Author: admin_gst

IN RE : UMAX PACKAGING (A unit of UMA Polymers Ltd.)
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1089 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 677 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 2-11-2018
AAR No. RAJ/AAR/2018-19/23
GST
NITIN WAPA AND HEMANT JAIN MEMBER
Present for the applicant Shri Pradeep Jain, CA (Authorised representative)
Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The Issue raised by M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd. {hereinafter the applicant} is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under the ambit of Section 97 (2) (d).
d. Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
Further, the applicant being a registered person, (GSTIN is 08AAACU0748E1ZJ, as per the declaration given by him i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ether the input tax credit of IGST availed by them can be recovered subsequently, if it is concluded by the revenue authorities that M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., Guwahati was liable to charge CGST & SGST Guwahati instead of IGST?
2. QUESTIONS ON WHICH THE ADVANCE RULING IS SOUGHT
Whether ITC of IGST paid on bill to ship to' model admissible to the applicant?
3. PERSONAL HEARING (PH)
In the matter personal hearing was given to the applicant, Shri Pradeep Jain, CA, (Authorised representative) of applicant appeared for personal hearing on 22.10.2018. During the PH they reiterated the submissions already made in the application for advance ruling and requested that the case may be decided at the earliest.
4. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
We find that the present application has been filed to seek advance ruling on the issue of admissibility of input tax credit of IGST charged by M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., Guwahati from the applicant.
a. The applicant proposes to purchase goods from M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ip to' M/S Pratap Snacks Ltd., Guwahati.
d. As per Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017
16. (1) Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless,-
(a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed;
(b) he has received the goods or services or both.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, it shall be deemed that the registered

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.,
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1156 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 258 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 2-11-2018
AAR No. RAJ/AAR/2018-19/25
GST
NITIN WAPA AND HEMANT JAIN MEMBER
Present for the applicant: Shri Pankaj Ghiya, Advocate (Authorised representative)
Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The Issue raised by M/s. Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd. {hereinafter the applicant} is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under ambit of the Section 97 (2) (b), (e) it is given as under:
c. Determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
Further, the applicant being a registered person, GSTIN is 08AAJCS7778K1ZF, as per the declarat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hura Road, New Delhi- 110044 (hereinafter referred as “M/s. RSE”) and M/S. Rathi Powertech Global Pvt. Ltd., Block A, 24/ 1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (hereinafter referred as “M/s. RPG”) for use of their Trademark. The Applicant will brand the TMT Steel bars manufactured by it as Rathi Powertech as per the use of Trademark Agreements entered by it with M/s. RSE and M/s. RPG. It is stated that all are registered persons under the relevant GST laws and will be paying the applicable GST on Royalty, Commission etc. as per provisions of law.
c. The business conditions require that the sale of the said manufactured products by the Applicant would be in the following manner-
The Applicant would be selling the manufactured goods under the Brand name Rathi Powertech to M/s. RSE. M/s. RSE would be selling the said goods after adding its margin of about Rs. 50 per metric tonne to M/S. Goyal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., E- 231, Phase-II, Bagru Industrial Area, Bag

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of the IGST Act, 2017 the use of E-way bill in the aforesaid facts in the column of “ship to” of ultimate customer M/s. X is permissible ?
3. Whether in the aforesaid facts the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in particular the second proviso to Rule 28 would apply for the value of supply for the transactions between M/s. SSPL and M/s. RSE and thereafter M/s. RSE and M/s. Goyal as all are registered persons and the transactions are business to business transactions with availability of full Input Tax Credit?
4. Whether the transactions between M/S. Goyal and the ultimate customer M/S. X would be covered by the provisions of Section 15 for the value of taxable supply as they are not related persons?
3. PERSONAL HEARING (PH):-
In the matter personal hearing was given to the applicant, Shri Pankaj Ghiya, Advocate, (Authorised representative) of applicant appeared for personal hearing on 10.09.2018. During the PH they reiterated t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he column of “ship to” of ultimate customer M/s. X is permissible ?
Answer:
Yes, E way bill to be generated by M/s. SSPL showing “X” as shipped to and M/s. RSE as “Bill to”.
3. Whether in the aforesaid facts the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in particular the second proviso to Rule 28 would apply for the value of supply for the transactions between M/s.. SSPL and M/S. RSE and thereafter M/s.. RSE and M/S. Goyal as all are registered persons and the transactions are business to business transactions with availability of full Input Tax Credit?
Answer:
Yes, Provision as contained in Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 will apply in the stated facts of the case.
4. Whether the transactions between M/s. Goyal and the ultimate customer M/s. X would be covered by the provisions of Section 15 for the value of taxable supply as they are not related persons?
Answer:
Transactions between M/s. Goyal a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

owing manner-
The Applicant would be selling the manufactured goods under the Brand name Rathi Powertech to M/s. RSE. M/S RSE would be selling the said goods after adding its margin of about Rs. 50 per metric tonne to M/S Goyal. M/S Goyal will be selling the said products to various customers (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. X”) as per the demand of market. The manufactured goods would be directly dispatched from the Applicant to M/s. X and the E-Way Bill would be prepared on a “Bill to Ship to” model as per the provisions of Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017. It is stated that the Applicant is an associate company of M/s. Goyal. It is further submitted that the transactions are with value addition and the last transaction is with unrelated party and complying with the provisions of Section 15(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
c. The applicant wishes to despatch the goods directly to the customer. The issue is with regard to invoicing, where it is inquired whether “Bill to – Ship to” m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2017 does nowhere limit the transaction to only three parties/ persons. The said section only contemplates about role of 'third party' and declaration of 'principal place of business'. Therefore, the supply from M/s. SSPL to M/S. X on a “Bill to Ship to” mode as per provisions of Section 10(1) (b) of IGST Act, 2017 is permissible.
2. The Press Note of ministry of Finance on “Issues regarding Bill to Ship to for e-way bill under CGST rules 2017” dated 23.04.2018 clearly emphasise that only a single e-way bill is to be issued either from the supplier of goods or by third party.
In the instant case, the applicant can issue an e-way bill in which the 'bill to' will be mentioned in the name of M/S RSE/RPG whereas 'ship to' would be in the name of final customer i.e. M/S X.
3. The applicant has asked whether in the aforesaid facts the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in particular the second proviso to Rule 28 would apply for the va

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ion 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) incidental expenses, including commission and packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a supply and any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or services or both at the time of, or before delivery of goods or supply of services;
(d) interest or late fee or penalty for delayed payment of any consideration for any supply; and
(e) subsidies directly linked to the price excluding subsidies provided by the Central Government and State Governments.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the amount of subsidy shall be included in the value of supply of the supplier who receives the subsidy.
(3) The value of the supply shall not include any discount which is given-
(a) before or at the time of the supply if such discount has been duly record

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

i) such persons are employer and employee;
(iv) any person directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds twenty-five per cent. or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both of them;
(v) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other;
(vi) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person;
(vii) together they directly or indirectly control a third person; or
(viii) they are members of the same family;
(b) the term “person” also includes legal persons;
(c) persons who are associated in the business of one another in that one is the sole agent or sole distributor or sole concessionaire, howsoever described, of the other, shall be deemed to be related.
Further, the Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 is as follows:-
28. Value of supply of goods or services or both between distinct or related persons, other than through an agent.-The value of the supply of goods or services or both between distinct persons as specified in sub-section (4)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

plicant is similar in quality of what is made by M/s. RSE/RPG, (trademark contract is emphasising on it) and therefore, the value of supply of goods can be ascertained or established in accordance with Section 15 of CGST Act read with second proviso of Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017 with eligibility to full Input Tax Credit..
4. We agree with the submissions made by the applicant that relationship between M/s Goyal and M/s X is not Related party relationship in accordance with sub-section (4) and (5) of section 25 of CGST Act, 2017. Thus, the transactions between M/s. Goyal and the ultimate customer i.e. M/S. X would be covered by the provisions of Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017.
6. In view of the foregoing, we rule as under:-
RULING
1. The supply from M/s. SSPL to M/s. X on a “Bill to Ship to” mode as per provisions of Section 10(1) (b) of IGST Act, 2017 is permissible.
2. The applicant can issue an e-way bill in which the 'bill to' will be mentioned in the name of M/s. RSE/RPG wherea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Pawanputra Travels,
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1157 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 328 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 2-11-2018
AAR No. RAJ/AAR/2018-19/24
GST
NITIN WAPA AND HEMANT JAIN MEMBER
Present for the applicant Shri Pradeep Jain, CA (Authorised representative)
Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The Issue raised by M/s. Pawanputra Travels {hereinafter the applicant} is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under ambit of the Section 97 (2) (b), (e) it is given as under:
b. Applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
e. Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
Further, the applicant being a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e applicant has also submitted a letter dated 31.05.2018 regarding return of invoices wherein GST has been charged by the applicant on non-air conditioned vehicles.
2. OUESTIONS ON WHICH THE ADVANCE RULING IS SOUGHT
The applicable GST rate on supply of non-air conditioned vehicles on hire to Indian Army.
3. APPLICANT'S INTREPRETATION:-
a. The applicant submits that there is exemption with respect to transportation of services by a non-air conditioned contract carriage vide serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which reads as follows:-
S.No.
Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff)
Description of Services
Rate %
Condition
15
Heading 9964
Transport of passengers, with without accompanied belongings, by –
(b) non-airconditioned contract carnage other than radio taxi, for transportation passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire or
Nil
Nil
It is to mention that the meaning of 'contrac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nor specified in clause (b) and accordingly, in their view, they cannot be considered as 'non-air conditioned contract carriage' eligible for exemption under the serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, the service receiver in their case is contending that they are covered by the exemption notification and no GST is payable to the government. Therefore, the applicant request you to kindly examine whether they are eligible for claiming the benefit of exemption contained at serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not.
b. The applicant further submits that they have already paid GST on the supply of non-air conditioned motor vehicles supplied by them on hire to Indian Army but the service receiver is not reimbursing them the amount of GST on the grounds that the supply is covered by absolute exemption under serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t may, on the recommendations of the Council, by special order in each case, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, exempt from payment of tax any goods or services or both on which tax is leviable.
(3) The Government may, if it considers necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of clarifying the scope or applicability of any notification issued under sub-section (1) or order issued under sub-section (2), insert an explanation in such notification or order, as the case may be, by notification at any time within one year of issue of the notification under sub-section (1) or order under sub-section (2), and every such explanation shall have effect as if it had always been the part of the first such notification or order, as the case may be.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, where an exemption in respect of any goods or services or both from the whole or part of the tax leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the registered pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

de in the application for advance ruling and requested that the case may be decided at the earliest.
5. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
a. The present application for advance ruling has been filed to seek decision on the applicability of GST on the service of providing non-air conditioned motor vehicles on hire to Indian Army on contract basis for a period of one year.
b. The serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which reads as follows:-
S.No.
Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff)
Description of Services
Rate (%)  
Condition
15
Heading 9964
Transport of passengers, with without accompanied belongings, by –
(b) non-airconditioned contract carriage other than radio taxi, transportation passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire; or
Nil
Nil
It is pertinent to mention that it is provided that the meaning of 'contract carriage' will have the same meaning as assigned to it

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

any other passenger to board or alight from the carriage at will.
A 'contract carriage' carries passengers as a group and cannot pick up passengers en-route.
c. Since the rent-a-cab has not been defined under GST Act, we need to analyse the same word taking the help of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Dictionary meaning of Rent a cab is “Taxi” “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty-five cubic centimeters;
“Radio taxi” means a taxi including a radio cab, by whatever name called, which is in two-way radio communication with a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e (b) of clause (7) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, they cannot be considered as 'non-air conditioned contract carriage' and are hence not eligible for exemption under the serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Thus, the essential ingredient of a contract carnage is that it plies under a contract for a fixed set of passengers, and does not allow any other passenger to board or alight from the carnage at will.
A 'contract carnage' carries passengers as a group and cannot pick up passengers en-route.
e. Even if the contract is assumed as 'non-airconditioned contract carriage', even then, serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 does not exempt it from GST, as the “hired” non-airconditioned contract carriage are 'excluded' from exemption as specifically mentioned in the said notification.
f. It is hence concluded that the service provided by the applic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Examination for Confirmation of Enrollment of GST Practitioners to be conducted on 7th December, 2018 at designated Examination Centres across India
GST
Dated:- 1-11-2018

The National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN) has been authorized to conduct an examination for confirmation of enrollment of Goods and Services Tax Practitioners (GSTPs) in terms of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, vide Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax dated 28.5.2018.
The GSTPs enrolled on the GST Network under sub-rule (2) of Rule 83 and covered by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 83, i.e. those meeting the eligibility criteria of having enrolled as sales tax practitioners or tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dates a help desk will also be set up, details of which will be made available on the registration portal. The applicants are required to make online payment of examination fee of ₹ 500/- at the time of registration for this exam.
Pattern and Syllabus of the Examination
PAPER: GST Law & Procedures:
Time allowed: 2 hours and 30 minutes
Number of Multiple Choice Questions: 100
Language of Questions: English and Hindi
Maximum marks: 200
Qualifying marks: 100
No negative marking
Syllabus:
1. Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
2. Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
3. State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017
4. Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
5. Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to State

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

October 2018 GST Collections Surpass Rs. 1 Lakh Crore, Achieving Major Milestone in Tax Revenue.
News
GST
GST Revenue collections for the month of October 2018 crosses Rupees One Lac Crore

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Rate of 18% Applies to Construction of 599 Residential Quarters for MPPGCL Under Works Contract Service.
Case-Laws
GST
Rate of GST – works contract service of construction of 599 resident

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Entity Ineligible for 12% Concessional GST on Work Contract Services for Supply and Erection Projects.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Work contract services received from vendors for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way Bill: Minor Vehicle Number Errors Not Grounds for Proceedings Under Act.
Case-Laws
GST
E-way bill – in case of minor discrepancies in the details mentioned in the E-way bill, specially

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Revenue collections for the month of October 2018 crosses Rupees One Lac Crore
GST
Dated:- 1-11-2018

The total gross GST revenue collected in the month of October, 2018 is ₹ 100,710 crore of which CGST is ₹ 16,464 crore, SGST is ₹ 22,826 crore, IGST is ₹ 53,419 crore (including ₹ 26,908 crore collected on imports) and Cess is ₹ 8,000 crore(including ₹ 955 crore collected on imports).
The total number of GSTR 3B Returns filed for the mo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

notifies the registration under the said Act has been cancelled by the proper officer furnish FORM GSTR-10 of the 31st December, 2018.
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(79) Dated:- 1-11-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Goa SGST
Goa SGST
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Revenue & Control Division
–
Notification
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(79)
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Goa Act 4 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the 'said Act'), re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 160 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41886/2018 – Final Order No. 42749/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri G. Thangaraj, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that on verification of accounts of the appellant, it was noticed that in the balance sheet of the year 2014 – 15, the appellant had made provisions for write off of old inputs but had not reversed the credit in respect of such inputs. On being pointed out, the appellant reversed the credit. However, show cau

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n in the case of Strategic Engineering P. Ltd. – 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) and Tata Business Support Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax – 2017 (52) STR 346.
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, it is seen that the appellant has reversed the credit even before issuance of the show cause notice. It is also not the case of the department that they have utilized the credit. Following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Strategic Engineering P. Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in Tata Business Support Services Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the demand of interest and penalty cannot sustain. The same is set asid

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 161 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41904/2018 – Final Order No. 42751/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of brakes, servo brakes etc. They were availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the disputed period, which is from July 2014 to March 2016, the appellants had two units which are EOU and DTA units. They were availing the in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that the EOU was continuously availing the credit for both the units prior to July 2014 and by bonafide mistake even after the amendment, continued to do the same. In fact, the whole situation is a revenue neutral one since both the units are of the same assessee. At the time of issuance of show cause notice, both the units had merged into one which is also noted in the show cause notice. So even if there is a demand confirmed, the same would be paid to the same assessee and there is no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

that the situation is a revenue neutral one and the EOU and DTA units being of the same assessee, even if the service tax as paid is confirmed, the other DTA would be eligible for the credit. As seen from the show cause notice, later both the units have merged to one unit, pursuant to debonding of the EOU. Taking note of these facts, it is very much clear that the situation is a revenue neutral one, even if the demand is confirmed, both the units which has been now merged into one unit of the same assessee, shall be availing the credit.
6. From the above discussions, I am of the view that the demand requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Kolhapur
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 230 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 717 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
APPEAL NO. E/85429/2018 – A/87803/2018
Service Tax
DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for Appellant
Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
None payment of duty @ 6%/7% of the trading value for non-maintenance of separate dutiable and exempted accounts to avail CENVAT credit is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant's case is that it is engaged in the manufacturing of dutiable goods namely “PP Medicines” and during the Audit it is also observed that it has carried out sale of raw materials by selling the same to M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai, on whose behalf it also undertakes manufacturing process on job work basis. As per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if separate account for manufacturing on su

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

buying and selling of raw-material in relation to manufacture of excisable goods is not tantamount to trading and appellant is a manufacturer who is not engaged in any activity that can be treated as trader, but, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had disregarded the judicial ruling prevalent on the point. It has also challenged invocation of extended period of limitation on the ground that the said act of appellant was well within the knowledge of the Department before whom appellant had submitted annual report and credit availed by them. It was under the bona fide belief that credit was admissible besides the fact that proportionate reversal of input credit was done to establish sufficient compliance of provision contained in Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the imposition of penalty is not in conformity to the law and procedure prevailing during the disputed period which should never had extended the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

its raw-material which is fully exempted product, duty liability including interest and penalty on the appellant was not in conformity to the Indirect Tax Rule and therefore, interference by the Tribunal is uncalled for.
5. Heard at length from both sides and perused the case records and provisions of law including definition of trade and the purpose of Audit.
5.1 Dispute relating to taxability on sale and levy of duty by the excise authority is not new in its origin and on many scores, matter had reached the apex court level that necessitated passing of the Constitution (Forty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 and going by its Statement of Objects and Reasons, it can be ascertained that in conformity to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Ganon Dunkerley's case (AIR) 1958 SC 560 whereby the sale of goods as used in entry of the 7th schedule to the constitution was treated to have carried the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, coupled with subsequent decisions

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

atory in nature since definition of service as contained in 65B(44) and exempted service in 66D are to be read conjointly and not in exclusion of each other. This being the statutory definition, sale of goods-be it made in the high sea or within the territorial boundary of India in which Finance Act, 1994 has its force, cannot be called a service to impose tax liability or deny the credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
7. Now coming to the statutory audit procedure, the purpose of audit, as available in the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably ensure that no amount, which under the central excise law is chargeable as duty, escapes taxation and the process of verification is always carried out in the presence of assessee and in the process, the auditor is required to discuss the matter with the assessee and advice him to follo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
S.O. No. 78-53/2018-State Tax Dated:- 1-11-2018 Jharkhand SGST
GST – States
Jharkhand SGST
Jharkhand SGST
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

Notification
1st November, 2018
Notification No. 53/2018-State Tax
S.O. No.78- Dated- 1st November, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the 7th November, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated the 23rd October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299 (E) dated the 13th October, 2017.”.
[File.No Va Kar / GST / 04/ 2018]
By the order of the Governor of Jharkhand

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
S.O. No. 79-54/2018-State Tax Dated:- 1-11-2018 Jharkhand SGST
GST – States
Jharkhand SGST
Jharkhand SGST
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

Notification
1st November, 2018
Notification No. 54/2018 – State Tax
S.O. No.79- Dated- 2nd November, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017),the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) This notification shall be deemed to be effective from 9t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321(E), dated the 23rd October, 2017; or
(b) availed the benefit of notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299(E), dated the 13th October, 2017, the refund of input tax credit, availed in respect of inputs received under the said notifications for export of goods and the input tax credit availed in respect of other inputs or i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

O. No. 120, dated the 7th November, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated the 23rd October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 has been availed; or
(b) availed the benefit under notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1299 (E), dated the 13th October, 2017 except so far

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (11) TMI 335 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 820 (App. A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 47 (AAR)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – AAAR
Dated:- 1-11-2018
MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/12/2018-19
GST
SMT. SUNGITA SHARMA, AND SHRI RAJIV JALOTA, MEMBER
PROCEEDINGS
(under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [herei

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The food is prepared at their own kitchen and it is distributed to various companies at different locations. There are four different situations mentioned below on the basis of which the company is carrying on the above mentioned business. These situations are based on the terms of the contract entered by Merit Hospitality with various corporate clients.
Case (l) The Appellant has entered into a contract for supply of food to the employees of the company, say 'A' Ltd. The contract is signed between Merit Hospitality and 'A' Ltd. for supply of food. As per the terms of contract, Merit Hospitality has to supply the food at 'A' Ltd. 's premises. The distribution of the foods is directly done by the staff of 'A' Ltd. The menu and the material specifications are mentioned in the contract and also the rate of various items are pre-determined between Merit Hospitality and the company. The billing is done by the Merit Hospitality, directly to the company on the monthly basis and payment is re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

food of Merit Hospitality is now with the “Employees Co-op society” and not with A Ltd.
Question: Under such circumstances, can it still be claimed that Merit Hospitality is running a canteen and the applicable rate of 5% be charged on our bills?
Case (IV) : The Merit Hospitality has entered into a contract with a company called say “B” Ltd. and B Ltd. is having its unit in SEZ area (Special Export Zone). The supply of food is done by Merit Hospitality to the employees of “B” Ltd. and the payment for the same is made by the employees of “B” Ltd. , directly to Merit Hospitality.
Question:
(a) Can Merit Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable?'; or
(b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or
(c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only?
B. The appellant filed an application for advance rulin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

earned Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) erred in not answering the specific questions under the circumstances mentioned in case IV of the application namely:
Q.(a) Merit Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable?'; or
Q.(b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or
Q.(c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only?
2. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority erred in not deciding the issues of applicability of GST rate for supplies for supplies made to unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as raised in the case IV of the application stating that all the facts required for decision in respect of the specific case were not put before the authority when factually all documents as listed and demanded by the Authority were promptly submitted by the Appellant during the course of proceeding as evidenced by va

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

th to a SEZ unit or a developer of SEZ are treated as 'zero' rated supplies. Further, Section 16(3) of the IGST Act allows a registered person to made a “zero rated supplies” without payment of Integrated tax subject to conditions, safeguards and procedure as laid out under rule 96A. As per Rule 96A(1), various requirements have been laid out for exports which under Rule 96A(3) mutatis mutandis apply to services given to SEZ units.
The Appellants craves leave to add, alter, delete any ground of appeal during the course of appeal.
PRAYER
In view of the foregoing, the prayer made by the Appellant was as under:-
a. To set aside the order on Case IV in the Original Advance Ruling Application;
b. Grant an opportunity for a personal hearing and make further submission of documents if any;
c. Pass any such further or other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Personal Hearing
6. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 03.10.2018, wh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ecial Economic Zone is covered under the zero rated supply or otherwise.
8. First, we will discuss the “zero rated supply”, as provided under Section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, which is reproduced herein below:
Section 16(1) “Zero rated supply” means any of the following supplies of goods or services or both, namely:-
(a) export of goods or services or both; or
(b) supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit.
9. Thus from the above provision, it is crystal clear that the supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as zero rated supply by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the Notification 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as am

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he appellant on 01.10.2018, wherein they have categorically submitted that they are registered as “Outdoor Caterers” and are basically engaged in providing the corporate catering services to their offices /units as per the terms and conditions of the contracts entered with them. They further submitted that they prepare the food in their own kitchen and then distribute it to various companies at different locations.
11. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the food is being cooked at one place and being distributed to the various different locations of the companies with whom they have entered into contract. Thus, this event is not covered under the definition of the “Restaurant services” as discussed above. Thus, the appellant claim in the case IV that it is running Restaurant Services in the SEZ area is not tenable and hence the GST rate of 5% as envisaged by the appellant is not correct.
In view of the above discussion and findings, we pass the following order :-
Order
The ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 350 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41903/2018 – Final Order No. 42750/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Rajaram, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Nissan and Renault brand of cars. During the course of investigations conducted by DGCEI, it was found that there was difference in the assessable value adopted by the appellant when cars were cleared from its factory premises and the final sale price adopted by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. to the dealer. The appellants were in the practice of paying excise duty on the price adopted by RIPL to dealers. Thereafter, the appellant took an exercise of finding out the highest dealer price cleared from their factory to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

at this is the highest price. In fact, on intimation by the department, the appellant itself had undertaken the exercise of verifying the difference in the price for clearances made to the different dealers. On such verification, it was found that there was an excess payment of Rs. 10,06,683/- and shortage of Rs. 20,94,086/-. The appellant in their letter dated 29.3.2016 issued to the Assistant Director of DGCEI had given the details of such difference of value adopted for discharging the central excise duty. In the order in original, the adjudicating authority has noted the reply filed by the appellant with regard to the excess payment also. It is thus argued by him that the appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty by suppression of facts. The shortage of payment was only due to the error in calculating the assessable value. The same has been rectified immediately on being pointed out by the department. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chennai Petr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the excise of reconciling the actual excise duty payment. During the reconciliation for the period FY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the following two scenarios have emerged:-
Scenario 1: Where the assessable value is higher than the RIPL Net Dealer Price i.e. Basic Price after excluding excise duty and sales tax and net discounts (i.e.. Total discount passed on to the dealer after excluding excise component included in such discounts). This results in higher / excess excise duty payment by NMIPL which is not actually due to Government.
Scenario 2: Where assessable value adopted by NMIPL is lesser than RIPL Net Dealer Price. This results in lower excise duty payment by NMIPL.
On our analysis, the major reason for the above variation (i.e. both scenarios 1 and 2) is on account of the following:-
RIPL has maintained Delhi Dealer Price as the basis for calculating excise duty as the same was highest, whereas some of the cases, it was lower and hence resulted in lower excise duty payment by NMIP

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

und claim for this amount since the same was hit by limitation. Whenever they had paid excess duty for the previous period, they have filed refund claim and this is known to the department also. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have discharged excess duty during the impugned period and also the fact that the department has quantified the figure on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the appellant themselves for confirming the demand, I am of the view that the ingredients necessary for imposing penalty under section 11AC is not attracted in the present case. There is nothing to establish that the appellants have suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The scenario that short-payment of duty had occurred was only because the appellants were arriving the assessable value on the basis of the cars cleared to their Delhi dealers. Taking note of these facts and also relying upon the decisions cited by ld. consultant, I am of the view that the equal pen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 356 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/51317/2017- (DB) – Final Order No. 53237/2018
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellant
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
1. After hearing both the sides represented by Shri Rajeev Aggarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K Mishra Ld. DR for Revenue, we find that the appellant is 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. With effect from dated March, 2011, excise duty was levied on their final product i.e. Coal. During the period April, 2011 to 21/06/2012, the appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs which were subsequently cleared “as such” to their sister unit located at Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In as much as

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eir final product, which was leviable to duty of excise. As such he submits that duty required to be paid by them was available as Credit to their sister units and the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In such a scenario no malafide can be attributed to them so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. He also submits that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, being 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Pvt. Ltd., and as per the settled law no malafide can be attributed to them as not single person is benefited by such an action of the assessee. In this scenario also, invokation of extended period cannot be upheld.
3. Countering the arguments, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that admitted the appellant was required to reverse the credit in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. They have availed the excess credit on their unit, without utilising the inputs, which is a clear violation of the provisions of law. As such he supports the impugne

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lity. As the Tribunal had set aside the demand in that case but imposed penalty on technical contraventions, Hon'ble High Court held that even penalties were not imposable. To the same effect is the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Nagpur- 2018(11) G.S.T.L. 344 Bom) and Gujrat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of C.EX. & CUS., Vadodara-II vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj) and Tribunal decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Special Steel Ltd. 2015 (329) ELT 449( Tri.-Mumbai) & Sarover Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Serive Tax, Mumbai, 2018(10) GSTL 72(Tri-Mum)
6. In as much as and admittedly Revenue neutral situation is involved in the present appeal and the appellant is a PSU, we are of the view that extended period is not invokable. Impugned orders are accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Ascendas IT SEZ, Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 420 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
ST/Misc. /40816/2017 & ST/40277 And 40278/2014 – Final Order Nos. 42759-42760/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
In both these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim filed by them under Notification No.9/2009.
2. The ld. counsel for appellants Shri Harish Bindumadhavan submitted that in Appeal No. ST/40277/2014, the issue is that the refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of an amount of Rs. 14,65,106/- was rejected for the reason that the category / classification of services noted by the service provider in the invoice was not an approved service by the Unit Approval Committee. He submitted that there is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ant. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim stating that the services are not approved cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in the cases of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North – 2018-TIOL-3115-CESTAT-BANG and Petronet LNG Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – 2017 (7) GSTL 54 (Tri. Del.).
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that since the Real Estate Agent Service are not approved service for the appellant, the refund has been rightly rejected.
4. Heard both sides.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that as per the agreement the service provider is appointed as property manager for the appellant. In clause 4, the fees for the property manager is fixed. The said activities of the property manager include marketing of immovable property also. In certain cases, the property manager has undertaken marketing on immovable property of the appellant and has issued

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

x months of payment of service tax. The notification also stipulates in para 2 clause (f) that the time can be extended by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, if necessary. The period for condonation of delay or extension has not been fixed in the notification. It is submitted by him that the refund claims have been filed within one year of the payment of service tax and would be well within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relied upon the decision in the case of TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. – 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri.) to support his argument.
7. The ld. AR supported the findings in the impugned order and he specifically adverted to page 7 of the impugned order. The appellants have not furnished satisfying reasons for the delay caused and therefore the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim.
8. Heard both sides.
9. After hearing submissions made by both sides and perusal of Notification 9/2009, I find that though the time-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg.
144/2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS- II),
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA,
TAL-URAN, DISTRICT – RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA -400 707.
F.No. S/12-Gen-Misc.-984/2018-19/DBK
Public Notice No. 144/2018
Date: 01-11-2018
Sub: IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg.
Attention to all exporters, their authorised representatives and all other stakeholders is invited to CBEC Circular No. 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 on the subject mentioned

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

8. It has now been decided by the Board to extend the rectification facility to shipping bills filed up to 15.11.2018. However, it is reiterated that the exporters shall have to take care to ensure that the details of invoice, such as invoice number, IGST paid etc. under GSTR 1 and shipping bill match with each other since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act.
4. It may be noted that SBs which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount being erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Circular 08/2018-Customs, dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto available in respect of those SBs which were successfully scrolled, albeit with a lesser t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lity has now been provided for the processing and sanctioning of the eligible differential IGST refund. This facility would be available only for cases where shipping bills have been filed till 15.11.2018. Exporters need to be cautious while filing details in shipping bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake.
5. In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed Revised Refund Request (RRR) annexed to this Public Notice to Shri Siddharth Jaiswal, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Drawback & IGST Refund). A scanned copy of the signed RRR can also be mailed to igstrefundjnch@gmail.com.
6. It may be noted that only those SBs, which have already been scrol

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Belapur
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 731 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
APPEAL NO: E/86260-86261/2018 – A/87820-87821/2018
Central Excise
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Shilpa Balani, Advocate
Respondent: Shri Deepak S. Chavon, Superintendent (AR)
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed from the order-in-appeal no. MKK/302-303/RGD APP/2017 dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of medicine and vide remission order dated 29.09.2015, they were granted permission for remission of Central Excise duty on the finished goods unfit for consumption with the condition to reverse applicable Cenvat credit taken on the input and input services used in the manufacture of the finished goods with interest ther

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ision of this Tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & Custom, Ahmadabad; reported in 2003(154) ELT 543(Tri-Mumbai) but the same was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore; 2007(208) ELT 336(Tri-LB). According to the Appellant, the Circular thus becomes non-est and it cannot have a binding value. Another ground raised by the Appellant is that the newly inserted Rule 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules is effective from 07.09.2007 and the explanation 2 inserted in this rule from 08.01.2014 provides that recovery under Rule 14 is applicable only when the amount is not paid with the time stipulated therein and since they had already reversed the Cenvat amount immediately, therefore there is no question of payment of any interest.
3. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 07.12.2017 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

had been cited in the said circular since the basis for the said circular, had been expressly overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) and the said decision of the Larger Bench was further approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of CCE, Chennai-III vs. Joy Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2015(322) ELT 209 (Mad). But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without giving any finding on the said contention, rejected the appeals filed by the appellant on a totally new ground that the Appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condition for payment of interest had been imposed. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the appeals filed by the appellant.
5. It is settled legal principle that no authority is allowed to travel beyond the show cause notice. In the present matter, the show cause notice proposes

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. SREE LEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), KOLLAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1187 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
WP (C). No. 35704 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The PETITIONER : ADV. SRI. SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
For The RESPONDENT : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, an assessee, wanted to revise its monthly returns for WPC No. 35704 of 2018 2 the assessment years 2015-2016-from April

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DAILY EXPRESS Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO. 8, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAUPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1263 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
WP(C). No. 35665 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SMT. S. SUJINI
For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a partnership firm, seeks the following reliefs:
1) issue a writ of mandamus, thereby directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.
2) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the Ist resp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Creation of GST Helpdesks for MSME sector by CBIC to support MSMEs
34 /2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM(CHENNAI IV)
CUSTOM HOUSE, 60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHE AI-600 001.
Telephone: 044-25231217 – Fax: 044-25221861
Email.:commrchivc gmail.com
(IS 15700:2005 (Sevottam ( Certified)
F.No. S. Misc. 07/2018-Refunds-Ch-IV
DATED: 01.11.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE No. 34 /2018
Sub: Creation of GST Helpdesks for MSME sector by CBIC to support MSMEs Reg.
Exporters/importers / Customs Brokers / Steamer Agents / Other Stakeholders and the Trading Public are hereby informed that Government of India is launching a program to support MSMEs a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way Bill etc. nodal officers for MSME outreach in these 80 districts are appointed. The details of the same are available on the CBIC's website. It is also informed that the following activities would be carried out by the CBIC field formations in coordination with the 'Prabhari Officers' in relevant districts.
a. GST Help-desk for MSME sector with special emphasis on helping them in GST Registration / Return filing and refund claims;
b. Publicity of activities / awareness campaign carried out by CBIC. in relation to GST;
c. Publicity of the CBIC GST apps;
d. Distribution of updated of Act, Rules, FAQs, flyers and other educational material.
3. To bolster the efforts of GST field formations, it has been decided to create

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Anbu Motors, M/s. Anbu Automobile Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Act, Union of India, The Chairman, Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTIN), Government of Tamil Nadu, The State Tax Officer And The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1406 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
W. P. (MD)Nos. 22010 & 22011 of 2018
GST
Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar (In both WPs)
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Aravindan, Standing Counsel, Mr.K.Ashokkumar Ram, Mr.D.Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
There writ petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to re-open and reinstate the facility of online submission of TRAN-1, so as to enable the petitioners to file GST TRAN-1.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 3, learned Counsel appearin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

39/13/2018-GST, to facilitate, among other things, TRAN-1 submission. This circular contemplates appointment of Nodal Officers to facilitate the filing by the struggling TRAN 1 filers. But, the grievance of the petitioners is that so far, no such Nodal Officer is appointed, which is not refuted by the learned Standing Counsel.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.18532 of 2018, dated 10.09.2018 (in the case of Tara Exports, Rep. by its Partner, Narayan Bharathan v. Union of India, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others), wherein, this Court, after discussing various issues and various decisions rendered by various Courts across the Country, has passed the following order:
“7. The Circular issued by the Union Government has also recognized that the grievances of the tax paying public are genuine in character and therefore, evolved a structural mechanism to address the grievances of general a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

atform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions and also considering the special circumstances of the case that the petitioner has made genuine efforts for filing returns not only through online but also manually, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted the relief as prayed for.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents either to open the portal, so as to enable the petitioner to file the TRAN 1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit or accept the manually filed TRAN 1, dated 31.01.2018, and allow the input credits, after processing the same, if it is otherwise eligible in law. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has passed the above o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =