M/s Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering Ltd., Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineering Ltd. & Motherson Sumi Electric Wires Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida

M/s Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering Ltd., Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineering Ltd. & Motherson Sumi Electric Wires Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1202 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-5-2018
APPEAL No. E/70291-70297/2018-EX[SM] – A/71067-71073/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate, for Appellant
Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar
The above stated seven appeals are taken together for decision since these are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. NOIDA-EXCUS-001-APP-1444 to 1450-17-18 dated 30/11/2017 passed by Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeals), Noida.
2. The brief facts of the case are that there are three appellants i.e. (i) M/s Motherson Automotive Technologies & Engineering Ltd. (MATEL) were engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Injection

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

72,067/-, Rs. 1,24,695/- & Rs. 2,91,389/- to SMIEL & Rs. 3,36,890/- to MSEW. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated through Orders-in-Original, wherein the Original Authority has allowed the said credit through Orders-in-Original as follows: OIO No. 02 dated 21/04/2016, OIO No. 10 dated 26/04/2016, OIO No. 11 dated 26/04/2016, OIO NO. 04 dated 21/04/2016, OIO No. 03 dated 21/04/2016, OIO NO. 01 dated 21/04/2016 & OIO No. 05 dated 21/04/2016. Aggrieved by the said orders, Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). In the grounds of appeal, Revenue had contended that it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported at 201 ITR 477 (Calcutta) that even if a factory has maintained a canteen, it cannot be said that it is an integral part of manufacture or production carried on by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) appreciated the contention of the Revenue and held that the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

edabad-I Versus Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. reported at 2011 (21) S.T.R. 8 (Gujarat). He has submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the said case in Para 6 of their judgment have held that Canteen Services which are indispensable in relation to manufacture of the final products would certainly fall within the ambit of input service as defined under Rules. He further relied on ruling of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus HCL Technologies reported at 215 (37) S.T.R. 716 (Allahabad), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has relied on ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I Versus Ferromatik Milacron India Ltd. (supra) and held that Cenvat credit in respect of Outdoor Catering Service was admissible.
4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who has relied on the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex, Howrah Versus M/s. Jupiter Alloys & Steel (India) Ltd.

Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex, Howrah Versus M/s. Jupiter Alloys & Steel (India) Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 775 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 10-5-2018
Appeal No. E/77119/2017, CO-75258/2018 – FO/76566/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri D. Halder, AC(AR) for the Appellant (s)
Shri Anjan Dasgupta, Advocate for the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Round, CMS Crossing, Bogie, Coupler Body/Set, Back Stop, Draft Gear etc. classifiable under Chapter 72,73 & 86 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2016 was issued alleging removal of finished products from the factory without payment of central excise duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,59,067/- alongwith interest and also imposed equal penalty. On appeal, the firs

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

before intervention of the department. I observe that the first appellate authority has discussed the issue in details. The relevant portions of the impugned order are reproduced for the sake of appreciation of the facts and law on the point:
“14. In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that the Chartered Accountant's Certificate should have been given due cognizance to display the application of judicious nature of mind by the lower authority during the course of appreciating the factual matrix of the instant case.
15. It obviously follows from the above discussions that in absence of any of the excluding elements as specified in subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant would definitely qualify for being given the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 11A provided they have abided by the provisions of sub-section (1)(b) and subsection (2) of Section 11A of the said Act in such a way that it does not attract the provisions of sub-se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

12 which had been submitted by them to the Department on 09.06.2011, 10.07.2012 and 10.08.2012 respectively. All such payments of duty had been done before issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2016. In addition, they have also paid the interest involved in this case and totaling to Rs. 9,93,447/- vide e-Challan Nos. 00274 dated 26.12.2014, 00069 dated 23.08.2014 and 00211 dated 30.08.2013, which too had been paid before issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2016 was served on them. Such reversal of credit on the basis of their own ascertainment and payment of interest involved thereon, before the issuance of relevant Show Cause Notice, is in agreement with the provisions of sub-section (1)(b)(i) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
17. I also find that the appellant had duly informed about such payment of duty and interest to the Department vide their letter dated 06.01.2015, which again is in agreement with the provisions of sub-section

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Lexmark International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North

M/s Lexmark International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 859 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 10-5-2018
S.T. Appeal No.75549-75551/2018 – FO/76547-76549/2018
Service Tax
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Shri S. P. Majumder, Adv. for the Appellant (s)
Shri K. Choudhary, Supdt.(A.R.) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary :
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.297,296 & 299/S.Tax I/Kol/2017 all dated 31.10.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals I), Kolkata, whereby he has upheld the respective Orders-in-Original and rejected the Appeals there against filed by the appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in exporting taxable output service namely, 'Information Technology Software Service'. For providing the service, exported outside the country, the a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

relationship or nexus
It is wrong to hold that Chartered Accountants Service used has no relationship or nexus in providing the exported output service. Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original No. 19/REFUND/BDN/CGST&CX/ KOL-NORTH/17-18 dated 13-02-2018 and Order-in- Original No. 33/REFUND/STI/ ND/KOL/17-18 dated 13-05-2017.
2.
American Chamber of Commerce in India
Membership of Club
Rs.8,652/- (ST/75551/18)
Meant for individual's membership
It is the corporate club membership. Eligible input service. Refer 2016 (44) STR 129 (Tri.-Hyd.) – Xilinx India Technology Services; 2013 (31) STR 68 (Tri.-Del.) – BCH Electric Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-IV; 2017 (4) GSTL 188 (Tri.- Hyd.) – Vinayak Steels Ltd. vs. CCE,C&ST, Hyderabad-II
3.
AMP & Company DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Service
Courier Service
Rs.2,812.86
No Relationship or nexus
Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Communication (ST/75549/18)
Rs.1,01,186/-
Invoice issued for other business premises
From the invoice placed at page 42 & 43 of the Appeal No. ST/75549/2018, it appears that Invoice for the Kolkata business premises.
8.
DLF Info City Developers (Kolkata) Ltd. (ST/75549/18)
Renting of Immovable Property
Rs.10,569/-
No relationship or nexus
Admissible input credit. Held as eligible input service. in 2016 (44) STR 129 (Tri.-Hyd.) – Xilinx India Technology Services (P) Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Hyderabad-IV; Refund has been allowed for the subsequent period vide Order-in-Original No. 19/REFUND/BDN/ CGST&CX/KOL-NORTH/ 17-18 dated 13-02-2018 and Order-in-Original No. 33/REFUND/ STI/ ND/KOL/17-18 dated 13-05-2017.
9.
Kochar & Co. (ST/75550/18)
Legal Consultancy Service
Rs.1,774/-
Service Tax Rs. 6/- on out of pocket expenses Rs. 50/- held as inadmissible, but has disallowed entire amount of Rs. 1,774/-
Eligible input service. Rs. 6/- has been sought

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

son Credit has to be allowed since eligible input service.
 
14.
Info Edge India Ltd.
Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's
Rs.26,080/- (ST/75550/18)
No reason
Credit has to be allowed since eligible input service.
15.
Praxis Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's Service
Rs.9,413.20 (ST/75551/18)
Credit taken on Debit Note
Credit taken on Debit Note cannot be denied. Refer 2014 (34) STR 66 (Tri.- Ahmd.) – CCE&C, Daman vs. Jalaram Plastic Pack
16.
Praxis Softech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's Service
Rs.57,775.80 (ST/75550/18)
Invoice unsigned
Computer generated invoice and thus not signed. Once service tax has been paid on the basis of such invoices without any objection at the end of the service provider this cannot be the ground for denying refund. Moreover, once credit towards input service has been allowed to be taken without any objection from the side of the Department, it is not permissible to h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ithout description
The nature of service is clear from the Invoice itself (Sample invoice at page 49 of the appeal against the appeal Order No.297/STI/ Kol/2017dated 31-10-2017)
20.
Unicom Training & Seminars Pvt. Ltd. (ST/75549/18)
Commercial Training and Coaching
Rs.35,208/-
No relationship or nexus
Workshop for training program conducted for “Cloud Computing Using AWS”, a software. The training is included in the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Rules.
21.
e Dommen Systems Pvt. Ltd. (ST/75549/18)
Commercial Training and Coaching
Rs.9,556/-
No relationship or nexus
Training fees charged for two days program conducted for software technology. The training is included in the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Rules.
4.1 The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that as per the series of decisions once credit towards input service has been allowed to be taken without any objection from the side of the Departm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e same requires quasi-judicial process involving issuance of SCN followed by a speaking order: CESTAT.
(ii) 2017 (51) S.T.R. 467 (Bom.)-GENERAL MILLS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA
“4. On earlier occasions the Deputy Commissioner Service Tax, Division-VI, Mumbai-II and who has passed the impugned order Mr. S.P. Pradhan has been pulled up by this Court. He had not implemented and carried out the orders and directions of this Court which were specific and clear. We do not see how the approach of the officer in this case can be countenanced even in the present matter. When he is aware of the requirement of giving a personal hearing before a adverse order is passed, then, the impugned order shows either a uncalled for or undue enthusiasm which could safely be termed as arrogance as well. We do not approve of such a hasty course and, therefore, proceed to quash and set aside the impugned order. The refund claim of the petitioners shall be now decided in accordance with law meaning th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

04 read with the provisions of Notification No.27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The present dispute is on disallowance of such refund claim under various heads on the ground of lack of nexus/co-relation between the input service and the out-put service. I find that in the present case, some of the input services do not qualify the definition of input services in terms of Rule 2 (e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that the Tribunal in various decisions has consistently held that there cannot be two different yardsticks, one for permitting credit and the other for eligibility for granting rebate. Whatever credit has been permitted to be taken, the same are permitted to be utilized and when the same is not possible, there is provision for grant of refund or rebate. Without questioning the credit taken, the eligibility to rebate cannot be questioned. I find that in some cases, the Cenvat Credit has been disallowed on the ground that the invoices are un-signed, but it is not in di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

NCCD will be charged on Assessable value or on duty or MRP of Tobacco products

NCCD will be charged on Assessable value or on duty or MRP of Tobacco products
Query (Issue) Started By: – ramappa Nagappa Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 16-6-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
whether NCCD will be charged on Assessable value or on duty or MRP of Tobacco products
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Assessable value is to be arrived at after deducting the percentage of abatement from MRP. On that value NCCD will be computed.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
Abatement rate runs from a range 50% -55% for tobacco products depending on the classification and containing the pertcentage of tobacco in particulars product.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Section 4A of Central Excise Act is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adjusted Total Turnover for ITC refund calculation

Adjusted Total Turnover for ITC refund calculation
Query (Issue) Started By: – Narendra Soni Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 10-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Kindly suggest, whether sale value of below mentioned items will be included in" Adjusted Total turnover" for claiming refund of ITC accumulated on export of goods/services under Bond/LUT, in its formula:-
1.Sale of MEIS (Duty credit scrip issued by DGFT as incentive on export) on which GST rate is 0% (NIL rated)
2.Sale of Waste & Scrap of fire woods on which GST rate is 0% (NIL rated).
Kindly suggest at the earliest.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
In our view there is no such need as first point relate to post export activity

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Records to be mentioned in GSTR1

Records to be mentioned in GSTR1
Query (Issue) Started By: – SURYAKANT MITHBAVKAR Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 13-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
As per GST Act, we have to mention all record kept i.e. Challon Number in GSTR1.
In our case we have not mentioned any challon number under Material supply under warranty , Inter Unit Transfer, Returnable Goods in particular month.
Since our GSTR1 for Mar-18 is due can we mention altogether challon number i.e. (July-17 to Mar-18) in Month of Mar-18.
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
If there is supply you have to mention invoice number. In my view it cannot altogether be mentioned
Reply By SANJEEV JADHAV:
The Reply:
Dear Sir, GST is the n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST CLAIM UNDER BILL TO SHIP TO CONCEPT

GST CLAIM UNDER BILL TO SHIP TO CONCEPT
Query (Issue) Started By: – Senthilkumar R Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 10-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Sir,
One machine purchased from karnadaka to tamilnadu in bill to and ship to concept.
billing address pay the payment and utilised the IGST amount. But supplier passing the tax
amount, to shipping address. How to rectify the problem.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
Through issuance of revised invoice you may rectify this problem.
Reply By Senthilkumar R:
The Reply:
These transactions was completed in Jul17. Now how to rectify.
billing address claiming the IGST
shipping address not utilised the IGST
Supplier passing IGST to shipping address.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Eligibility for ITC for goods at transporter warehouse

Eligibility for ITC for goods at transporter warehouse
Query (Issue) Started By: – Shrenik Bhura Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 9-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Sequence of events:
A. Goods are billed to us my manufacturer based in state A.
B. Handed over to GST registered transporter to transport to us in state B.
C. Payment is made by us before receipt of goods in almost all cases.
D. Transporter fills part B for e-waybill generation and dispatches goods from state A to state B which are more than 1000 km apart.
E. Transporter bills us for transportation on a monthly basis and we make the payment and also pay a 5% GST as RCM with our monthly 3B.
F. Goods are kept in most cases at transporters

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n the validity of the e-waybill?
3. If the answer to 1. is G, then what is the maximum period that we can stretch to avail the ITC?
Reply By MUKUND THAKKAR:
The Reply:
G. Goods are shifted to our warehouses or shop on a periodic basis in the next 2-3 months and at times even 5-6 months based on demand. All our warehouses are in state B itself and have been listed in additional places of business.
Goods kept at the transporter warehouse :- if such transporter place if you had listed in additional place & additional place meet all condition as per GST rules then you are eligable to take ITC after receiving the goods at transporter place ( your additional place).
E-way Bill Validity as per my point of view will be not effected.if Bill to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SERVICES PROVIDED TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES

SERVICES PROVIDED TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES
Query (Issue) Started By: – Pankaj Aggarwal Dated:- 9-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 9-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
Whether taxi services for transportation of faculty or staff provided to educational institute i.e. university is exempted from GST or not?
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir,
In terms of Sl.No.66 (b) of Notification No. 12/2017 -CT (Rates) dated 28th June, 2017, Services provided to educational institute is exempted but this exemption shall apply to an educational institution other than an institution providing services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent.
In your case, educatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Tax Credit Eligibility for Cash Carry Vans Disputed, Referred to Appellate Authority for Resolution.

Input Tax Credit Eligibility for Cash Carry Vans Disputed, Referred to Appellate Authority for Resolution.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit on motor vehicle – cash carry vans – used for cash management business – As the Members of the Advance Ruling Authority differ in respect of this question as raised by the applicant, appropriate reference is made to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for hearing and decision on this question – AAR
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, mar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Scrap Vehicle Disposal Classified as 'Supply' for Business; Subject to GST Under Current Regulations.

Scrap Vehicle Disposal Classified as 'Supply' for Business; Subject to GST Under Current Regulations.
Case-Laws
GST
Scope of Supply – disposal of the scrap vehicles – supply of such motor veh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Teaching Class XI-XII Science and Exam Coaching Subject to 18% GST (9% CGST + 9% SGST.

Teaching Class XI-XII Science and Exam Coaching Subject to 18% GST (9% CGST + 9% SGST.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – providing the service of teaching to the students of Class Xlth and Xllth sc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reinstatement charges for road excavation tied to electric supply maintenance are taxable under GST, per AAR ruling.

Reinstatement charges for road excavation tied to electric supply maintenance are taxable under GST, per AAR ruling.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – reinstatement charges paid to Municipal Author

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Caesarstone Classified Under HSN Code 6810, Not Chapter 25 or Heading 2506, in Import Case Decision.

Caesarstone Classified Under HSN Code 6810, Not Chapter 25 or Heading 2506, in Import Case Decision.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of Caesarstone – an article made from artificial stone – same

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North

M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 887 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
ST/42268 – 42270/2017 – Final Order No. 41457-41459/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical )
Shri G. Mani, Advocate, for the appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed by this common order.
2. The appellants namely M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) are aggrieved by the confirmation of service tax under the heading 'Supply of Tangible Goods'. The appellants are engaged in supply, installation and operation of digital camera equipment having Qube digital technology to various theatre owners on 'right to use' basis through an agree

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

same. Hence the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the appellants, the Ld. Counsel, Shri G. Mani appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that for the very same activity in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 43368 – 43369/2017 dated 14.12.2017, has set aside the demand to hold that the activity is not subject to levy of service tax under the category of 'Supply of tangible goods' service. The activity subjected to levy of service tax in the said final order is prior to the periods involved in these appeals. That before July, 2012 the department had demanded the service tax under supply of tangible goods service. After July, 2012 the definition of service was newly introduced in Section 65 B (44). Section 65 B (51) provided that taxable service means any service on which service tax is liable under Section 66 N. The department has sought to levy service tax alleging that the activity falls under sub-clause (f) of Section 66 E – declare

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

served in the above stated final order as under:-
“8.1 The issue that comes up for appellate decision is whether the activities of supply of equipment would fall within the ambit of supply of tangible goods or not. In the present case, the appellants contend that the transaction would not fall within the supply of tangible goods for the reason that the appellant has transferred possession as well as effective control of the equipment.
8.2 The definition of supply of tangible goods is as follows:-
“Taxable services means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, without transferring right of possession and the effective control of such machinery, equipment and appliances‟
From the above definition, when there is supply of use of equipment without transferring right of possession and effective control of the equipment, the same would fall within the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

goods, but it is the right to use property in goods; (ii) Article 366(29A)(d) read with the latter part of the clause (29A) which uses the words, “and such transfer, delivery or supply”, would show that the tax is not on the delivery of the goods used, but on the transfer of the right to use goods regardless of when or whether the goods are delivered for use subject to the condition that the goods should be in existence for use; (iii) in the transaction for the transfer of the right to use goods, delivery of goods is not a condition precedent, but the delivery of goods may be one of the elements of the transaction; (iv) the effective or general control does not mean always physical control and, even if the manner, method, modalities and the time of the use of goods is decided by the lessee or the customer, it would be under the effective or general control over the goods; and (v) the approvals, concessions, licences and permits in relation to goods would also be available to the user o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

being a deemed sale under clause 29 A of the article 366 of the Constitution. The sub-clause (f) of Section 66 E (declared services) refers to transfer of goods by way of hiring, leasing, licensing or in any such manner without transfer of right to use such goods. Whereas, in the present case the supply of goods involves transfer of right of possession and effective control on such goods and therefore would fall under the category of deemed sale. For better appreciation the relevant provisions of Section 65 (B) (44) after July 2012 is reproduced as under:-
“(44) “service” means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service, but shall not include-
(a) an activity which constitutes merely,-
(i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or
(ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be a sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of Article 366 of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Modern Traders Versus State Of UP And 2 Others

M/s Modern Traders Versus State Of UP And 2 Others
GST
2018 (5) TMI 1030 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 184 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 9-5-2018
Writ Tax No. 763 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned standing counsel.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has sought the following relief :
“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned seizure order and consequential order under Section 129(3) (Annexure 1 and 2) passed y respondent no.3 on the same i.e. 5.5.2018.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.3 and his agents, to release the Vehicle No. UP13AT-1153, without insisting for deposit of any amount of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

accompanied with E-way bill. The respondent no.3 has proceeded for inspection/physical verification of the goods and for the same he has issued verification report in part-A and part-B on 5.5.2018 itself wherein no time has been mentioned. When the proprietor of the petitioner's firm has received the information about interception of the vehicle, he has immediately generated E-way bill on 5.5.2018 at 11.55 a.m. and tried to contact the respondent no.3, however, he was informed that the respondent no.3 will be available after 2 p.m. and thereafter at 2.30 p.m. the aforesaid E-way bill was furnished.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has furnished the E-way bill before the respondent no.3 prior to the seizure proceedings and seizure order, but the respondent no.3 has passed the seizure order. Again without mentioning the time of passing the seizure order a consequential notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (hereinafter ref

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

a seizure order and consequential penalty order has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once E-way bill was generated after interception of the goods, but before seizure order is passed, then the goods cannot be seized as is held by this Court in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the circular dated 13.4.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax and Custom distinguish between interception and detention and hence in the instant case since the petitioner has furnished the E-way bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition.
We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the interception memo the respondent no.3 has mentioned the time being 1.30 a.m. on 5.5.2018 and direc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Specification of Proper Officer under various provisions of DGST Act, 2017.

Specification of Proper Officer under various provisions of DGST Act, 2017.
F.IV/Misc/HR/GST/27/2015-16/Part file/5239 -5245 Dated:- 9-5-2018 Delhi SGST
GST – States
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITALTERRITORY OF DELHI
DEPARTMENT OF TRADEAND TAXES
(HUMAN RESOURCE BRANCH)
VYAPAR BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
ORDER
F.NO. F.IV/Misc/HR/GST/27/2015-16/Part file/5239 -5245
Dated: 09.05.2018
Specification of Proper Officer under various provisions of DGST Act, 2017.
In exercise

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Arjan Dass Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata-II

M/s. Arjan Dass Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata-II
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 161 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
Appeal No. E/76850/2017 – FO/76049/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri N.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the for the Appellant/Applicant (s)
Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K.Choudhary
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 08.11.2006, the officers of the department carried out stock verification at the factory premise of the appellant and found that there was a shortage of 31.705 MT of finished goods of non-alloy steel ingots. The officers recorded the statements of one Shri Subal Bera, authorised signatory and Shri Sandip Agarwal, Director who had accepted the shortage. But could not expl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of pipings/risings formed on the edges of the ingots. Such layers of pipings/risings were removed later after the finished goods had been weighed, and it was due to the removal of such extra layers of piping/ risings that there was an apparent difference between the weight recorded in the register and the weight of the actual stock. He further submitted that Shri Sandip Agarwal was not involved in the day to day functioning of the factory and therefore, his statement should not be relied upon. He also stated that the appellant had submitted a certificate from the Chartered Engineer according to which they were eligible for taking credit of Rs. 4,24,573.62. He further submitted that all payments made during the investigation were made under protest. There was no intention to evade payment of duty by suppressing facts. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. CCE & Cus reported as 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.).

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court has referred to the 'user test' outlined in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported as 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), which lays down the ratio in determining whether particular goods could be categorised as capital goods or not.
7. Regarding the shortage of finished goods detected during the stock verification, I do not find any force in the submission of the ld. Advocate, as it was not substantiated by any evidence. The demand of duty is required to be upheld. I find that in order to impose penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, it is necessary to prove that there was fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. There is no material available on record of clandestine removal of goods of the shortage quantity.
8. Accordingly, I uphold the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 82,906/- as per Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, which has already been paid by the Appella

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re : M & I Materials India Private Limited

In Re : M & I Materials India Private Limited
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1493 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – MAHARASHTRA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 423 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – MAHARASHTRA – AAR
Dated:- 9-5-2018
No. GST-ARA-23/2017-18/B-31
GST
B.V. Borhade (Member) and Pankaj Kumar (Member)
PROCEEDINGS
(under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”] by M&I MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the applicability of GST on:
What is the correct Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) code and the applicable GST rate for our products MIDEL eN 1204 (rapeseed oil based dielectric transformer fluid) and MIDEL eN 1275 (soya oi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ltd. based in UK (hereinafter referred to as 'M&I UK').
2. The company commenced its operations in the month of April 2014 and is, inter alia. engaged in the following activities:
2.1 Import of 'Midel Dielectric Fluids' from M&l UK and subsequent sale in India
2.2 Establishing local warehousing and distribution capability.
2.3 Marketing and business development activity with a focus on assisting in the development of the Midel Dielectric Fluids business in India
2.4 Provide local first line support for any technical queries.
3.  The details of the products for which the Advance Ruling is being sought is as follows:
3.1 MIDEL eN 1204
3.1.1 It is a vegetable oil based dielectric transformer fluid It is a chemically modified rapeseed oil based natural ester
3.1.2 It is used as electric insulator in transformers Its function is to provide electrical insulation, suppress corona and arcing, and to serve as a coolant.
3.1.3 We have classified MIDEL eN 1204 as pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

It is used as electric insulator in transformers. Its function is to provide electrical insulation, suppress corona and arcing, and to serve as a coolant.
3.2.3 We have classified MIDEL eN 1215 as per HSN code under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the entry 15180039.
3.2.4 The applicable Indian Standards (IS) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 is IS 16659:2017.
4. The rate of GST applicable on supply of various goods is notified vide Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “the Notification”).
4.1 Under the Notification, the HSN code 1518 appears under “Schedule I – 2.5%” as well as “Schedule 2 – 6%”. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:
4.2
S. No.
Chapter / Heading / Sub-heading / Tariff item
Description of goods
Schedule I – 2.5%
90.
1518
Vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, boil

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

classification for both of our above mentioned products
Statement containing the applicant's interpretation of law and/or facts, as the case may be, in respect of the aforesaid question(s) (i.e. applicant's view point and submissions on issues on which the advance ruling is sought)
We submit that both our products viz. MIDEL eN 1204 and MIDEL eN 1215, are chemically modified vegetable oil based transformer fluids which should be classified under Entry at S. No. 90 of Schedule – 1 [applicable rate of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) – 2,5%]. To support our view, we would like to put forth our contentions, without prejudice to each other, as follows:
1. Specific entry should prevail over general entry
1.1 Chemically modified vegetable oils are more specifically covered under Entry at S No 90 of Schedule – I of the Notification. Hence, both our products viz, MIDEL eN 1204 and MIDEL eN 1215 should be classified under the said entry.
1.2 Further, explanations (iii) and (iv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even If one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods
(emphasis supplied)
1.4 The entry at S. No 27 of Schedule II – 6% is a general entry mainly referring to animal fats and oils while vegetable fats and oils are mentioned only cursorily. Further, it should be noted under the said entry only those vegetable fats or oils can be covered which are not specified elsewhere.
1.5 It is a well established principle of taxation jurisprudence for resolving classification disputes that a specific entry shall prevail over a general entry. In this regard, we would like to bring to your attention the judgement of the Hon&#39

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e general Entry 18 which relates to rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn i.e. manmade fibres.”
1.7 Given the above, we submit that a combined reading of relevant entries along with the general rules of interpretation [supra] and the decisions of the Apex Court on the matter, it is evidently clear that both our products should fall under Schedule I – 2.5% as it provides a more specific description applicable to both our products
2. Intention of the legislature
2 .1 It is pertinent to note that whereas under the Customs law, animal or vegetable fats and oils are part of the same entry i.e. 1518.00 (supra), under the GST regime a conscious decision has been made by the GST Council to split the said entry between vegetable fats and oils and animal fats and oil by including vegetable fats and oil under Schedule I of the Notification which provides for lower GST rate of 2.5%.
2.2 The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan versus State of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e above, if it is assumed that either or both of our products cannot be classified under entry at S. No. 90 of Schedule I – 2.5%, we would like to submit that, entry at S. No. 88 of Schedule I – 2.5% also provides an appropriate description of our products, and that in no case the said products can be classified under the general entry at S. No. 27 of Schedule II – 6%.
3.2 In this regard, we would like to reproduce the entry at S. No 88 of Schedule 1 – 2 5% for ease of reference:
S. No.
Chapter / Heading / Subheading / Tariff item
Description of goods
Schedule I – 2.5%
88.
1516
Vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidnised, whether or not refined, but not further prepared. ”
3.3 Both our products being vegetable oil based esterified transformer fluids, we submit that they should fall within the ambit of the said entry and classified accordingly.
4. Beneficial rate under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rdingly, we submit that, both our products should fall within the ambit of entry at S. No 90 of Schedule I – 2.5%.
Prayer
1. In light of the above, we pray that both our products viz. MIDEL eN 1204 and MIDEL eN 1215 be classified under Entry at S. No. 90 of Schedule – I i.e. at the applicable rate of CGST of 2.5%.
2. We crave leave to add, to alter, amend and/or modify all or any of the foregoing submissions
3. We pray that a hearing be granted to us before any decision is taken in this matter and also crave leave to produce documents / records / case law at the hearing granted to us.”
Additional submission dt.16.03.2018
We, M/s. SKP Business Consulting LLP, in our capacity as authorised representatives of M/s. M&I Materials India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company” or “us” or “we”) refer to the preliminary hearing held for admission / rejection of our advance ruling application on 7 March 2018 We thank you for admitting our application and granting us anoth

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ost of the customers of our products include government and non-government entities operating in the essential sector of electricity generation, transmission and distribution.
1.3 Similarly, the Tamil Nadu government vide Notification-III. G O Ms. No. 77, No II(1)/CTR/12(R-I7)/2011 dated 11 July 2011 had reduced the tax payable by any dealer to 5% on the sale of any goods except petrol, diesel and cement to certain entities engaged in generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy.
1.4 Given the above, it is evident that our products being supplied to an essential sector, the incidence of tax was kept at a minimum i.e. 5%, to avoid any undue tax burden on the ultimate customers of essential sector of electricity.
1.5 At this juncture we would like to reproduce the relevant extract from the minutes of the 3rd and the 4th GST Council meetings held on 18-19 October 2016 and 3-4 November 2016 respectively, wherein the principles for fixation of GST rates were debated upo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing combined tax rate of Central Excise and VAT between 15% and less than 21 %):
iv. 26 % (to cover those goods presently attracting combined tax rates of Central Excise and VAT equal to or more than 21 %)”
[emphasis supplied]
– 4th GST Council meeting
“10. Initiating the discussion, the Secretary to the Council briefly recapitulated the discussion on this issue in the 3rd GST Council Meeting on 18-19 October, 2016. He recapitulated the proposal to have a four rate GST structure and the rates could be 6%, 12%, 18% and 26%. He explained that a slab of 6% was needed for such goods where VA T was being charged at 5% and Central Excise duty on the same goods was Nil. He stated that if such goods put in the 12% rate band, it would adversely affect the poorer sections of the society.”
[emphasis supplied]
1.6 Applying the principles emanating from the discussions and observations made by the GST Council it is incontrovertible that our products should be classified under the GST rate bra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cted to beneficial rates of tax under the erstwhile law.
1.10 We submit that the above discussion supplies further credence to our earlier submissions that our products viz. MIDEL eN 1204 and MIDEL eN 1215 being products consumed by entities operating in the essential sector of electricity generation, transmission and distribution, and being subjected to beneficial rate of tax under the erstwhile indirect tax regime, should be classified under Entry at S. No. 90 of Schedule -I of the Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017, as amended from time to time, i.e chargeable to GST at the rate of 5%.
2. Non-classification as 'mixtures'
2.1 The quantity of additives in our products viz. MIDEL eN 1204 and MIDEL eN 1215 is minimal i.e. 0.3% of the total weight of the product. Therefore, the said products cannot be considered as 'mixtures' covered under Entry at S. No. 27 of Schedule II – 6%.
2.2 In order to corroborate our explanation, a copy of test rep

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

fluid. The dealer is in his application admit that use of the product is transformer fluid, which means it is inedible and hence covered by Schedule II. Chapter heading 1518 and rate of tax applicable is 6%.
(ii) MIDEL eN 1204- In this sheet product use is mentioned as dielectric fluid. It is blend of natural triglyceride esters (vegetable oil). It clearly shows that the product is intended to be used as only dielectric fluid. The dealer is in his application admit that use of the product is transformer fluid, which means it is inedible and hence covered by Schedule II. Chapter heading 1518 and rate of tax applicable is 6%.
2) The above submission is made in the light of Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax(Rate) No. MGST-1017/C.R. 104/Taxation 1 dated 29/06/2017.
Hon. Forum is humbly requested to admit the application for Advance Ruling and decide the issue as per above mentioned notification. ”
04. HEARING
The case was taken up for hearing on dt.07.03.2018 when Sh. Jigar Doshi, Sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

under Schedule II and not under Schedule I as claimed by the applicant.
05. OBSERVATIONS
We have gone through the facts of the case. We have been called upon to decide the classification of the products MIDEL eN 1204 (rapeseed oil based dielectric transformer fluid) and MIDEL eN 1215 (soya oil based dielectric transformer fluid). Before we ascertain the applicability of the schedule entries, at the cost of repetition, let us have a look at the information about the products as provided by the applicant-
MIDL eN1204
It is a vegetable oil based dielectric transformer fluid. it is chemically modified rapeseed oil based natural ester.
It is used as electric insulator in transformers. Its function is to provide electrical insulation, suppress corona and arcing, and to serve as a coolant.
The applicable Indian Standards (IS) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 is IS 16659:2017.
MIDEL eN 1215
It is a vegetable oil based dielectric tr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nal officer had pointed to a document called 'Safety Data Sheet', the relevant parameters from which can be seen below :
Particulars
MIDEL eN 1204 (rapeseed oil based dielectric transformer fluid)
MIDEL eN 1215 (soya based dielectric transformer fluid).
1. Identification of the Substance/Mixture and of the Company/Undertaking
1.1 Product Identifier Material Name: MIDEI. eN 1204.
1.2 Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised against Product Use: Dielectric fluid
Uses advised against: None. 1.3 Details of the supplier of the substance or mixture
Company: M&I Materials Ltd. Hibernia Way, Trafford Park, Manchester, M32 0ZD, UK.
1.1 Product Identifier Material Name: MIDEL eN 1215.
1.2 Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised against Product Use: Dielectric fluid
Uses advised against: None 1.3 Details of the supplier of the substance or mixture
Company: M&I Materials Ltd., Hibernia Way, Trafford Park, Manchester. M3

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

56-68-3 Description: Blend of natural triglyceride esters (vegetable oil)
Composition:
Constituent CAS Number Contents Blend of natural triglyceride esters 68956-68-3 >98.5% Performance enhancing additives Proprietary<1.5% All constituents are listed on the TSCA inventory. Additives used in this product are a trade secret, but do not lead to classification of the substance as hazardous. 3 Substance CAS No.: 68956-68-3 Description: Blend of natural triglyceride esters (vegetable oil) Composition: Constituent CAS Number Contents Blend of natural triglyceride esters 68956-68-3 >98.5% Performance enhancing additives Proprietary<1.5% All constituents are listed on the TSCA inventory. Additives used in this product are a trade secret, but do not lead to classification of the substance as hazardous. 4. First Aid Measures 4,1 Description of first aid measures Inhalation: None envisaged due to the low vapour pressure of the substance Skin: Wash with soap and water. Obtain medical a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

handling Avoid eye and prolonged skin contact
7.2 Conditions for safe storage, including any incompatibilities No special precautions required
7.3 Specific end use(s)
Exposure to air should be minimised. Opened containers should be properly resealed
7.1 Precautions for safe handling Avoid eye and prolonged skin contact
7.2 Conditions for safe storage, including any incompatibilities No special precautions required
7.3 Specific end use(s)
Exposure to air should be minimised. Opened containers should be properly resealed
8. Exposure Controls/ Personal Protection
8 1 Control parameters No relevant control parameters.
8 2 Exposure controls
Eye washes should be available for emergency use
Respiratory protection: None required.
Skin protection: Wear coveralls Hand protection: Wash hands after use. For prolonged or repeated skin contact gloves are recommended
Eye protection If splashes are likely to occur wear safety glasses.
8.1 Control parameters No relevant control paramete

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ising
Aspiration hazard: Not considered an aspiration hazard Carcinogenicity/mutagenicity: Not considered a mutagenic hazard or carcinogen. This product is not considered to be a carcinogen by IARC, ACGIH, NTP or OSHA.
11.1 Information on toxicological effects Likely routes of exposure: Skin and eyes are the most likely routes for exposure Accidental ingestion may occur. Inhalation is not expected to be a relevant route of exposure. Product is vegetable oil based and as such non-toxic.
Acute oral toxicity: Considered to be low toxicity, vegetable oil.
Acute dermal toxicity: Considered to be low toxicity. Acute inhalation toxicity: Low volatility makes inhalation unlikely
Skin corrosion/irritation: Considered to be not irritating Eye corrosion/irritation Considered to be not irritating. Respiratory or skin sensitisation: Considered to be not sensitising
Aspiration hazard: Not considered an aspiration hazard Carcinogenicity/mutagenicity: Not considered a mutagenic hazard or carcino

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

inct identity as being a “transformer fluid”. They are also given distinct names to establish their identity.
* We only learn that the impugned products are vegetable oil based.
* Neither the exact ingredients nor the exact additives, and the composition of each of these are available before us.
* The information shows that the products are a blend of natural triglyceride esters. They also contain additives.
* The applicant has argued that the quantity of additives in their products is minimal i.e. 0.3% of the total weight of the product. Therefore, the said products cannot be considered as 'mixtures'.
Having seen thus, we look at the contention with regard to the applicability of the schedule entries thus –
* If it is assumed that either or our products cannot be classified under entry at S. No. 90 of Schedule I – 2.5%, we would like to submit that, entry at S. No. 88 of Schedule I – 2.5% also provides an appropriate description of our products, and that in no case

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ble mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of this chapter, not elsewhere specified of included
12% [6 + 6]
A look at the description as found in the entries and the product information, as reproduced above, we are constrained to observe thus –
1. The products are not vegetable fats and vegetable oils per se.
2. The products do not remain mere vegetable fat or mere vegetable oil. The impugned products are a distinct product which is known in the market as a dielectric transformer fluid.
3. The applicant has argued that the products cannot be considered as 'mixtures'. However, we find a reference to the products being a 'substance' or 'mixture' in the Safety Data Sheet of these products as can be seen thus –
1.3 Details of the supplier of the substance or mixture
4.  No information about the manufacturing process has been given. Neither any information has been shared as to the ingredient

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, BLOWN, POLYMERISED BY HEAT IN VACUUM OR IN INERT GAS OR OTHERWISE CHEMICALLY MODIFIED, EXCLUDING THOSE OF HEADING 1516 ; INEDIBLE MIXTURES OR PREPARATIONS OF ANIMAI. OR VEGETABLE FATS OR OILS OR OF FRACTIONS OF DIFFERENT FATS OR OILS OF THIS CHAPTER, NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED
1518 00

Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, boiled, oxidized, dehydrated, sulphurised, blown, polymerized by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or otherwise chemically modified, excluding those of heading 1516; inedible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of this Chapter, not elsewhere specified or included :
 

Lin seed oil:
1518 00 11

Edible grade
151800 19

Other
 

Castor oil, dehydrated:
1518 0021

Edible grade
1518 00 29

Other
 

Other Vegetable oil and its fats:
1518 00 31

Edible grade
1518 00 39

Other
151800 40

Other
From the Tariff Heading 1518 as reproduced

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

otes (HSN) in respect of the part 1 (as reproduced above) of Heading 1518 says-
“This part covers animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions which have been subjected to processes which modify their chemical structure thereby improving their viscosity, drying power (i.e., the property of absorbing oxygen when exposed to the air and forming elastic films) or modifying their other properties, provided they retain their original fundamental structure and are not more specifically covered elsewhere, e.g.:
Thus, the Notes make it clear that the animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions should retain their original fundamental structure.
e. The part 1 (as reproduced above) of Heading 1518 speaks of certain processes which have been subjected to vegetable and animal oils. But the HSN Notes say that despite undergoing these processes, the vegetable or animal oils should retain their original fundamental structure. In the present case, we have a final product which is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

products as dielectric transformer fluid. The products are described as a “fluid”. Is a fluid same as an oil? A fluid is different from even a liquid, let alone oil. The products are not being sold as a modified vegetable oil but as products which result from the adaptation of the natural triglyceride esters to obtain a dielectric transformer fluid. In view thereof, we are convinced that the impugned products would not be covered by the part 1 (as reproduced above) of Hearting 1518. The same reasoning would apply to non-applicability of entry 88 of Schedule I.
f. We now come to part 2 (as reproduced above) of Heading 1518. This part covers inedible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of the Chapter 15. The present products, as discussed above, are a preparation from natural triglyceride esters. They are based or derived from “rapeseed oil based” or “soya based”. In addition, the products are inedible. And even though t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

affect our decision. We find that there is Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff which covers residual products of the chemical or allied industries. However as the exact composition of the product is not revealed to us by the applicant and therefore on the basis of the facts at hand, we find them insufficient to arrive at any decision as to the classification of the product under Chapter 38 and accordingly, taking into consideration only the details revealed to us, we find that the product is classifiable under Chapter 15 of the Customs Tariff Heading/GST Tariff.
6. We are not in doubts that entry 88 and 90 of Schedule I of the Notification No. 1/2017-Central / State Tax (Rate) would not cover the impugned products. We are also convinced that the impugned products are not covered by any entry of the Schedule in the Notification No. 2/2017- Central / State Tax (Rate) for goods exempted from GST. It is only the question of entry 90 or any other entry of the Notification No. 1/2017- Central

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s S.A.I.L. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Ranchi

M/s S.A.I.L. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Ranchi
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 714 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
Ex. Appeal No.75352/18 – FO/76542/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Shri S. P. Majumdar, Adv. for the Appellant (s)
Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary:
This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No.157/RAN/2017 dated 31.10.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Ranchi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Bokaro Steel Plant, is engaged in the manufacture of various articles of iro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ds.
4. I find that Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, prescribes that “if the capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the duty leviable on the transaction value”. I also find from the record that the appellant all along stated that waste and scrap generated from the capital goods were brought into the factory much before 01.04.1994, when where was no provisions for availing credit on the capital goods. It is the case of the appellant that since there is no provision for availing credit on the capital goods, no Excise duty was required to be paid. I find that the Adjudicating Authority has also dropped the demand attributable to rejected machinery/machinery spares/equipments, which w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Dynamic Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Kolkata North

M/s Dynamic Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Kolkata North
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 727 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
S.T. Appeal No.75423/18 – FO/76543/2018
Service Tax
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Shri Sushil Kr. Goyal, C.A. for the Appellant (s)
Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary :
This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No.189/ST-I/KOL/2017 dated 17.08.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a provider of “Forwarding Contract Service” and Maintenance or Repair Service”. A show-cause

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s submission that the complete facts and figures were duly disclosed in the ST-3 Returns and proper records as required were being maintained by the appellant and therefore, there cannot be any allegation of suppression against the appellant and the extended period of limitation of five years is not invokable. The ld.C.A.for the appellant also submits that the demand is barred by limitation.
4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
6. On perusal of records, I find that Rule 4 (7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, states that “the Cenvat Credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day that which payment is made of the valu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tax has been paid subject to realization of that cheque.”
The above Rule specifies that the date of payment in case of service tax shall be the date of presentation of cheque subject to realization of cheque. I also find from the records that none of the cheque issued by the appellant were dishonoured. I also observed that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of India Cement Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad : 2002 (150) ELT 1344. In this regard, the relevant Para is reproduced below:
“8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. In the instant case, the penalties have been imposed on the appellants on the ground that there is a gap of few days bet

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Unit XII Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax – GST

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Unit XII Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax – GST
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 1805 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
Appeal No. E/31214/2017 – A/30583/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri N Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri P. S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: M.V. Ravindran
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS- MD-AP2-074-17-18 dated 25.09.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of the claim of refund of the d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Implication of GST & Income tax on purchase of a second hand machine

Implication of GST & Income tax on purchase of a second hand machine
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kishore Padav Dated:- 8-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 9-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
Our Company had sold an equipment to a customer (A) in May 2017 @ ₹ 20 lakhs (incl. CST). The customer (A) has paid us only ₹ 7 lakhs till date.He has expressed his inability to pay the balance ₹ 13 Lakhs and has asked the company to take back his machine or help him sell his machine. Now we have found a customer (B) who has agreed to purchase the machine @Rs.13 Lakhs from him. Since the company has to recover ₹ 13 lakhs from csutomer (A), it is insisting on getting the payment to be made directly to them by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax liability in case of change in constitution

Tax liability in case of change in constitution
Query (Issue) Started By: – JAY SHAH Dated:- 8-5-2018 Last Reply Date:- 9-5-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Hello
We have a partnership firm and registered as composition dealer under GST regime. now i want to convert the same to proprietorship by retiring one partner and other one continue in same business under same banner. is there any tax liability arise on closing stock? in proprietorship also i want to continue under composition dealer.
Reply By kollengode venkitaraman:
The Reply:
WHEN THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP IS TAKEN OVER BY ONE PATNER AS A PROPRIETORSHIP, IT WILL BE EXEMPT "TAKING OVER A BUSINESS AS A WHOLE" IS EXEMPTED UNDER GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o proprietorship. So tax liabilty of firm can be paid and ITC in proprietorship can be availed. But we are composition dealer. If we pay GST on closing stock in partnership firm for transfer of stock to proprietorship then we are going to pay two time GST. One at the time of transfer to proprietorship and again we have to pay gst in proprietorship on final sale.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dear Querist,
There is no doubt that afresh registration is required as rightly advised by Dr.Govindarajan, Sir.. When you apply for a new registration, you are to decide whether to opt for composition dealer or not. New registration, afresh option is required. It is natural that a composition dealer cannot avail ITC
Actually, no-provision o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CASE LAWS RELATING TO E-WAY BILL

CASE LAWS RELATING TO E-WAY BILL
By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 8-5-2018

Implementation of e-way bill
The implementation of e-way bill has caused more delay because of the improvements to be done in the portal system. The Central Government has announced that the e-way bill system would be applicable for the inter-State transactions with effect from 01.02.2018 and the States would implement the e-way bill system for intra-State transactions by 1st June, 2018. Because of the glitches in the system, the Central Government postponed the implementation date and finally it has been implemented with effect from 01.04.2018. The States are advised to implement the same before 1st June, 2018.
E-way bill operations are now available for the following States-
* E-way bill operations are compulsory for intra-state movement of goods for Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh from 15th April 2018;
* E-way bill operatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

bill had not been downloaded. It has come on record that before seizure there was some problem in downloading the E-way Bill. The High Court directed to release the vehicles and goods subject to deposit of bank guarantee, equal to the value of the tax on goods.
In 'Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and Another' – 2018 (2) TMI 766 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the petitioner says that the Electronic Way Bills Rules have yet to come into force. Therefore, without access to the online profile, the petitioner cannot generate E-way bills. Without such E-way bills, the petitioner will not be allowed to move the goods anywhere and that will paralyze its business. Lack of access would mean that the petitioner is unable to file return or pay tax or undertake any other compliance required by the statute. The High Court held that the special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion of India. The High Court directed the first respondent to complete the adjudication provided for under section 129 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a week from the date of receipt of the order.
Seizure before effective date
In 'Modern Traders V. State of UP' – 2018 (4) TMI 1076 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (decided on 03.04.2018) the goods were transported from Bhulandshahr to Delhi. There was no e-way bill during the movement of goods, while the vehicle was crossing Ghaziabad. The vehicle was intercepted and detained at Ghaziabad by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad on 24.03.2018. The vehicle was seized on the ground that there was no e-way bill. A show cause notice dated 28.03.2018 was issued under section 129(3) of the Act, The petitioner was directed to appear on 04.04.2018 and explain as to why the tax @ 18% and equivalent amount of penalty may not be imposed. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing the e-way bill with respect to inter-State transaction is mandatory with effect from 01.04.2018, whereas in the present case the transaction is much before the aforesaid date. The High Court directed respondent No. 3 to release the goods and vehicle.
In 'M/s Bhumika Enterprises V. State of U.P. And 3 Others' – 2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, from perusal of the record the High Court have noticed that the vehicle has been detained and the goods/vehicle was seized by the respondent no.4 on 27.3.2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. There is no dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods and further that the invoice issued clearly indicates of charge of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T by the petitioner. The High Court further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to registration of the seller (the petitioner) and the purchaser as also that the goods were bei

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impugned seizure order nor the details of the mobile number holder.
Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, the High Court saw no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, the High Court have no option but to allow the present writ petition and to set aside the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 as well as the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act for imposition of penalty.
Justification for seizure
In 'Surendra Steel Supply Company Versus State of U.P. And Another' – 2018 (5) TMI 526 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, (decided on 11.04.2018) the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur on 01.04.2018 at about 9-30 a.m. by respondent no. 2 and interception/detention memo was issued on the ground that sin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and seizure.
* Even though E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced by the petitioner but there was no requirement for the same as the Central Government has suspended the requirement of E-Way Bill No.01 on 01.02.2018.
The Revenue has not been able to justify the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court required respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile SquadXI, Kanpur, U.P. to appear before the Court day after tomorrow (13.04.2018) to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced.
Non mentioning of vehicle number
In 'VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And Another' – 2018 (5) TMI 455 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, (decided on 13.04.2018) the detention was made on the ground that Part-B of e-way bill was incomplete. The contention of the petitioner before the authority below was that there was no intention on the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =