Goods and Services Tax

2018 (8) TMI 1277 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 486 (Guj.) – CENVAT credit – inputs attributable to manufacture of exempted final products – reversal of CENVAT credit – Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Since the assessee had reversed the cenvat credit with interest, no further adverse consequence should follow – This Court in case of Commissioner v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd [2008 (9) TMI 87 – HIGH COURT GUJARAT] has observed that reversal of credit amounts to non-availment – tax appeal dismissed. – R/TAX APPEAL NO. 627 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 629 of 2018 Dated:- 14-6-2018 – MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr Nirzar Desai (2058) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESH

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e assessee is a manufacturer of ceramic products. These are byproducts and is called body clay powder which envisages nil rate of duty. The assessee did not maintain separate accounts and initially availed cenvat credit on the exempt product also. However, subsequently, it appears that such credit so availed was reversed with interest. The department however still objected to such procedure. 3. The appellate authority and the Tribunal held that since the assessee had reversed the cenvat credit with interest, no further adverse consequence should follow. We notice that this Court in case of Commissioner v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd reported in 232 ELT 580 has observed that reversal of credit amounts to non-availment. 4. We do not find any error in t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E.V. RADHA KRISHNA KURUP Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, GST COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK, NEW DELHI AND THE COMMISSIONER, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KARAMANA, KERALA – 2018 (7) TMI 1829 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 8 (Ker.) – Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 – Input tax credit – It is alleged by the petitioner that though he has attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time, he was not able to do so on account of some system error – Held that:- It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an application before the additional sixth respondent, the Nodal Officer app

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time, he was not able to do so on account of some system error. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions so as to enable him to take credit of the input tax available to him at the time of migration. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the orders passed in similar matters, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an application before the additional sixth respondent, the Nodal Officer appointed to resolve issues in the nature of one raised by the petitioner. Or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (7) TMI 1336 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Demand of Interest and penalty – CENVAT Credit availed in respect of common services, which were relatable to their second unit, which was not a registered ISD, is reversed – Held that:- Reliance placed in the case of CCE & ST, LTU Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it is held that if the excess credit availed remained as paper entry and was not utilised, no interest liability would arise.
–
Penalty – Held that:- This is a case of bona fide availment of credit and inasmuch as the issue also stands decided in favour of the assessee, it cannot be held to be a case of any mala fide so as to attract penal provisions – penalty also not warranted.
–
Appe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cannot avail the credit in respect of services relatable to their other unit. Accordingly, the appellant reversed the credit of ₹ 4,33,360/-, which was proportionately belonging to their other unit. 2. In the above background, proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of interest and for imposition of penalty resulting in passing of the present impugned orders. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants draws my attention to Tribunal s decision in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad – 2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein it was held that distribution of the credit without taking registration as input service distributed cannot be held to be as irregular. The said decision stands confirmed by the Hon ble Gu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ms of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court s decision in the case of CCE & ST, LTU Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.). As regards penalty, he submits that inasmuch as issue on merits stands decided in their favour, it is not a case of any mala fide so as to impose penalty. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings. 5. As the demand is not being challenged by the appellant, I uphold the confirmation of the same. As regards interest, I find that the lower authorities have relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Indo Swift Laboratories which decision stands considered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it stands held tha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (7) TMI 1065 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 309 (Guj.) , 2018 (361) E.L.T. 966 (Guj.) – CENVAT Credit – service tax paid on sales commission – amendments in relevant statutory provisions – Held that:- A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Surat-I,[2016 (4) TMI 232 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD] had held that such amendments were clarificatory in nature and therefore even with respect to cases arising prior to the amendment service tax paid on sales commission would be eligible for cenvat credit. It was noticed that such judgement of the Tribunal has been carried in appeal by the department before the High Court – such appeal is admitted and is pending [2016 (6) TMI 1305 – GUJA

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

umber of appeals came to be disposed of. Case of the department is that the issue is already decided by this Court in favour of the department in case of C.C.E vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd reported in [2013] 30 STR 3 which was later on followed in Astik Dyestuff Private Limited vs. C.C.E & Cus. reported in [2014] 34 STR 814. According to the department therefore, the Tribunal should have followed such judgement. Before the Tribunal however, it was pointed out that subsequently, there were amendments in the relevant statutory provision. A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Surat-I, had held that such amendments were clarificatory in nature and therefore even with respect to cases

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Division Bench judgement when the matter is on board of the High Court. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and ors vs. C.C, Jamnagar-2017 (6) TMI-569-CESTAT Ahmedabad following the principle laid down by the Larger Bench, disposed of the matters, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the cases pending before the higher forum. Following the said judgement, the present appeals are also disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal soon after the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending Appeal against the Division Bench judgement of this Tribunal in Essar Steel India Ltd.'s case (supra) filed by the Revenue. Needless to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (7) TMI 908 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit – closure of production due to fire accident – Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- The combined reading of both these provisions makes it clear that the refund of Cenvat Credits on inputs is admissible where such inputs have been used in the final product for export – But the fact of the present case is that the Appellant unit had stopped the manufacturing activity due to a fire accident in their premises and the refund has also been claimed solely on the said basis of the balance lying unutilized in their Cenvat Credit account. Thus, admittedly and apparently, appellant's case is not covered by the above said provisions.
–
In the present case, admittedly, there is no manufacture subject to the closure of the company. Hence, the refund in furtherance of Rule 5 is not available.
–
Since there is no provision under Cenvat Credit Rules, 200

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central Excise Tariffs Act, 1985 since the year 2005 and has, accordingly, been registered. The duty paid raw material, mainly Acrylonitrile/input used be procured by the Appellant which was chargeable to duty at the rate of 16%. However, the finished goods were chargeable to the duty at the rate of 8%. In the year 2007, due to a fire accident in the Appellant's factory, their manufacturing activities stopped. Due to the aforesaid variation in the duty ranged, huge amount of unutilized Cenvat Credit remained in the books of account. Accordingly, the Appellant had requested for refund of the said unutilized Cenvat Credit in cash and the demand was rejected by both the adjudicating authorities. 2. We have heard both the parties. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, while relying upon the Union of India vs. M/s Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.) has impressed upon that the assessee must be given refund on unutilized Cenvat Credit if he has stopped manu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r used in the intermediate products cleared for export, the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government by notification: Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims a rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty. 4. Also is relevant the Provision 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides for claim for refund of duty 5. The combined reading of both these provisions makes it clear that the refund of Cenvat Credits on inputs is admissible where

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

-LB, both decided by a common order dated 15.05.2011 of this Tribunal, wherein the adjudication of the Hon'ble High Court in Raipur vs. M/s Heera Cement 2006-TIOL-08-SC-CESTAT was relied upon to hold that non-filing of appeal by revenue (as it was in Slovac India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. case) is not a bar for scrutiny in another case. It was also held as follows: "A distinction between provisions of statute which are of substantive character and are built in with certain specific objectives of policy, on the one hand, and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished. An eligibility criteria to get refund calls for a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning of the same is directory in nature. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does al/ that can be reasonably

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (7) TMI 882 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, CHHATTISGARH – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 544 (A. A. R. – GST) – Liability of tax/GST – place of supply – manpower supply services to NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Input Tax Credit – Levy of IGST or CGST and SGST – intrastate or interstate transaction?
–
Held that:- In terms of section 96,103(1) (a) and 103 (1) (b) of CGGST Act, 2017 Authority for Advance Ruling, Chhattisgarh is not the proper authority to pronounce the ruling regarding the availability or otherwise of ITC to a firm which is registered and situated at a place outside the State of Chhattisgarh – Similarly, section 97(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that ruling as regards time and value of supply of goods or services or both, can only be raised before AAR for advance ruling. It is precisely for this very reason also, that determination of place of supply has been kept out of the purview of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) stipulated under the provisions of se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

c. If the applicant charge IGST on such transaction considering the transaction as interstate; will the IGST charged, be available as input tax credit to M/s NBPPL against their output tax liability subject to Section 17(5). 2. Facts of the case:- I. The applicant M/s Utility Powertech Ltd., Sipat, Bilaspur, (C.G.) having multiple registrations under GST in various States has been awarded a contract for manpower supply at Mannavaram (Andhra Pradesh) by M/s NTPC BHEL Power Project Pvt. Ltd., [NBPPL], Mannavaram (Andhra Pradesh). II. M/s Utility Powertech Ltd., C.G. procures manpower for NTPC Power Project, Mannavaram (A.P.) and deputes such manpower at Mannavaram. III. Thus M/s Utility Powertech Ltd.,Sipat, Bilaspur(C.G.) is the supplier of services and M/s NBPPL Mannavaram (A.P.) is the recipient of such services. 3. Contention of the applicant:- Since the applicant is registered at Bilaspur (C.G.) and their place of supply is at a place outside the State of Chhattisgarh, the applicant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

invoices charging IGST, upon NBPPl and wants to have an advance ruling as to whether the IGST so charged on such invoices issued by them will be available as ITC, to M/s NBPPL against their output liability. Now we sequentially discuss the provisions that are applicable in the present case:- U/s. 96 of CGGST Act, 2017:-Authority for advance ruling- Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, for the purposes of this Act, the Authority for advance ruling constituted under the provisions of a State Goods and Services Tax Act or Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act shall be deemed to be the Authority for advance ruling in respect of that State or Union territory. U/s 97(2) of CGGST Act, 2017:- The question, on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of- (a) classification of any goods or services or both; (b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act; (c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or bot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

invoices issued to NTPC BHEL Power Project Pvt. Ltd., Mannavaram (Andhra Pradesh). (ii) Availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to NTPC BHEL Power Project Pvt. Ltd., Mannavaram (Andhra Pradesh) regarding IGST charged by the applicant. 5.2 Thus the applicant has sought advance ruling on determination of tax liability to pay tax on manpower service which in fact is very much directly linked to place of supply in the instant case. Further advance ruling has also been sought by the applicant on the availability of ITC to M/s NTPC BHEL Power Project Pvt. Ltd., Mannavaram (Andhra Pradesh), which is registered in Andhra Pradesh on the said tax liability at Andhra Pradesh, i.e. at a place outside the State of Chhattisgarh. 5.3 In terms of section 96,103(1) (a) and 103 (1) (b) of CGGST Act, 2017 Authority for Advance Ruling, Chhattisgarh is not the proper authority to pronounce the ruling regarding the availability or otherwise of ITC to a firm which is registered and situated at a place outside

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – F-10-28/2018/CT/V (44)-26/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – Commercial Tax Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Naya Raipur, Dated 14th June, 2018 Notification No. 26/2018-State Tax No. F-10-28/2018/CT/V (44). – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:- (1) These rules may be called the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, they shall come into force on the date of issue of this notification. 2. In the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, – (i) in rule 37, in sub-rule (1), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :- Provided further that the value of supplies on account of any amount added in accordance with the provisions of clause (b)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Total turnover shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in sub-rule (4). (iv) with effect from 1st July, 2017, in rule 95, in sub-rule (3), for clause (a), the following shall be substituted, namely :- (a) the inward supplies of goods or services or both were received from a registered person against a tax invoice; ; (v) in rule 97, in sub-rule (1), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :- Provided further that an amount equivalent to fifty percent. of the amount of cess determined under sub-section (5) of section 54 read with section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (15 of 2017), shall be deposited in the Fund. ; (vi) in rule 133, for sub-rule (3), the following shall be substituted, namely :- (3) Where the Authority determines that a registered person has not passed on the benefit of the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit to the recipient by way of comm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ans the State in respect of which the Authority passes an order. ; (vii) in rule 138, in sub-rule (14), after clause (n), the following clause shall be inserted, namely :- (o) where empty cylinders for packing of liquefied petroleum gas are being moved for reasons other than supply. ; (viii) in FORM GSTR-4, in the Instructions, for Sl. No. 10, the following shall be substituted, namely :- 10. For the tax periods July, 2017 to September, 2017, October, 2017 to December, 2017, January, 2018 to March, 2018 and April, 2018 to June, 2018, serial 4A of Table 4 shall not be furnished. ; (ix) with effect from 1st July, 2017, in FORM GST PCT-01, in PART B, (a) against Sl. No. 4, after entry (10), the following shall be inserted, namely :- (11) Sales Tax practitioner under existing law for a period of not less than five years (12) tax return preparer under existing law for a period of not less than five years ; (b) after the Consent , the following shall be inserted, namely :- Declaration I here

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. Details of invoices of outward supplies in case refund is claimed by supplier/Details of invoices of inward supplies in case refund is claimed by recipient Tax paid GSTIN of the supplier No. Date Taxable Value Integrated Tax Central Tax State Tax/Union Territory Tax Cess 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (xi) in FORM GST RFD-01A, in Annexure-1, (a) for Statement 1A, the following Statement shall be substituted, namely : – "Statement 1A [see rule 89 (2)(h)] Refund Type : ITC accumulated due to inverted tax structure [clause (ii) of first proviso to section 54(3)] Sl.No. Details of invoices of inward supplies received Tax paid on inward supplies Details of invoices of outward supplies issued Tax paid on outward supplies GSTIN of the supplier No. Date Taxable Value Integrated Tax Central Tax State Tax/Union Territory Tax No. Date Taxable Value Integrated Tax Central Tax State Tax/Union Territory Tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (b) for Statement 5B, the following Statement shall be substituted

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – FTX.56/2017/Pt-I/110 – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Date: The 14th June, 2018 No.FTX.56/2017/Pt-I/110.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Assam Act No. XXVIII of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the "said Act), the Governor of Assam, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the late fee payable under sect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – F.NO.FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08 (Pt-1)/163 – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES NAGALAND: DIMAPUR NOTIFICATION F.NO.FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08 (PT-1)/163 Dated Dimapur, the 14th June, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 99 of the Nagaland Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (4 of 2017) the State Government, hereby constitutes an Authority known as "The Nagaland Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax&qu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 814 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of CENVAT credit – export of services – rejection on the ground that they had not debited the CENVAT credit amount from their books of accounts at the time of making the claim as required – It is further alleged that the refund claim amount was not reflected in the Service Tax returns filed by the appellant during the relevant period and the general ledger of the assesse to show that the duty has been debited cannot be considered as evidence, it being a private record.
–
Held that:- It is clear that N/N. 05/2006 – CE (NT) lays down that the amount claimed as refund of CENVAT amount should be debited before applying for the Refund and the appellant had not done so. They have debited the amount, but much later and thereby they violated the condition 2(h) of the notification. The Adjudicating Authority had, therefore, rejected the refund and the First Appellate Authority has upheld the Order-in- Original and rejected the appeal – It

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f their turnover is export of services and hence they accumulated CENVAT credit. They had filed an application under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to claim refund of CENVAT credit in proportion to their export services. These claims were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that they had not debited the CENVAT credit amount from their books of accounts at the time of making the claim as required. It is further alleged that the refund claim amount was not reflected in the Service Tax returns filed by the appellant during the relevant period and the general ledger of the assesse to show that the duty has been debited cannot be considered as evidence, it being a private record. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Original Authority. The present appeal is against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Learned Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant and explaine

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

7/- 10,32,532/- 5,39,822/- CENVAT reversed in revised ST-3 for the period April 16 to Sept 16 Refer Page 49 Table I 3 Refer Page 49 Table I 3 Reduced Opening CENVAT credit Refer Page 35 (rear side) Table I 3 15. Appeal Order Date 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 11/12/2017 It is his submission that the appellant was under mistaken belief that the debit in their books of accounts had to be done after one year from the end of the quarter for which the refund claim is filed and they have done so. The refund claim, however, was filed before the end of one year. He further said that the appellant had mistakenly not entered these details in ST-3 returns but had subsequently filed revised the returns rectifying the defects. It is his further submission that the appellant is largely an exporter with a very small turnover in the domestic sector and hence always had accumulated CENVAT credit. It is his submission that due to ignorance, the appellant had not claimed refund of service tax during the previous

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Authority and the First Appellate Authority they have not taken back the credit CENVAT in their accounts. He relied upon the following judgments and orders. i) Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Vs. Covergys India (P.) Ltd., [2009 (21) STT 67 (NEW DELHI -CESTAT)] ii) Kothari Infotech Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat [2013 (38)taxmann.com 298 (Ahmedabad – CESTAT)] iii) Manubhai & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2011 (21) STR 65 (Ahmedabad – CESTAT)] iv) Wipro Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2013 (32) taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)] v) Commissioner of Central Excise-I Vs. SG Analytics (P.) Ltd., [2016 (72) taxmann.com 180 (Mumbai – CESTAT)] vi) Indago Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune [2016 (69) taxmann.com 199 (Mumbai – CESTAT)] vii) Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune Vs. Prodair Air Products India (P.) Ltd., [2016 (71) taxmann.com 358 (Mumbai – CESTAT)] 6. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, vehemently opposed the appeal and sai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d before the Parliament and is scrutinised by the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation and where, it feels, necessary, modified. Thus, it is clear that: a) The legislation is the exclusive privilege of the Legislature; b) When the legislature delegates powers to make Rules, Regulations, issue notifications, etc., such delegation is done to the Government which is answerable to the Legislature any and c) All delegated legislations are, through a well laid down process, placed before the legislature and scrutinised by it and where it feels necessary, amended as per its directions. 8. Of course, High Courts and Supreme Court who have the mandate to interpret the Constitution, review the legislation for its constitutionality, etc., which is another additional check on the legislation. However, neither the officers enforcing the law nor the quasi-judicial authorities including the Tribunals (which are creations of the law) have the power to modify, amend, insert, delete, stret

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to that effect. We shall assume for the purposes of this appeal that it is so, notwithstanding the fact that the said question is now pending before a larger Constitution Bench of nine Judges along with the issue relating to unjust enrichment. Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. May be the High Court or a Civil Court is not bound by the said provi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion No.05/2006 – CE (NT) prescribing the conditions, limitations and safeguards read as follows: Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No. 5/2006 -C.E. (N.T.) [5. Refund of CENVAT Credit. – (1) A manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking, or a service provider who provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed refund of CENVAT credit as determined by the following formula subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette: Refund amount = (Export turnover of goods+ Export turnover of services) x Net CENVAT credit/Total turnover Where,- (A) "Refund amount" means the maximum refund that is admissible; (B) "Net CENVAT credit" means total CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or the output service provide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xported; (b) export turnover of services determined in terms of clause (D) of sub-rule (1) above and the value of all other services, during the relevant period; and (c) all inputs removed as such under sub-rule (5) of rule 3 against an invoice, during the period for which the claim is filed. (2) This rule shall apply to exports made on or after the 1st April, 2012: Provided that the refund may be claimed under this rule, as existing, prior to the commencement of the CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2012, within a period of one year from such commencement: Provided further that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty; or claims rebate of service tax under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 in respect of such tax. Explanation 1.- For the purp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dit shall be allowed subject to the procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations as specified below, namely:-. 2.0 Safeguards, conditions and limitations.- Refund of CENVAT Credit under rule 5 of the said rules, shall be subjected to the following safeguards, conditions and limitations, namely:- (a) the manufacturer or provider of output service shall submit not more than one claim of refund under this rule for every quarter: provided that a person exporting goods and service simultaneously, may submit two refund claims one in respect of goods exported and other in respect of the export of services every quarter. (b) in this notification quarter means a period of three consecutive months with the first quarter beginning from 1st April of every year, second quarter from 1st July, third quarter from 1st October and fourth quarter from 1st January of every year. (c) the value of goods cleared for export during the quarter shall be the sum total of all the goods cleared by the exporte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

imant from his CENVAT credit account at the time of making the claim. (i) In case the amount of refund sanctioned is less than the amount of refund claimed, then the claimant may take back the credit of the difference between the amount claimed and amount sanctioned. 3.0 Procedure for filing the refund claim. – (a) The manufacturer or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall submit an application in Form A annexed to the notification, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, in whose jurisdiction,- (i) the factory from which the final products are exported is situated. (ii) the registered premises of the provider of service from which output services are exported is situated. (b) The application in the Form A along with the documents specified therein and enclosures relating to the quarter for which refund is being claimed shall be filed by the claimant, before the expiry of the period specified in sectio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

m is incorrect or insufficient and further enquiry needs to be caused before the sanction of refund claim. (g) At the time of sanctioning the refund claim the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself or herself in respect of the correctness of the claim and the fact that goods cleared for export or services provided have actually been exported and allow the claim of exporter of goods or services in full or part as the case may be. It is clear that, notification lays down that the amount claimed as refund of CENVAT amount should be debited before applying for the Refund and the appellant had not done so. They have debited the amount, but much later and thereby they violated the condition 2(h) of the notification. The Adjudicating Authority had, therefore, rejected the refund and the First Appellate Authority has upheld the Order-in- Original and rejected the appeal. I have considered the argument of the Learned Chartered Accountant of the appellant that it was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 786 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – inputs – Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as goods were not received in the factory on or after first day of March 2001, the appellant would not be entitled to avail the credit of the same, in terms of the new provisions of Rule 57AB introduced vide N/N. 6/2001-CE(NT) – Held that:- When the inputs were received in the assessee’s factory in Jan. and Feb. 2001, they were admittedly entitled to avail the credit of duty paid thereon. Had they taken the credit in Jan. and Feb, itself, there would have been no objection by the Revenue. In fact, the said inputs were duly entered by them in their input records and it was only taking of credit which was deferred. As such, it can be seen that it is a case where the appellant had earned the credit and has become entitled to the same and only making entries in RG-23A Part-II were delayed/left. As such, it is a case of correction of records and has no bearing on the appellant’s en

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the manufacture of motor vehicles and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs. 2. Its so happened that during the period Jan. 2001 and Feb. 2001, the appellant received certain duty paid inputs which were duly entered in their records. As per the appellant, the credit could not be availed during the said period, immediately on receipt of the inputs but the same was availed in the month of March 2001. With effect from 1.3.2001, the provisions of Rule 57AB, which enabled the appellant to avail the credit were amended and a new sub-clause 5 was entered vide which the National Calamity Contingent Duty, which was introduced for the first time with effect from 1.3.2001, also became Cenvatable. In this scenario, the said rule provided that all the types of duties mentioned in Rule 57AB including National Calamity Contingent Duty paid on the inputs received in the factory on or after the first day of March 2001, would be available as credit. 3. Though, the cr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d in Jan. and Feb. 2001, Revenue was of the view that the appellant would not be entitled to the credit. I note that when the inputs were received in the assessee s factory in Jan. and Feb. 2001, they were admittedly entitled to avail the credit of duty paid thereon. Had they taken the credit in Jan. and Feb, itself, there would have been no objection by the Revenue. In fact, the said inputs were duly entered by them in their input records and it was only taking of credit which was deferred. As such, it can be seen that it is a case where the appellant had earned the credit and has become entitled to the same and only making entries in RG-23A Part-II were delayed/left. As such, it is a case of correction of records and has no bearing on the appellant s entitlement to take credit. 5. Further, I also find that the amended provisions talks about taking of credit in respect of inputs received on or after 1.3.2001 inasmuch as National Calamity Contingent Duty was imposed for the first time

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 675 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – duty paying invoices – invoices did not contain the mandatory details – demand of tax with interest and penalty – Held that:- Nothing is brought out from the records to show that the appellant has not availed the services or has not paid the impugned service tax amounts. The only allegation is that the required details are not reflecting from the invoices – The invoice having been supplied by the service provider, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax on this allegation.
–
There is no evidence necessary to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the equal penalty imposed cannot sustain – service tax demand with interest upheld – appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. ST/40939/2018 – Final Order No. 41801 / 2018 – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Sh. S.K.Venugo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e proper, only for the limited extent of buying peace with the department as well as not to go into further litigations, the appellant is confining the contest to the penalty imposed. He submitted that the appellant had availed the services of real estate agent for purchase of land from real estate agent and credit was availed to the tune of ₹ 60,550/- in this regard. Further, service was received for settling up dispute for which an amount of ₹ 51,500/- was availed as credit. For the mere reason that the invoices did not contain the necessary particulars of the service provider, the department has sought to deny the credit. He submitted that the appellant had furnished the input service distributor invoices as well as the details of the credit availed which has not been considered by the authorities below. He adverted to proviso to Rule 9(2) and argued that in case of invoices not containing necessary particulars, the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner if satisfied whether th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

th regard to the eligibility of credit, has then submitted that they are confining their contest to the penalty imposed. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that the only allegation raised is that the invoices issued by the service provider did not contain necessary details. It is also seen from the records that the Range Officer, Palayamkottai was called for to scrutinize and report about the said two invoices. Nothing is brought out from the records to show that the appellant has not availed the services or has not paid the impugned service tax amounts. The only allegation is that the required details are not reflecting from the invoices. The invoice having been supplied by the service provider, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax on this allegation. I find that there is no evidence necessary to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the equ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 48/22/2018 – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – Circular No. 48/22/2018-GST F. No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing New Delhi, Dated the 14th June, 2018 To, The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/ The Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All) Madam/Sir, Subject: Clarifications of certain issues under GST- regarding Representations have been received seeking clarification on certain issues under the GST laws. The same have been examined and the clarifications on the same are as below: Sl. No. Issue Clarification 1. Whether services of short-term accommodation, conferencing, banqueting etc. provided to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer or a SEZ unit should be treated as an inter-State supply (under section 7(5)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017) or an intra-State supply (under section

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

goods or services or both made to a SEZ developer or a SEZ unit, which states that such supplies shall be treated as inter-State supplies. 1.4 It is therefore, clarified that services of short term accommodation, conferencing, banqueting etc., provided to a SEZ developer or a SEZ unit shall be treated as an inter-State supply. 2. Whether the benefit of zero rated supply can be allowed to all procurements by a SEZ developer or a SEZ unit such as event management services, hotel and accommodation services, consumables etc? 2.1 As per section 16(1) of the IGST Act, zero rated supplies means supplies of goods or services or both to a SEZ developer or a SEZ unit. Whereas, section 16(3) of the IGST Act provides for refund to a registered person making zero rated supplies under bond/LUT or on payment of integrated tax, subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be prescribed. Further, as per the second proviso to rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

commodation services, consumables etc. are received by a SEZ developer or a SEZ unit for authorised operations, as endorsed by the specified officer of the Zone, the benefit of zero rated supply shall be available in such cases to the supplier. 3. Whether independent fabric processors (job workers) in the textile sector supplying job work services are eligible for refund of unutilized input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure under section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, even if the goods (fabrics) supplied are covered under notification No. 5/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017? 3.1 Notification No. 5/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 specifies the goods in respect of which refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on account of inverted duty structure under section 54(3) of the CGST Act shall not be allowed where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies of such goods. However, in case o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – Started By: – Neel Shah – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 28-6-2018 – Hello,we are a merchandise Exporters from India, as Now a days we have facility to get 1% GST Supplier bill and we can do export on that, we did export consignment already sailed and we forget to put manufacturers details in Shipping bill as we could get refund according to it, so now if we want to add his invoice in Shipping bill what we can do? reply me as we are in too much tensions all experts, help us out

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Central Goods and Services Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2018 – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Goods which may be disposed off by the proper officer after its seizure under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – myGSTzone Expert – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 13-6-2018 – The Goods and Service Tax Council has planned to make it mandatory for the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) to be manned by senior revenue officials. An AAR is a quasi-judicial body. The rulings bring certainty in determining tax liability that is binding on both the applicant as well as the Government Authorities. The advance ruling is inexpensive, simple and expeditious. The Government proposed the idea to revamp the AAR by establishing either a centralized authority or four regional authorities. The aim is to avoid contradicting and condescending AAR rulings by different benches and to ensure orders based on legal principles. S

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – ROHIT GOEL – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 21-6-2018 – Hi Sir, As per sec 18(6) of CGST Act 2017, when capital goods on which ITC has been taken are sold, then the assessee should pay: a) ITC taken earlier after reduction of prescribed percentage points OR b) tax on transaction value on sale whichever is higher. Further as per Rule 40(2) of CGST Rules: (2) The amount of credit in the case of supply of capital goods or plant and machinery, for the purposes of sub-section (6) of section 18, shall be calculated by reducing the input tax on the said goods at the rate of five percentage points for every quarter or part thereof from the date of the issue of the invoice for such goods. However, Rule

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to remaining useful life= C multiplied by 5/60 (6) The amount of input tax credit for the purposes of sub-section (6) of section 18 relating to capital goods shall be determined in the same manner as specified in clause (b) of subrule (1) and the amount shall be determined separately for input tax credit of 3[central tax, State tax, Union territory tax and integrated tax] My query is which Rule is to be followed in such case? Whether the credit to be reversed or paid will be determined as 5% per quarter or on the basis of useful life of 60 months since there will be differences in both of the two methods? – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir, In my point of view, in your case Rule 40(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 is applicable, as it is with r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Lakshminarayanan TR – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 26-6-2018 – Dear all I would like to check the experience in this group with regards refund claims especially refund of IGST paid on export of services. Despite, we have filed manual GST RFD 01 A form with FIRC during last refund drive held in March 2018, we have not made any progress nor we had acknowledgment in form RFD 02 yet. No deficiencies communicated yet as well. Please share your experience, also you guys experience (% of refund value) undercutting demand in the process. If so how to legitimate challenge the same. best regards TRL – Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan – The Reply = Sir, Section 54 (10) & (11) of CGST Act, 2017 provi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression specified date shall mean the last date for filing an appeal under this Act. and Section 54 (11) Where an order giving rise to a refund is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceedings or where any other proceedings under this Act is pending and the Commissioner is of the opinion that grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue in the said appeal or other proceedings on account of malfeasance or fraud committed, he may, after giving the taxable person an opportunity of being heard, withhold the refund till such time as he may determine. Since you have filed the refund cliam in form GST RFD 01 A you have to contact the officer with whom you have filed the ref

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Lakshminarayanan TR – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 6-12-2018 – HiCould any of our experts in the group help us get detailed procedure for Job Work done for overseas customer? Raw Material will be supplied by the foreign buyer, right from import of that raw material till supply of finished goods to overseas buyer, what are various compliance to be kept in mind. Your valuable insights are greatly appreciated.best regardsTRL – Reply By YAGAY and SUN

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 13-6-2018 – The Government has launched the second Special Drive Refund Fortnight from 31.5.2018 to 14.6.2018. During the first Refund Fortnight from 15th to 29th March an amount of ₹ 5350 crore was sanctioned and during this fortnight over ₹ 7500 crore has been sanctioned. In view of overwhelming response from exporters and pending claims, the period of Refund fortnight is being extended by two more days i.e up to 16th June, 2018. All exporters whose refunds have been held up on account of short payment are required to make the payment of IGST equal toshort payment and follow the instructions of Circular No.12/2018-Customs dated 29.5.2018. In IGST short payment cases, small exporters whos

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A will not be processed unless a copy of the application, along with all supporting documents, is submitted to the jurisdictional tax office. Mere online submission is not sufficient. All IGST refund claimants may register on ICEGATE website, if not already done, to check their refund status. Customs field formations have been informed about the extension of the Refund Drive. Exporters are requested to make the best of this extended drive and avail of the opportunity to get the refunds sanctioned during this special drive. In case of any problem, exporters are advised to approach the Commissioner of Customs /Jurisdictional Tax Authorities. The Government is committed to clear all the remaining refund claims filed upto 30.04.2018 are still p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Rate of GST – poly propylene non-woven fabrics – since the sale value of non-woven carry bags made of polypropylene is less than ₹ 1,000/- per piece, it will attract tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Supply of services – Works Contract – credit of material bought in pre-GST era – post-implementation situation – The applicant is not entitled under Section 140(6) of the CGST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Supply of services – The work of laying of underground pipeline network falls under the definition of “works contract” provided under Section 2(119) under the CGST Act, 2017 and the GGST Act, 2017 – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – BalKrishan Rakheja – Dated:- 13-6-2018 Last Replied Date:- 14-6-2018 – I imported the inputs under advance authorization before GST implementation. we use 95% imported inputs for manufacturing finished goods and we procure 5% from domestic market on purchase of central excise duty and availed CENVAT credit of this amount. We also purchase goods for manufacturing of similar goods for domestic market and availed cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =