor/nutritionist is a pan of composite supply of health care and not separately taxable. Other supplies of food by hospital to patien

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Indian Laws – Started By: – RSuresh Goud – Dated:- 5-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 8-10-2018 – Sir . We have trust Hospital. We purchased a medical equipment before 7 years back. now we want to sell that machine. now company accepted to buy the machine at 9 lakh. then how much GST rate we will collet from that company. Please ReplyREPLY – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = The buying and selling of second-hand goods will not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST) if sold at a price cheaper than the purchase price. Rule 32(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, provides that where a taxable supply is provided by a person dealing in buying and selling of second hand goods or used goods as such or after

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

g Hospital under public charitable trust Hospital. Hospital Units are Exempted from GST,However we made GST Registration under GST in order to account for reverse charges,rent etc. We are selling our Old UltraSonography machine,which was purchased on 23/03/2011 for ₹ 18,59,000.Written down Value of above said machine as on today works out 5,09,912.Now we are selling the above equipment to the supplier of medical equipment on byback basis against purchase of New Ultra Sonography Equoipment,for which supplier of machinery has agreed to adjust cost of byback old equipment for ₹ 9,00,000. Kindly intimate GST to be charged by us against sale of above said medical equipment. Kindly intimate rate of IGST and amount of IGST to be charge

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – The claims of carry forward of the existing duties and credits during the period of migration, therefore, had to be within the prescribed time. Doing away with the time limit

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of Supply – AMC contract – The said contract merits to be considered to be a composite supply of service, and principal supply is service inasmuch as the supply

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Sealing of Business Premises – petitioner’s grievance is that the sealing of its business premises on behalf of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST), ostensibly under Secti

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – saraswati konka – Dated:- 5-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 22-10-2018 – Dear Sir,We have purchased / booked a residential flat which was under construction say for 20 Lacs prior to GST.We also paid 5,00,000 lacs prior to GST along with service tax and vat amounts. Now, the balance amount of 15,00,000 will have to be paid under GST regime.So the query is what would be the rate of GST on under construction residential flats.Request you to kindly guide on the sa

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Ramakrishnan Seshadri – Dated:- 5-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 5-10-2018 – Dear Sir,Good Morning to all. We purchased PVC pipes and submersible motor pump for usage of borewell at our factory., The Gst paid on the purchases . We request the experts to clarify whether the gst paid on this is eligible for input credit. Please clarifiy.Thanks & Regards,S.Ramakrishnan – Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA – The Reply = Yes, You are Eligible for ITC on Pipe & subm

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =