Goods and Services Tax

M/s. Maltanb Construction Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 88 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
ST/ROM/40363 & 40364/2018 in ST/24 and 139/2011 – Misc. Order Nos. 40787 & 40788/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri G. Derrick Sam, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Addl. Commr. (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi,
The above ROM applications have been filed by the appellant seeking to rectify the error alleged to be apparent inn Final Order No. 43445 & 43446/2017 dated 20.12.2017.
2. The ld. counsel Shri G. D

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rgued that though the service tax in respect of cleaning services rendered by the appellant to education institution was set aside, the cleaning services in respect of certain hospitals which are charitable institutions under the Income Tax Act have been upheld by the Tribunal for the normal period, which requires interference in these ROM applications.
3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy opposed the applications.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The ld. counsel has adverted to our attention to para 6.1 of the impugned order and argued that the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that when fees are collected for treatment, they would become commercial building. It is pointed out by him that there are several decision which hold that mere charg

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

me within the ambit of non-commercial entity. However, this depends upon facts of each case and the Tribunal after examining the facts of the case has made such observation and directed for re-examination of these facts on this issue.
6. From the discussions made above, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record that requires interference. An error apparent on the face of record should be so patent and also does not require any long drawn process of argument. In the present case, it is the conclusion or finding made by the Tribunal and is not an error apparent on the face of record. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. ROM dismissed.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court)
Ca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Siva Engineering Company Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 87 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/424/2012 – Final Order No. 43023/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellant is engaged in execution of works contract. They were engaged by Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (TNPHCL) which is a Government of Tamil Nadu company wherein 100% of the shares are held by Tamil Nadu Government for construction of police quarters. A show cause notice was issued to them proposing to demand service tax under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' for the period from February 2006 to February 2008. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TR 815. That this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lanco Tanjore Power Co. Ltd. vide Final Order No. 40792 & 40793/2018 dated 16.3.2018 held that when construction activity is undertaken for personal use, the same is excluded from the definition of residential complex contained in Section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants were engaged by TNPHCL to construct quarters for police personnel. The contract was awarded vide GO No. 576 dated 8.7.2005 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Since the quarters were constructed for the use of police personnel, the same is outside the purview of definition of construction of residential complex, as it is covered by the Explanation to the said definition. The ownership of the houses constructed vests with the Government of Tamil Nadu who allots houses to police personnel. There is no profit motive involved in these transactions and there is no renting or letting of these quarters for commercial purposes. The lan

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

idential complex is reproduced as under:-
As per section 65[(30a) of the Finance Act, 1994, „construction of complex‟ means :-
(a) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(b) completion and finishing services in relation to residential complex such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services; or
(c) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, residential complex;]
As per Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 „residential complex‟ means any complex comprising of:-
(i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
(ii) a common area; and
(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ates (supra), wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:-
“7.1 In this case there is no dispute and it clearly emerges that the residential complex was built for M/s. ITC Ltd. and appellant was the main contractor. Appellant had appointed sub-contractors all of whom have paid the tax as required under the law. The question that arises is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the complex built for ITC. From the definition it is quite clear that if the complex is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for design or planning or layout and such complex is intended for personal use as per the definition, service tax is not attracted. Personal use has been defined as permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. In this case what emerges is that ITC intended to provide the accommodation built to their own employees. Therefore it is covered by the definition of 'personal use' in the explanation.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ract with GOI, engages a sub-contractor for carrying out the whole or part of the construction, then the sub- contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax as in that case, NBCC would be the service receiver and the construction would not be for their personal use.
It can be seen that if the land owner enters into a contract with a promoter/builder/developer who himself provided service of design, planning and construction and if the property is used for personal use then such activity would not be subject to service tax. It is quite clear that C.B.E.&C. also has clarified that in cases like this, service tax need not be paid by the builder/developer who has constructed the complex. If the builder/developer constructs the complex himself, there would be no liability of service tax at all. Further in this case it was different totally, the appellant, has engaged sub-contractors and therefore rightly all the sub-contractors have paid the service tax. In such a situation in our opinion,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person.
Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause,
(a) 'personal use' includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration;
(b) 'residential unit' means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;
The above definition specifically excludes construction undertaken for personal use and such personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person. We find that the above exclusion clause covers the construction activity undertaken by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Interface Trade Fair Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 86 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/422/2012 – Final Order No. 43024/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
None for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing business exhibition service and it was noticed that they had not discharged the service tax on the consideration received. Show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 99,659/- along with interest and also for imposing penalti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t from 10.9.2004. They were under the confusion whether the exhibition conducted by them would fall under event management or business exhibition service. From October 2004 to December 2004, they had conducted two exhibitions at Madurai and Coimbatore. Service tax was not collected separately for the business exhibition service since the confusion existed and not paid to the Government. When the Preventive Unit visited the premises, as per the instructions, the appellants have paid the service tax. However, the quantification of service tax as per the show cause notice is erroneous and they are liable to pay service tax only to the tune of Rs. 76,078/- only after adjusting CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,405/-. It is also requested to waive the pen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e introduced, with effect from 10.9.2004. They did not discharge the service tax for the reason of confusion as to the classification of service. On being instructed by the department in January 2005, they had remitted the service tax. It is also brought out that the appellants have not collected service tax separately and therefore the amount received should be considered as cum-tax value. The request of the appellant is reasonable and tenable. We therefore hold that the adjudicating authority shall requantify the service tax after giving the cum-tax benefit as well as the CENVAT credit benefit to the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act to set aside the penalties impo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Vibgyor Printing and Packing P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 78 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/40756/2018 – Final Order No. 43022/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printed flexible packaging material. They filed refund claim of Rs. 6,85,366/- being the accumulated / unutilized CENVAT credit as they had closed down their manufacturing activity and surrender

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d their central excise registration, they are eligible for the accumulated credit. She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. – 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.). That the appeal filed by the department against the said decision was dismissed as reported in 2008 (223) ELT A170 (SC).
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The issue is with regard to the refund of unutilized credit as the appellant had stopped the manufacturing activity. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyze the very same issue and held that even though there

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transition of Customs functions hitherto performed by the Central Excise/ GST officers, including the export procedure and sealing of Containerized export cargo, to the Customs formations, under the Commissioner of Customs, Pune
CORRIGENDUM TO TRADE NOTICE NO. 01/2018 Dated:- 20-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
GST BHAVAN, 41/A, SASSON ROAD, PUNE-411001
F. No. VIII/Cus/Tech/Gst-Reorg/ 48-16/2017
Pune Dated: – 20.11.2018
CORRIGENDUM TO TRADE NOTICE NO. 01/2018
Sub: Transition of Customs functions hitherto performed by the Central Excise/ GST officers, including the export procedure and sealing of Containerized export cargo, to the Customs formations, under the Commissioner of Customs, Pune.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1535 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
ST/348/2011 And ST/334/2012 – 42918-42919 / 2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
For the Appellant : Shri K.S. Ravishankar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR)
ORDER
PER BENCH
The appellant is a joint venture company formed in the year 2007 between Rakeen Pvt. Ltd. and Trimex Group Company to develop a township at Coimbatore. As a part of preparatory work for the development of the proposed township, the appellant engaged some of the foreign companies and got themselves registered under the category of Consulting Engineer Service for discharging service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The department was of the view that the appellants are not eligible to take credit of such ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rvice / construction of complex service. That the appellant had registered for their output service on works contract service only on 23.10.2009, and the credit availed being prior to this date is not eligible.
Show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the irregularly availed credit along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalties, against which the appellant has filed Appeal No. ST/348/2011.
3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri K.S. Ravikumar submitted oral as well as detailed written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under:-
3.1 The appellant is registered under the category of consulting engineer service on 3.1.2008 and was discharging service tax on reverse charge basis for these services availed by them from the foreign company. Later, on 23.10.2009, it got registration certificate amended by including works contract service also. During the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g up of factory / office premises is eligible to the appellant and therefore it is implied that even if the appellant has not started providing output services, it can avail credit on various input services. All the input services were availed as a precursor for providing the output service and therefore is eligible for credit.
3.2 With regard to the allegation that the service tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism for input services in the nature of consulting engineer service and is not eligible for credit, he relied upon the decision in the case of CST, Bangalore Vs. Arvind Fashions Ltd. – 2012 (25) STR 583 (Kar.) as well as the decision in Kansara Modler Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur – 2013 (32) STR 209 (Tri. Del.).
3.3 It is also argued by the ld. counsel that even if the premises is not registered or even before obtaining registration for the output services, the appellant can avail credit. To support this argument, he relied upon the decision in the case

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nting of immovable property, survey, design, engineering, telecom service etc. are output services for the foreign company. Only if these are output services for the foreign company itself, the appellants are eligible for the credit on consulting engineer service.
4.1 With regard to the demand raised alleging that the appellant has not registered for output services of works contract services and therefore not eligible for credit to the tune of Rs. 1,58,89,282/-, he submitted that the input service were availed for construction of the township and therefore they are not eligible for credit.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the demand of Rs. 79,26,871/- alleging that the credit availed on consulting engineering service under reverse charge mechanism is eligible or not. The main ground for disallowing the credit is that the said services does not qualify as input services. The appellant has explained that these services were availed in o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions “provider” and “provided” shall be construed accordingly;
(ii) Rule 2(q) – “person liable for paying service tax” has the meaning as assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994;
(iii) Rule 2(r) – “provider of taxable service” include a person liable for paying service tax;
Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules.
(iv) in relation to any taxable service provided or to be provided by any person from a country other than India and received by any person in India under section 66A of the Act, the recipient of such service;
6. If we read Rule 2(q) of Cenvat Credit Rules with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv), we find that appellant is a person liable to Service Tax. Once appellant is person liable to service tax, he becomes provider of taxable service under Rule 2(r) and consequently becomes output service provider under Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Revenue is als

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for providing output service of works contract service only with effect from 23.10.2009. The department is of the view that they are eligible to take credit only from the date of registration. Needless to say that the definition of input service prior to 1.4.2011 included services like setting up of factory / office. From this it can be inferred that services which are needed to start providing output service for manufacturing finished products would be eligible for credit. The said issue has been sufficiently analyzed in various cases. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tavant Technologies Ltd. (supra) had followed the decision in mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) and held that for availing as well as refund of unutilized credit, registration of service tax is not required. There is no rule or statutory provision which makes registration a condition precedent for availing credit. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Spand

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 731 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 748 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/86371/2018 – A/87965/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant
Shri M.P. Damle, AC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Eligibility to avail cenvat credit for the amount claimed in the refund application that was rejected on grounds of limitation is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal is that appellant company executed certain maintenance, repairing and construction work for Mazgaon Doc Ltd. (MDL) and Tata Power through work contract agreement and after completion of the work, rate was reduced on renegotiation by both firms against which appellant raised credit notes to their customers for differential rate in the value of services provided and service tax co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

edit.
4. Ld. AR for the department supported the rationality of order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) but submitted that matter can be remanded for examination of eligibility of appellant to avail cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case records. Admittedly, refund claim was made on 30.07.2015 for the period ending March 2014 and in view of clause (f) of Explanation B to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1994, date of payment is to be taken into consideration for computation of one year period to file the refund application. In its order dated 19.02.2016, the original adjudicating authority has given his clear finding under para 5 that provision of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 deals with such a situation and the same is fully applicable to the present refund claim and he has also noted in para 6 to have verified the records and found that service tax was not paid solely in cash and paid in b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

limitation period, the order-in-original was sustainable. More importantly, the appellant's request for adjustment of excess payment is not the subject matter of appeal for which he did not give any direction for such adjustment. This being the factual and legal scenario and in view of the reported decision cited supra by the appellant which favours availment of such benefit of Rule 6(3) after refusal of refund claim made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, it is now to be found out if Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to grant such a relief which was not sought by the appellant before the adjudicating authority.
6. It is an admitted fact that appellant was not put to notice before the rejection of its claim except being asked to submit copies of documents like invoices, GAR-7, cenvat claim certificate, copy of purchase order, work order, work sheet etc. and there is no noting available in the order-in-original as to if alternative plea for availment of cenvat credit was m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n of tax dispute being made by quasi judicial authorities, all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is not directly applicable to it. But when there is no express provision made to meet such a contingency which is not contemplated in the procedure prescribed for such adjudication of tax disputes, spirit of provision of civil procedure may be brought into service for effective adjudication. This fact is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in M.P. Steel Corporation vs. CCE 2015 (319) ELT 373 (SC) wherein spirit of Indian Limitation Act was pressed into service for condoning delay in filing appeals. Therefore, it would not be irrational to invoke order 7 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers a court to grant such other relief which may always be given, as a court may think just, to the same extent as if it has been asked for. In borrowing the spirit from the provision of the CPC, the following order is passed:-
8. The appeal is al

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Paul Valthaty Versus CCGST, Thane
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 306 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
APPEAL NO: ST/87229/2018 – A/87943/2018
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri Vishal Sheth, CA
Respondent: Shri Dilip Shinde, AC (AR)
ORDER
In the present Appeal the only issue to be decided is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the penalty of Rs. 1,95,692/- u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The Appellant was engaged in providing services of “Business Support Service” being associated with the Indian Premier League (IPL) as a professional player from year 2009 to year 2013 through different Franchisees from time to time viz. 'Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the issuance of show cause notice. Therefore there is no dispute that the entire service tax along with interest has been paid by the Appellant before the passing of the Adjudicating order. In the Order-in-Appeal also it has been specifically observed by the ld. Commissioner that “there is no dispute that the Appellant has discharged the amount of Service Tax along with interest before passing the order by the Original Authority.” But still the ld. Commissioner upheld the penalty of Rs. 195,692/- u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is not liable to pay any penalty. Thereafter another submission was raised by ld. Counsel for the Appellant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. It is settled position that the assesee is required to be given an option by the adjudicating authority whether he is willing to pay the duty with interest and 25% penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication. Whenever such option is not given, the facility of paying reduced penalty by fulfilling the condition of deposition of the same with interest within 30 days (along with tax dues if any) should be granted.
4. In the instant matter despite the fact that the Appellant has discharged the amount of Service Tax along with interest before passing the order by the Original Authority, the option about the reduced penalty has not been given to the Appellant. Since such option has not been given by any of the authorities below, theref

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, Faridabad-I
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 86 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/61602/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 63482/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. S.K. Pahwa, Advocate- for the appellant
Shri. Vijay Gupta, AR. – for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest is confirmed and the penalty is imposed under reverse charge mechanism by invoking extended period of limitation.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant availed certain serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he Act were imposed and amount already paid was appropriated. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case whatever service tax was paid by the appellant was entitled for cenvat credit to them, in that circumstances, no mala-fide can be attributable against the appellant. Hence, the extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand pertains to the extended period of limitation are to be set aside and for the demands within the period of limitation, it is his submissions that as the appellant has paid service tax along with interest, therefore, in terms of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, no show cause notice was required to be issued to the ap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ion is invokable or not?
(B) For the demand within limitation whether penalty under Section 77 & 78 can be imposed on the appellant or not?
(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation is not invokable or not?
I find that in this case whatever amount of service tax is to be paid by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism, the appellant entitled to avail cenvat credit. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Larger Bench in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tri. LB), I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation is set aside. Consequently, no penalty is imposable.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Pune II
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1513 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/86537/2018 – A/87964/2018
Central Excise
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate for the appellant
Shri D.S. Chavan, AC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Explanation 1 inserted to Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 with effect from 01.03.2015 is held to be applicable to the electricity sold by the appellant that was being generated from bagasse, a waste product of sugar manufacturing and imposition of duty liability thereon by invoking Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is under challenge before this Tribunal.
2. Factual backdrop of the case is that appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses falling under chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has a power generation plant in its factory where electricity is generate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dmitted in the case of Gularia Chini Mills 2014 (34) STR 175 (HC-All) before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that bagasse were neither input nor input service used for generation of electricity and the same had attained finality in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. case. It was also held that since provision of Rule 6 is not for bagasse, the same will not apply to electricity generated by using bagasse only when no other input is used. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that department had not produced any evidence to prove use of any common input/ input services of the manufacture of dutiable goods for non-excisable electricity production for which he prays to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He placed his reliance on the reported judicial decisions referred below:-
i) Jakarya Sugars Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI-1665 (Tri-Mum)
ii) Final order no. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dated 04.08.2017

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or input services used for generation of electricity to the extent duty free electricity is sold. Assessee is not eligible to take any cenvat credit of such inputs and input services having nexus with generation of electricity sold.
5. Heard from both sides at length. Perused the case records and the relevant decisions cited by the adversaries which are mostly related to the incidence prior to the insertion of proviso-1 to Cenvat Credit Rules wef. 01.03.2015 except Jakarya Sugars Ltd. Admittedly electricity, though not found in tangible form, is classifiable under Tariff item no. 27160000 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. But it is a non-excisable goods and the process of generation of electricity though a manufacturing process is dutiable if it is generated from mineral oils, bitumen substance, mineral waxes etc. and electricity generated from bagasse is not covered under Chapter 27 like electricity generated through solar power, hydro power, wind power etc. Therefore, as has been

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Guidelines for Deductions and Deposits of TDS by the DDO under Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act, 2017.
ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt.I/261 Dated:- 20-11-2018 Meghalaya SGST
GST – States
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION & STAMPS
DEPARTMENT
CIRCULAR
No. ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt.I/261
Dated Shillong the 20th November, 2018.
Subject: Guidelines for Deductions and Deposits of TDS by the DDO under Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (MGST) Act, 2017.
Section 51 of the MGST Act 2017 and CGST Act 2017 provided for deduction of tax by the Government Agencies (Deductor) or any other person to be notified in this regard, from the payment made or credited to the supplier (Deductee) of taxable goods or services or both, where the total value of such supply, under a contract, exceeds two lakh and fifty thousand rupees. The amount deducted as tax under this section shall be paid to the Government by deductor within ten days after the end of the month in which such deducti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tax deduction at source was not notified to come into force with effect from 1st July, 2017, the date from which GST was introduced. Government has recently notified that these provisions shall come into force with effect from 1st October, 2018, vide Notification No. 50/2018-State Tax, ERTS(T)65/2017/Pt-1/240, dated 13th September, 2018 and – Central Tax dated 13th September, 2018.
4. In order to give effect to the deduction of tax under GST and for making payment of the same from 01.10.2018, a process flow of deduction and deposit of TDS by the DDOs has been finalised in accordance with CGA guidelines for implementation by State Government Authorities. The process flow is described as under:
* Bunching of deductions and its deposit by the DDO
5. The DDO will have to deduct the TDS from each bill, for keeping it under the Suspense Head. However, deposit of this bunched amount from the Suspense Head can be made on a weekly, monthly or any other periodic basis.
6. Following process

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

(iv) & (v) not applicable to cheque paying DDOs.
(vi) Payment of GST -TDS amount from one or multiple Bills which was booked earlier into suspense head can be made on a weekly, monthly or any other periodic basis which is convenient to-the DDO.
(vii) The DDO will be required to maintain the Record of the TDS so booked under the Suspense Head so that at the time of preparing the CPIN for making payment on weekly/monthly or any other periodic basis, the total amount could be easily worked out.
(viii) At any periodic interval, when DDO needs to deposit the TDS amount, he shall login into the GSTN Portal (using his GSTIN) and generate the CPIN (Challan). In the CPIN he shall have to fill in the desired amount of payment against one/many Major Head(s) (CGST/SGST/UTGST/IGST) and the relevant component (e.g. Tax) under each of the Major Head for the amount (already booked under the Suspense Head).
(ix) While generating the CPIN, the DDO will have to select mode of payment as either (a) NE

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n case of the OTC mode, the DDO will have to issue a Cheque in favour of one of the 25 authorized Banks. The Cheque may then be deposited along with the CPTN with any of branch of the authorized Bank so selected by the DDO.
(xiv) Upon successful payment, a CIN will be generated by the RBI/Authorized Bank and will be shared electronically with the GSTN Portal. This will get credited in the electronic Cash Ledger of the concerned DDO in the GSTN Portal. This can be viewed and the details of CIN can be noted by the DDO anytime on GSTN portal using his Login credentials.
(xv) The DDO should maintain a Register as per proforma given in Annexure 'A' to keep record of all TDS deductions made by him during the month. This Record will be helpful at the time of filing Monthly Return (FORM GSTR-7) by the DDO. The DDO may also make use of the offline utility available on the GSTN Portal for this purpose.
(xvi) The DDO shall file the Return in FORM GSTR-7 by 10th of the following month.
(xvii)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, Howrah
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1379 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/78319/2018 – FO/76966/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Ankit Kanodia, CA for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
This appeal is listed for admission today. After hearing both sides and despite the amount involved in this case being less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, the appellant intends to contest the issue on merit, which is admitted and since the issue lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides the same is taken up for disposal.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Glass & Glassware classifiable under Chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit of the records and documents it was observed that the appellant had cleared old and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

seventy eight) only on the assessee under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, I allow the benefit for payment of reduced penalty of 25% (Twenty five percent) of the duty amount to the assessee subject to fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in Section 11AC(1)(c ) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. I order for appropriation of Rs. 1,02,678/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand six hundred and seventy eight) only already paid vide RG- 23A Pt II entry Sl.No.416 dt. 28.04.2015.”
Against the adjudication order, both the assessee and the Revenue were in appeal before the lower appellate authority and the ld. Commissioner of CGST & CX, upheld the Order-in-Original to the extent of confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee and allowed the revenue's appeal by ordering for recovery of interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the present appeal

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

td. [2016(341) ELT 607 (All.)].
4. Ld. DR reiterates the discussions and findings of the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
6. The dispute in the present case is regarding the payment of interest and imposition of penalty. It is the case of the appellant that ld. Adjudicating Authority accepted the fact that the appellant had reversed the amount of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,02,678/- before issuance of the show cause notice. He also observed that since sufficient balance was always lying in their cenvat account since the date of credit taken till the reversal of the same, he waived the payment of interest. However, penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposed.
7. I find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in the case of Commr. Of Cus. & C.Ex., Noida vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. (supra). The relevant portions of the aforesaid decisi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB is issued, this would show that there was no question of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of fact hence penalty and interest should not be levied. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri. – Bang.), took this view. The department preferred appeal in Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 7-5-2003, appeals are dismissed and judgment is reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.). Thereafter, Madras High Court in Commissioner v. Kjon Engineering (P) Ltd., 2005 (67) RLT 157, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner, Central Excise, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508, Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise-I v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd., 2005 (129) ECR 386 = 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.) and Rajasthan High Court in Union of India and Others v. T.P.L. Industries Ltd., 2007 (214) E.L.T. 506, have taken the same view.
5. Confronted

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Modern India Concast Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, Siliguri
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1378 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/78353/2018 – FO/76967/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Arun Kumar Nandy, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
This appeal is listed for admission today. After hearing both sides and despite the amount involved in this case being less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, the appellant intends to contest the issue on merit, which is admitted and since the issue lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides the same is taken up for disposal.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g authority confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,28,032/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order to the extent of demand of duty and interest. He reduced the imposition of penalty to 50% of the duty amount confirmed i.e. 1,14,016 (50% of Rs. 2,28,032/-). Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the adjudication order has been passed without scrutinizing the transport documents of the appellant. He strongly argued that the adjudicating authority ought to have worked

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

% of the penalty of Rs. 77,885/- vide GAR-7 Challan No.00166 dt. 30.05.2013. Ld. Consultant cited various decisions where it was held that penalty is not imposable when dispute related to interpretation of statutory provisions.
4. Ld. DR reiterates the order of the lower authorities.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record.
6. I find that the appellant is not disputing the demand of duty and interest and have also paid 50% of the penalty of the admitted demand. However, they are claiming that there is some discrepancy in the demand confirmed to the tune of Rs. 2,28,032/-, whereas as per their calculation, the total demand should have been Rs. 1,55,768/-. I find that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Utkarsh India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Haldia
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1377 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/78043/2018 – FO/76968/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
This appeal is listed for admission today. After hearing both sides and despite the amount involved in this case being less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, the appellant intends to contest the issue on merit, which is admitted and since the issue lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides the same is taken up for disposal.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pole Black Pipe, G.I. Pipe, S.T. Pole Accessories, G.I. H.M. Pole, G.I. Tower, PVC/SWR Pipe & Fittings, Hand Pump etc. classifiable under Chapter 73,39 and 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

present appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the entire amount of cenvat credit alleged to have irregularly availed, was already reversed in the month of August, 2012 and the same was duly reflected in their ER I Returns. Subsequently, the interest amounting to Rs. 18,552/- was also paid vide Challan Sl.No.00053470609201205144 dated 06.09.2012. I find from the records that this fact has been mentioned in the show cause notice dated 11.01.2013. Ld. Advocate further submits that he is only challenging the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Tribunal since the appellant had already reversed the credit taken by them and have also paid the interest thereon. I find from the records that the said credit was adjusted before issuance of the show cause notice and this fact also finds mention in the show cause notice itself. Hence, there

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n as the same was pointed out by the department, much before the issuance of the show cause notice, therefore, no penalty is attracted in this case in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal.
8. I find that the cenvat credit taken by the appellant was reversed much before issuance of the show cause notice and the same has already been appropriated by the adjudicating authority. Though there is allegation in the show cause notice regarding suppression, but it has not been specifically explained in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order as to how the intent to evade payment of the Central Excise duty is established taking into consideration that the appellant is subjected to periodical audit by the department and the documents on the basis of which credit has been taken was available for inspection of the audit.
9. In view of the above discussions and relied upon judicial decisions, it is held that penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Link Autotech Pvt Ltd Versus CCT, CE & ST, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1376 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
E/30608/2018 – A/31485/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: P.V. Subba Rao.
1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MDAP2- 0273-17-18 dated 01.03.2018.
2. The appellant herein is a manufacturer of high security registration plates for vehicles registered under the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. An audit was conducted at the premises of the appellant in period April, 2012 to March, 2016 and a show cause notice dated 23.05.2017 was issued to the appellant for recovery of credit of Rs. 1,71,944/- along with interest and it was also proposed to impose penalty. This denial was on five grounds. The lower authority confirmed th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ioning the address of the appellant should not disentitle them to CENVAT Credit. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal.
(i) CCE Vapi Vs DNH Spinners [2009 (16) STR 418 (Tri-Ahm)]
(ii) Deloitte Haskins & Sales Vs CCE Thane [2015 (38) STR 1220 (Tri-Mumbai)]
(iii) Kemwell Biopharma Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore [2017 (47) STR 70 (Tri-Bangalore)]
(b) Denial of Rs. 29,766/- in respect of invoice issued by M/s Strategic International for providing business support services on the ground that the name of the appellant itself does not figure in the invoice. Learned counsel submits that they have received these services and not mentioning the name of the recipient in the invoice is a technical lapse for which they should not be denied CENVAT Credit.
(c) Denial of Rs. 73,571/- on input services during the availment of SSI benefit. The appellant submits that they had availed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 08/20013 which provides for exemption based on the value of cr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

atsoever to show that this service was used by the appellant in their premises in Hyderabad. Insofar as the denial of Rs. 29,766/- provided by M/s Strategic International is concerned, it is his submission that the services in question do not pertain to the appellant at all and hence, credit cannot be allowed. Insofar as the denial of credit of Rs. 73,571/- is concerned, learned departmental representative states that the credit was not sought to be denied on the ground that they have availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 and hence, credit on input services is not available. He asserts that the credit was sought to be denied in terms of the transitional provisions under Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. He, therefore, asserts that CENVAT Credit is not admissible to the appellant.
4. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the arguments on both sides. In so far as the credit of Rs. 28,523/- in respect of the invoices which were in the name of corporat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The assesee has taken Cenvat Credit of Rs. 28,523/- on the said invoices as input services credit. Since the said invoices were raised on the address of the assesee located at New Delhi and that there is no document evidencing that the said office holds ISD registration and issued required invoices as prescribed there under, it has to be presumed that the services have not been received and used by the assesee in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. Thus, Cenvat Credit on the said invoices is not eligible to the assesee under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
(b) In respect of Invoice dt.03.07.2015 issued by M/s Strategic International, 14-2-340, Pan Mandi, Agapura, Hyderabad pertaining to claiming of charges for Business Support services involving input service credit of Rs. 29,766/-, it is observed that the invoice is in the name of M/s Link Point Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., thus, it does not pertain to the services provided to M/s Link Autotech Pvt Lt

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

period from April, 2014 to October, 2014 in contravention of the provisions of the Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003″ should not be denied and recovered. This demand was confirmed in the Order-in-Original on this ground alone as below:
“11(3) Wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on inputs/ input services during the SSI exemption during the period i.e., 2014-15:
On verification of the ER-1 returns filed by the assesee, they have started manufacturing activity from December, 2013 and they have availed SSI exemption for the year 2013-14 and also during the year 2014-15. As per the said records, it was observed that they came out of the SSI exemption in the month of October, 2014, but availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 73,571/- during the said period. I find that the assesee has availed SSI exemption from April, 2014 to September, 2014 under Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and also availed Cenvat credit during the said period, which is gross violation of the provisions of Noti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corrigendum regarding TSGST (13th Amendment) Rules, 2018
F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II) Dated:- 20-11-2018 Tripura SGST
GST – States
Tripura SGST
Tripura SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAXES & EXCISE)
NO.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II) Dated, Agartala, the 20th November, 2018
CORRIGENDUM
In the notification of the Government of Tripura, in the Finance Department, No.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II), dated the 3rd November, 2018, published in the Tripura Gaz

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PRISM CEMENT LTD Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR CGST C.E & C. C-BHOPAL
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1035 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
E/50161, 50421/2018-EX(DB) – Final Order No: 53303-53304/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) and Mr. Ajay sharma, Member (Judicial)
Smt. Sukriti Das, Adv for the appellant
Shri M.R.Sharma,(DR) for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Bijay Kumar
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the common order as the issue involved in both the appeals are identical in nature
2. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the Cenvat Credit has been denied to them towards outward transportation charge under GTA service for the period in January, 2005 to December, 2011 and July, 2013 to February, 2016.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker falling under chapter heading 25 of the First Schedule to the Cent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

up to period March, 2008, the definition of input service contained the phrase “from the place of removal”. The Cenvat credit availability “From place of removal” has been settled in their favour in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 17/1/2018 and 5/2/2018 in case of CCE vs. Vasavaddatta Cement Ltd., 2018(11) GSTL3 (SC) and in the case of CC, CE & ST, Guntur vs. The Andhra Sugar Ltd., 2018-TIOL-45-SC-CX.
The definition of the input service during the relevant period is reproduced as under;
(1) ” input service” means any service-
(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an input service, or
(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal,
and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repair of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, adver

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

definition of „input service‟ as existed on that date i.e. it related to unamended definition. Relevant portion of the said circular is as under :
“ISSUE : Up to what stage a manufacturer/consignor can take credit on the service tax paid on goods transport by road?
COMMENTS: This issue has been examined in great detail by the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tri-D)]. In this case, CESTAT has made the following observations :-
“the post sale transport of manufactured goods is not an input for the manufacturer/consignor. The two clauses in the definition of „input services‟ take care to circumscribe input credit by stating that service used in relation to the clearance from the place of removal and service used for outward transportation upto the place of removal are to be treated as input service. The first clause does not mention transport service in particular. The second clause restricts transpor

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

transport of goods up to the place of removal and not beyond that.
In this connection, the phrase „place of 8.2 removal‟ needs determination taking into account the facts of an individual case and the applicable provisions. The phrase „place of removal‟ has not been defined in CENVAT Credit Rules. In terms of sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the said rules, if any words or expressions are used in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and are not defined therein but are defined in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994, they shall have the same meaning for the CENVAT Credit Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. The phrase „place of removal‟ is defined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It states that, –
 “place of removal” means –
(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods;
(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the Service Tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place.”
11. As can be seen from the reading of the aforesaid portion of the circular, the issue was examined after keeping in mind judgments of CESTAT in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tribunal) and M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 2007 (6) S.T.R. 364 (Tri.- Ahd.). Those judgments, obviously, dealt with unamended Rule

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that Cenvat Credit on goods transport agency service availed for transport of goods from place of removal to buyer‟s premises was not admissible to the respondent. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Order-in-Original dated August 22, 2011 of the Assessing Officer is restored.
7. It was further contended while Ld. Advocate that the demand is not sustainable for period beyond normal period of limitation (one year) on the ground that there was wide spread confusion about the availability of Cenvat Credit on this score.
They have acted in accordance with the provision of the law as prevalent during the relevant time. The issue was contentious issue and which has resulted into the various conflicting judgements from the various judicial fora including High Courts and Supreme Court such as;
10 September 2004
The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were brought into force vide Notification N

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

upra)
18 May 2009
ABB Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23(Tri-LB)
The Larger Bench held that transportation of final product must be considered in light of the requirement of the business.
15 June 2009
The Department accepted the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and decided not to file an SLP.
23 March 2011
CCE v. ABB Ltd., 2011(23) S.T.R.97(Kar.)
The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the decision of the larger bench in ABB (supra).
6 April 2011
CCE v. Parth Poly Woven Pvt. Ltd. 2012(25) S.T.R 4(Guj)
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that transportation of finished goods is inextricably linked with the manufactured process.
3 October 2012
Commissioner vs Grey Gold Cement Ltd., 2014(34) S.T.R. 809(A.P)
The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed the order of the larger bench in ABB ltd.
18 November 2012
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, 2014(35) S.T.R. 752(Tri-Del.)
The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the Assessee would be entitled to credit if the sales

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ment Ltd., 2016(44) S.T.R. 227(Kar)
The Hon'ble High Court held that credit on FOR destination sales is admissible Appealed before SC (Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016)
17 January 2018
CCE, Belgaumn vs. Vasavadatta Cement Ltd., 2018(11)GSTL 3(SC)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the credit would be admissible for the period prior to the amendment in 2008
-01 February 2018
CCE & ST vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2018(9) GSTL 337(SC)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that credit is inadmissible for the period after the amendment in 2008
05 February 2018
 
Commissioner vs. The Andhra Sugar Ltd., 2018 TIOL 45 SC CX
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the credit would be admissible for the period prior to the amendment in 2008
8. Ld. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the various decisions of High Courts and Tribunal, were also in the favour of appellant, and therefore, in such a circumstances it cannot be held that the appellant had any malafide intention to avail the Cenva

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Back office support services for overseas clients, like payroll processing, are subject to GST, including post-transaction services.
Notes
GST
Levy of GST on providing back office support ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Levy of GST on providing back office support services, payroll processing, to main records of employees and after finalization of purchase / sale between the client and its customers.
Section 13 – Place of supply of services where location of supplier or location of recipient is outside India. INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
GST
Act-Rules
Dated:- 19-11-2018
Section 2 – Definitions.
Section 13 – Place of supply of services where location of supplier or location of recipient is outside India.
INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
2018 (11) TMI 959 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
Levy of GST – palace of supply of services – providing back office services to overseas clients – scope of the definition and ter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s of employees to overseas companies i.e. clients and after finalization of purchase / sale between the client and its customers.
Applicant is clearly covered and falls within in the definition of an intermediary as defined under the IGST Act. – Section 13(8) of the IGST is applicable in this case to determine place of supply – In the instant case and as per the applicant's own admission, the applicant is supplier of services. – The place of supply in case of services provided by the applicant being intermediary would be the location of supplier of services.
To qualify a transaction of supply of services as export of services that transaction has to satisfy all five ingredients of the definition of export of services simultaneously. In th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Prototyping Services in India Subject to IGST Despite Zero-Rated Supply Status Due to Local Provision.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of IGST – Zero-rated supply – the said services of testing of the pro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant Liable for IGST on Lottery Tickets via Reverse Charge Mechanism u/s 5(3) of IGST Act 2017.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of IGST u/s 5 (3) of IGST act, 2017 – supply of lottery tickets by the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Applies to DFIA License Transactions; Distinct from Duty Credit Scrips and Not Classified as Such.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Sale and/or Purchase of DFIA licenses – DFIA is distinguisha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penal Interest on EMI Defaults is Taxable Supply Under GST; Subject to GST as Supply of Services.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – collected penal interest for default in repayment of EMI – The ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Applies to Education and Training Programs by Cooperative Centers; No Exemption for These Services Under GST Rules.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – education and training programmes conducted

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DISCOUNTS Credit Notes
Query (Issue) Started By: – BALAKRRISHNA PATNAIK Dated:- 19-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 21-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
My co. operating Super distributor set up, where in My Co. Invoices to the Super distributors also we some time ask to supply to selected supply in discounted rate. The price difference being claimed to us by super distributors.
My question is while settling of the price difference claim as a Mfg co. can we take GST on such price difference ?
please respond.
Thanks
Balakrrishna Patnaik
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Yes, you can take GST benefit on the discount amount given by you. The condition is the buyer has to reverse the input tax credit claimed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

w the GST impact on this transaction.
Thanks & Best regards,
Balakrishna Patnaik
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
If there is an agreement between the parties regarding to discount then such discount may be given. No time limit is in law for this. Earlier is advisable.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Restriction on taking input tax credit on purchase invoice /debit note is given in section 16. However, the word credit note is not mentioned in it. Hence, I am also of the view that discount can be given in the timlines as mentioned in your query.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
In view of section 34 which states as under :
(2) Any registered person who issues 2[one or more credit notes for supplies made in a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =