Goods and Services Tax

Vedhas Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1383 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/87105/2018 – A/87227/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for appellant
Shri Dilip Shinde, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
ORDER
Per: S.K. Mohanty
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Audit-Thane. Rejection of refund claim of service tax paid on residential complex service, is the subject matter of the present dispute.
2. The appellant contended that the advance payment received from M/

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the show-cause notice and the appellant was never given any opportunity before adjudication of the matter to find out the contains of the said report. He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal of the appellant in a mechanical way, without considering even after the submissions made before him that the original authority had not provided copy of the report and thus, violated the principles of natural justice.
3. On the other hand, learned D.R appearing for Revenue reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. I find that consequent upon filing of the refund application, the department issued show-cause notice for necessary clarification on c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iew, ends of justice will be met, if the matter is remanded to the original authority for readjudication of refund issue.
6. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the original authority with a direction to supply a copy of the report / statement of the divisional authorities to the appellant and thereafter, to decide the issue based on the documents to be submitted by the appellant in support of its claim that refund benefit should be available to them. Needless to say, that opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant before deciding the issue afresh. Further, the appellant is also directed to co-operate with the original authority for arriving at a proper conclusion regarding

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

3D PLM Software Solutions Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, CE & ST Raigadh
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1382 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/86469 & 86481/2018 – A/87224-87225/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate with Ms. Shraddha Seth, C.A. for appellant
Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
ORDER
Per: S.K. Mohanty
These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing 'Information Technology Service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also considered certain input services for the purpose of refund benefit. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the service tax refund in respect of catering service and rent-a-cab service, on the ground that such service has been used by the appellant for personal consumption of its employees and thus, such service has no nexus with the output service provided by the appellant.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not pressing for denial of refund benefit in respect of rent-a-cab service. However, he contended that catering service was availed and utilized by the appellant as per the H.R. Policy adopted by the appellant Company and such service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vice tax paid in respect of rent-a-cab service, I am of the view that the impugned order denying such refund benefit cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the impugned order sustains, so far as it denied the refund benefit on rent-a-cab service.
6.1 With regard to catering service, the fact is not on dispute that the appellant had availed the services of the caterer for providing the catering facility to its employees, working within its business premises. Since providing catering facilities to the employees within the business premises is as per the Human Resource Policy, adopted by the appellant, the service tax paid on such service, in my opinion, should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of refund benefit. Furth

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Navabharat Ventures Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam – GST
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 739 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Appeal Nos: E/31186/2017 & E/30055/2018 – A/31068-31069/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
[Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.]
1. These two appeals involve a similar issue and are being disposed of together by a common order.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and they stored sugar in godowns outside the factory premises, after paying duty on the same because the place in the factory was not sufficient. Thereafter the appellant had sold the sugar from these godowns. The godowns in question were hired by the appellant and service tax on renting of immovable property was paid on these godowns and appellant had taken credit of the same. Show Cause Notices were issued

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e of final products and clearance of final products “up to the place of removal”. It is to be decided whether the godowns in question are to be treated as places after the point of removal or they are the places of removal. According to the show cause notice the godowns are not part of the place of removal and the removal had already taken place as the duty has been paid before the goods were stored in these godowns. The original authority held that the use of input service must be integrally connected with the manufacture of final product and there must be nexus with the process of the manufacture. He held that in this case, the renting of immovable property services are utilized beyond the factory gate after removal of goods and does not qualify for entitlement of credit. He therefore confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed a penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sec.11AC of the Act. This position of the original authority was upheld by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r factory and stored it in the depots from where the sugar was subsequently sold to the customers. Therefore, the godowns of their factory consequently fall under the definition of place of removal and hence, they are entitled to the credit of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid from renting of immovable property on these godowns. He relied on the following orders:
1) DSCL Sugar Vs CCE, Lucknow [ 2014-34-STR-58-Tri.-Delhi] in which it was held that the godowns of the appellant at Agra and Farrukhabad where the sugar was stored after payment of duty must be considered as place of removal.
2) Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd [2017-47-STR-167-Tri.-Delhi] in which it was held that motor vehicles manufactured and sold to buyer through the depots situated outside factory premises and the depots were treated as the place of removal.
3) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd [2017-3-GSTL-199-Tri.-Chennai] in which CENVAT credit was allowed on the godowns hired to store duty paid sugar outside the factory premi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Royal Line Resources Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam, GST
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 246 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Application No. E/COD/30355/2018 and Appeal No. E/30618/2018 – Final Order No. A/31067/2018
Central Excise
HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri N.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent
ORDER
[ Order Per : P. V. Subba Rao ]
1. The application is filed seeking condonation of a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. As the delay is marginal, I condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant herein is a merchant exporter registered as dealer with the Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. They have filed form ARE1 seeking to export excisable goods viz., Mill scale under claim of rebate of duty from the premises of their supplier M/s Jai Balaji Mine

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

prescribed under notification 19-2004-CE (NT), Dt. 06.09.2004. The revenue felt that the rebate was wrongly sanctioned as the condition in Para 3(b)(i) of notification requires the refund claim to be filed with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, the Maritime Commissioner. In this case, the goods were not cleared from the factory but from the warehouse in Raipur. The refund claim was filed with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, who neither has jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse. He was also not designated as Maritime Commissioner by the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II has been designated as Maritime Commissioner for the purpose of processing and granting rebate claims and not the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III who sanctioned the rebate. An appe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on procedural grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in terms of Para 3(b)(i) of the notification, the officer having jurisdiction over the factory or manufacturer or warehouse can sanction the rebate. The term 'warehouse' under Rule 2(h) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 includes any place registered under Rule 9. The appellant is registered under Rule 9 as a dealer and therefore, the premises of the appellant should be considered as a warehouse and the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-III, Visakhapatnam has jurisdiction over the appellant and hence is entitled to sanction the rebate. Therefore, the rebate was correctly sanctioned and the Order-in-Appeal needs to be set aside. As an alternative argument, he submitted that in terms of second proviso to Sec.35A, if the Commissioner (Appeals) is of the opinion that any duty has been erroneously refunded, no order requiring the appellant to pay the erroneously refunded duty shall be passed unless, the a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Navabharat Ventures Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam –GST Vice-Versa
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 245 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
E/30717/2016, E/31203/2017 , E/31237/2017, E/31283/2017, E/30619/2018 – Final Order No. A/31070-31074/2018
Central Excise
HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Assessee
Smt B.V. Siva Naga Kumari, Commissioner/AR for the Revenue
ORDER
[ Order Per : P. V. Subba Rao ]
1. All these appeals are filed by the Assessee except Appeal No.E/31203/2017 which is filed by the Revenue.
2. These appeals involve a single issue and hence are being disposed of by a common order. The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar. They also manufacture certain other commodities as follows:
a. Dutiable Products – Sugar, Molasses, Denatured Spirit, Fuel Oil, etc., and
b. Exempted Final Products – Organic manure, Rectified Spirit, Bagasse, Bio earth and power.
3.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

imposed penalty as proposed. The appellant's appeals to the first appellate authority have been rejected and hence, these appeals are filed. As far as the appeal filed by the department is concerned, it is alleged in the appeal that the first appellate authority has wrongly demanded a duty @ 6% of value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The show cause notice had only demanded duty proportionate to the value of the exempted goods. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is that the Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-002-APP-043-17- 18, Dt. 21.08.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) may be modified to this extent. The appellant/assessee readily agrees with the prayer of the revenue on this ground.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they have a sugar division which manufactures sugar and produces bagasse and molasses also. They also have a power division which uses bagasse to produce power, part o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal that they failed to maintain separate accounts for availment of credit on input services in respect of dutiable and exempted final products. It has also been alleged that they failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 6 knowingly and availed credit on input services which went into both dutiable and exempted goods. The appellant/assessee contended these assertions on the following grounds:
a. They are maintaining separate books of accounts for each division and have been maintaining records of inputs availed in respect of each unit.
b. The provisions to Rule 6 do not apply to the waste that is generated during the manufacture such as bagasse.
c. The rectified spirit manufactured by them from molasses is an intermediary product for the final product denatured spirit although in some cases, they cleared the rectified spirit as such.
d. The bio-earth or organic manure manufactured by them is also an excisable product and is being cleared on pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed spirit, he concedes that they are liable to reverse credit of input services to the extent the rectified spirit has been cleared as such without payment of duty but not to the extent it has been denatured and cleared on payment of duty. As far as the electricity is concerned, he submits that they have already reversed the input service credit to the extent the electricity has been sold to outsiders. To the extent the electricity has been consumed within the factory, it becomes an intermediary product and not an exempted product and hence, no input service needs to be reversed. He relied on the judgment in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd [2015-(322)-ELT-(769)-(SC)] and argued that the bagasse is only an agricultural waste or residue produced during the manufacture of sugar and is not a product by itself, let alone being an intermediary product. Therefore, the question of reversing credit of input services which have gone into production of bagasse does not arise. Similarly, Hon'ble High c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uiring reversal of CENVAT credit. There are also other products with respect to which the appellant claims that they have already reversed the CENVAT credit such as on electricity. There are products such as organic manure which the appellant claims to have cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the proper course of action is to remand the matter back to the original authority to examine the claims of the appellant in respect to each product and re-determine the amount of duty, if any, to be recovered from them after following principles of natural justice. Without passing any comments on the merits of the case, I remand the matter back to the original authority to re-determine the quantum of input service credit, if any, required to be reversed by the appellant/assessee taking into account their claims and the other judicial pronouncements which they have relied upon.
7. The appeals filed by the assessee as well as the department are allowed by way of remand to the original authority

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain Versus Mars Stationery Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 26 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-8-2018
C. E. A. No. 57 of 2017
Central Excise
P. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant
Shri Alok Barthwal, learned Counsel for the respondent
ORDER
Heard.
2. This appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the Revenue against the final order dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure – A) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that Board's circular No.6/92 dated 29.5.1992 does not debar clubbing of turnover and it is also observed that there is no allegation that the SSI units were dummy units and allowed the appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in this appeal the issue is regarding interpretation of Board's circular No.6/92 date

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ndent / assessee has been confirmed along with interest and penalty of incidental amount.
2.Shri Alok Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal; and submitted that appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi not being an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty or excise or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment.
3.He submitted that looking to the controversy, an order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal shall lie to the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that in identical facts and circumstances of the case, similar question was raised before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Kich Industries reported in 2014 (305) ELT 107 (Gujarat); and other decisions (1) Commissioner of Cen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

35-L and not under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the High Court.
4.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, so also the law laid down in the cases of Commissioner v. Kich Industries (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. Vadapalani Press & others (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula v. Special Machine (supra), Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa v. Primella Sanitary Products (P) Limited (supra) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiyana v. A.S.T. Paper Mills Limited (supra), Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III v. Pravinbhai Narshibhai Patel Partner (supra) and Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Collector of Customs (supra), we permit the appellant / department to withdraw this appeal and direct the department to assail the order by filing an appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Apex Court. However, on filing true cop

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Application for Refund of ITC on Export of Goods & Services without payment of ITC
Query (Issue) Started By: – viraf deboo Dated:- 27-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 29-8-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 11 Replies
GST
We are manufacturer exporter registered under GST. We are exporting our goods to various countries. We want to know that, whether Application for Refund of ITC on Export of Goods & Services without payment of ITC under LUT as per Section 54(3) (i) and Rule 89(4) of CGST Act 2017 is compulsory / mandatory??
We have blocked / carry forward proportionate ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger as per formula given in Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules & to be applied for ITC refund in GST RFD-01A form on common portal. Kindly advice w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion (3) of section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), refund of input tax credit shall be granted as per the following formula –
Refund Amount = (Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods + Turnover of zero-rated supply of services) x Net ITC ÷Adjusted Total Turnover
Sir kindly advice that, whether it is compulsory / mandatory that we have to block / carry forward ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger as per above formula against zero rated goods & the same ITC will be applied for refund in GST RFD-01A FORM on common portal ??
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply:
This is similar to rule 5 of erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules.
The refund of tax paid on inputs for exports without payment of IGST under LUT or bond

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s of Sri Ramasamy.
Reply By Gorantla Bhaskar Rao:
The Reply:
Nicely elucidated by Shri Ramaswamy sir
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Yes, indeed.
Reply By Yash Jain:
The Reply:
Sir,
When we apply for refund U/s 54(3), the refund amount is automatically reversed in electronic credit ledger , which again depends on balance available as on date(I.e the balance on date when refund is filed)and not the date on which export is done/gaye 3b is filed.
Sir, now from your question I interpretate that you will export zero rated and claim ITC refund, by keeping in ecl the amount of refund (as per formula). In this case I would request you to please evaluate the option of paying igst (by input tax reversal) and claim refund, as this is lea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RECENT ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST (PART-5)
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 27-8-2018

Advance rulings are important in any tax law as it provides a forum for clarification and possible interpretation of statutory provisions. Moreover, it conveys the legislative intention from the revenue's view point. Provisions of advance ruling are contained in section 95 to 106 of CGST Act, 2017 and State / UT GST enactment. Rules 103 to 107 of also provide for forms, manner, certification etc.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) have been set up in all the states and we have now over 100 advance rulings on different issues already pronounced by various State Authorities. The appellate mechanism for filing appeals against AAR rulings is also in place and we have about ten such appellate orders already pronounced. One major issue presently being faced is about multiple authorities (equal to number of States), each pronouncing a ruling of its own even if

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uch supply of works contract involved only a minor fraction of earth work and therefore, such composite supply of works contract service for maintaining railway tracks would be taxable at the rate of 18% GST. Further, such service could be classifiable under Heading No. 995429 under GST. [In Re Sreepati Ranjan Gope & Sons (2018) 5 TMI 370 (AAR-West Bengal); ]
Advance Ruling on liquidated damages
In the instant case, based on agreement entered into by applicant, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. with BHEL for purpose of erection, testing and commissioning of main plant package, there were no such clauses in agreement as would tantamount to reducing contract price or contract value of supplies of goods or services or both as made by Contractor on account of delay in delivery of manufactured goods. In fact, levy of liquidated damages had been specifically identified as an independent levy. The contract price variation clause in impugned agreement did not provide for variat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

licability of GST on freight bills.
Applicant argued that it is not a goods transport agency (GTA) for applicability of Notification No. 9/2017 – IT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017, which, granted exemption on transportation services provided by an entity other than GTA. As applicant is not a GTA, supply of transportation services is exempt from GST vide the exemption notification.
It has been ruled that the applicant supplies works contract service, of which freight and transportation is merely a component of overall services and not a separate and independent activity and GST is to be paid @ 18% on the entire value of the composite supply, including supply of materials, freight and transportation, erection, commissioning etc.
It was also held that reference to a notification under the IGST Act should be contract specific, where an inter-state supply is taking place. In this application general nature of a supply is being dealt with rather than the place of any particular supply. Moreover,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1196 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 841 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-8-2018
Appeal Nos. E/40803 and 40804/2017 – Final Order Nos. 42352-42353/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Raghaan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in both these appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mosquito repellent coil and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used in the manufacture of the finished goods and also on the input services distributed by their Head Office as Input Serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

units availing area based exemption were distributed to the appellant unit at Puducherry which according to department is not eligible as it is contravention of the provisions of Rule 2(l) r/w third proviso to Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The second issue is that the credit of service tax availed on membership fee for membership in Bombay Gymkhana Club Ltd. is not an input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore not eligible. Show cause notice dated 8.12.2011 was issued raising both these allegations. Later, show cause notice dated 18.10.2012 was raised alleging violation of credit distributed on ISD invoices as narrated above. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. Hence the appellants are now before this Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the units located in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he credit has been distributed by the head office as per Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said Rule does not provide for any pro-rata distribution prior to 1.4.2012. During the disputed period, which is from December 2006 to March 2011, Rule 7 did not provide for pro-rata distribution of credit and whatever credit availed by the units availing area based exemption and distributed to other units is correct and proper. He drew support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. ECOF Industries P. Ltd. – 2011 (277) ELT 317 (Kar.) to argue that Rule 7 does not provide any pro-rata distribution prior to 1.4.2012.
3.1 With regard to the issue of credit availed on membership fee for Bombay Gymkhana club, ld. counsel submitted that the same is availed for the activities of business of the company and therefore eligible.
4. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. 39/2001-Central Excise, dated the 31st July 2001 [GSR 565(E) dated the 31st July 2001];
(iv) No.56/2002-Central Excise, dated the 14th November, 2002 [GSR 764(E) dated the 14th November, 2002];
(v) No.57/2002-Central Excise, dated the 14th November, 2002 [GSR 765(E) dated the 14th November, 2002];
(vi) No.56/2003-Central Excise, dated the 25th June, 2003 [GSR 513(E) dated the 25th June, 2003];
(vii) No.71/2003-Central Excise, dated the 9th September, 2003 [GSR 717 (E) dated the 9th September, 2003];
shall, respectively, be utilized only for payment of duty on final products, in respect of which exemption under the said respective notifications is availed of”
The above proviso clearly shows that the units who avail credit of duty or service tax if availing the area based exemptions shall utilize the credit only for payment of duty on final products in respect of which exemption under the respective notifications has been availed. It is an undisputed fact that various services we

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

there was no restriction as to how much credit can be distributed to each unit. During the relevant period, Rule 7 did not lay down any manner of distribution based on pro-rata basis. The said proviso under Rule 7, during the disputed period read as under:-
RULE 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. – The input service distributor shall distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon; or
(b) credit of service tax attributable to service use in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed.”
6.1 Only with effect from 1.4.2012, Rule 7 has been amended to include that the distribution of credit shall be on pro-rata basis.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Khedut Hat,
GST
2018 (10) TMI 302 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 75 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – AAR
Dated:- 27-8-2018
GUJ/GAAR/RULING/2018/17 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2017-18/AR/32)
GST
R.B. MANKODI AND G.C. JAIN, MEMBER
Present for the applicant : Shri Brijen Mehta, CA
The applicant, M/s. Khedut Hat has submitted that it is in the business of carrying out blasting work at various sites by means of use of explosives and other materials for which it has obtained licence from Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization.
1.1. The applicant submitted that explosives procured by the applicant for blasting activity are stored only in licenced premises as stated in licence, termed as 'magazine'; that prior to carrying out blasting activity, client inform the applicant number of holes to be charged at the site; that prior to initiating blasting activity, applicant wit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

carry out only blasting at the site only; that client is not qualified person to possess explosives and thus it is clear that applicant has not transferred title to goods used in blasting activity to its client and therefore the applicant has the view that blasting activity carried out by it shall be treated as 'supply of service'.
1.4 On the basis of above facts and submissions, the applicant has sought ruling on following question-
(i) Whether the blasting activity carried out by the applicant is to be considered as a 'supply of goods' or 'supply of service' ?
2. We have heard Shri Brijen Mehta, Chartered Accountant, for the appellant on 18.01.2018. We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. We have also considered the comments on the application offered by the department vide letter F.No. IV/16-64/Tech/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018.
3. In order to decide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the contract executed by the respondent – contractor cannot have our approval. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and allow this appeal.”
3. Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'CGST Act, 2017) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'GGST Act, 2017') provides for scope of supply and the definition of supply is an inclusive definition. Therefore, Schedule II is not the exhaustive condition for the scope of supply as defined under Section 7.
4. In the present case applicant uses explosives in the blasting activity at their client's site. Thus it would be evident that blasting activity is carried out by the applicant for their client for which the applicant uses explosives. The applicant carries out blasting work with the aid of explosives. Thus, there is deemed supply of explosives in this case in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Pest C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amendment in Notification No. 3043/CSTUK/GST-Vidhi Section/2018-19/CT-34, dated 10 August, 2018
4207/CSTUK/GST-Vidhi Section/2018-19/CT-35 Dated:- 27-8-2018 Uttarakhand SGST
GST – States
Uttarakhand SGST
Uttarakhand SGST
Commissioner, State Tax, Uttarakhand
State Tax Department
NOTIFICATION
August 27, 2018
No. 4207/CSTUK/GST-Vidhi Section/2018-19/CT-35In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (06 of 2017) read with s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1645 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 700 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 27-8-2018
AAR No. 11/2018
GST
SHRI RAJIV AGRAWAL AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOUBEY, MEMBER
Present on behalf of applicant: Shree Abhay singi, C.A. and Shree Anirudh Tiwari, Accounts Officer
PROCEEDINGS
(Under section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and MP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to CGST Act and MPSGT Act respectively) by M/S Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant), registered under the Goods & Services Tax.
2. The provisions of the CGST Act and MPGST Act are identi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

whether clause(vi)(a) of Sr. No. 3 of table of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 is applicable on the works contract undertaken by it. And determination of liability to pay Tax.
5. DEPARTMENT'S VIEW POINT- The concerned officer submitted that the nature of works contract undertaken by the applicant doesn't come under the category for which the notified rate of tax is 12%(6%CGST and 6% SGST) but it will attract 18%(9% CGST and 9% SGST).
6. RECORD OF PERSONAL HEARING –
Shree Abhay singi, C.A. and Shree Anirudh Tiwari, Accounts Officer Appeared for personal hearing on 06.07.18 and they reiterated the submission already made in the application and attached additional submission which goes as follow –
6.1. The Company Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Company Ltd. (MPPKVVCL) is wholly owned subsidiary of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd.
6.2 The holding Company M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. is wholly owned by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
6.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d – 13/10/2017.
4) Notification No. – 46/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 14/11/2017.
5) Notification No. – 01/2018 Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 25/01/2018.
6.7 Vide notification no. 24/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 21/09/2017,
Government of India by inserting entry no. (vi) notified concessional GST rate of 6% for the construction services provided to Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of-
a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession;
b) a structure meant predominantly for use as (i) an educational, (ii) a clinical, or (iii) an art or cultural establishment; or
c) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or the use of their employees or other persons specif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

provisions referred above issued under the Notification No. 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 21/09/2017 and  Notification No. – 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 13/10/2017 is applicable on the Company.
7. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:
7.1. First of all we must look in the contention that the Applicant is a government entity or not. As per Notification No. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated 13/10/2017 issued under CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding notification under MPGST Act, 2017. Government Entity is defined as under –
“Government Entity” means an authority or a board or any other body including a society, trust, corporation, i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or ii) established by any Government, with 90per cent. or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by' the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.”
7.2. The Company Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Company Ltd. (MP

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s important to discuss the nature of work undertaken by the applicant. The Applicant is entrusted for various ambitious projects of Central and State Government relating to strengthening of power distribution network and Rural Electrification for public welfare such as Deendayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojna for Rural Electrification (DDUGJY), Integrated Power Development Scheme (IPDS), Saubhagya Yojna, ADB funded project, Scheme for Strengthening of Transmission and Distribution systems (SSTD) projects, feeder separation project (FSP) etc., the work has been carried out with the help of Contractor and work include both supply of material and erection of the same.
7.7. The projects are undertaken for construction of electricity distribution lines, sub-stations and other infrastructure which arc meant predominately for sell of electricity in urban and/or rural area.
7.8. As per the Memorandum of Association of the Company, Main objects to be pursued by the Company on its incorporation is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ining to construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration, which are carried out in respect of projects under DDUGY, IPDS, ADB, SSTD, Saubhagya Yojna, FSP and all other schemes of governments as the same is undertaken for the business purpose.
Further, as per Section 2 of CGST Act '2017 and MPGST Act, 2017 defines “works contract” as a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of such contract;
The composite supply of works contract as defined at Section 2 of CGST Act '2017 and MPGST Act, 2017 is treated as supply of service in terms of serial no.6, Schedule II of CGST Act '2017 and MPGST Act, 2017.
In the instant case, th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IN RE: M/s. JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES P. LTD.,
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1644 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 690 (A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 31 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 27-8-2018
Order No. 12/2018
GST
SHRI RAJIV AGRAWAL AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOUBEY MEMBER
Present on behalf of applicant: Shree Nikhilesh Mlshra , DGM and Shree Vishal Shreevastav Tax, Consultant
PROCEEDINGS
(Under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and MP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to CGST Act and MPSGT Act respectively) by M/S. JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES P. Ltd., (hereinafter also referred to as applicant), registered under the Goods & Services Tax.
2. The provisions of the CGST Act and MPGST Act are ide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Area Maintenance charges from tenants;
iii. Food Court – Operates a food court in the Mall, which is an air-conditioned area with self-serve (dine-in) and take away arrangements;
iv. SAM Retail – Operates a franchise apparel retail store within the Mall.
3.2 The Applicant is charging GST on outward supply of Goods & Services as under:
i. Sale of Movie tickets – @28% (on tickets exceeding Rs. 100/-) or @18% (on tickets below Rs. 100/-);
ii. Renting of Shops – @18%
iii. Common Area Maintenance Charges – @18%
iv. Sale of Food & Drinks – @5% (Without claiming ITC on food items and beverages purchased)
3.3 Further, the Applicant is claiming ITC of GST paid on following inward supplies of goods & services:
i. Movie Distributor Share Bill – Movie Distributor is raising a bill against revenue share of sale of movie tickets of every movie;
ii. Projector Rental Bills – The Applicant has taken a projector on rent for screening of movies;
iii. Advertising Bill – Relating to advert

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rticle for human consumption or drink, where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, provided by a restaurant, eating joint including mess, canteen, whether for consumption on or away from the premises where such food or any other article for human consumption or drink is supplied, other than those located in the premises of hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purposes having declared tariff of any unit of accommodation of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Rupees and above per unit per day or equivalent '
The Applicant is not providing residential or lodging accommodation services therefore rate of GST on food & drinks served by the Applicant is covered under the clause mentioned above. Therefore the Applicant is charging GST @5% on supply of food, drinks and & snacks from Food Court and Snack bar of Multiplex.
ii. As per Section 16(1) of the CGST Act, “Every registered pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course of furtherance of business.
Explanation: For the purpose of clause (c) and (d), the expression “construction includes re-construction renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalization, to the said immovable property;”
The inward supply of goods and services as mentioned in the questions 2 and 3, is for the purpose of maintenance & renovation of building and it is not capitalized in the books of accounts. These expenses are revenue in nature and hence full ITC can be claimed.
4 QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY:
The following questions have been posed before the Authority, with reference to the activity undertaken by the Applicant:
4.1 Whether GST @5% can be charged on food, soft drinks, and snacks sold in the Snack Bar & Food Court in terms of Notification no.46/2017;
4.2 Whether ITC of GST paid on Movie Distri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t in terms of Notification no.46/2017?
It has been opined by the CGST department that in terms of relevant entry in the notification no.46/2017, the supply of food, drinks & snacks etc. Served by the Applicant at their own Mall, without providing lodging and accommodation services, shall attract GST @5% and no Input Tax Credit shall be available to the Applicant.
5.2 Whether ITC of GST paid on Movie Distributor Revenue Share Bill, Projector Rental Bill, Advertisement Bill, Security Agency Bill and Housekeeping Bill can be claimed in full?
It has been opined that in view of the facts and circumstances about the output services being provided by the Applicant through their four Divisions, Viz. Multiplex Division, Renting Division, Maintenance Division and Food Court, it appears that ITC on aforementioned Input Services would be admissible to the Applicant because the said input supply of services appear attributable towards their outward supply of services for furtherance of their bus

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

in respect of the following, namely:
(a)…………
(b)…………
(c) works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service;
(d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.
Explanation.For the purposes of clauses (c) and (d), the expression “construction” includes re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalisation, to the said immovable property;
Thus, it is clear from clause (d) above, that no ITC shall be admissible to the Applicant in respect of goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction/maintenance of an immovable property. In the instant case, the applicant h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pplicant is not availing such ITC for providing output works contract service, therefore it appears that the applicant is not entitled to avail ITC and any ITC so availed needs to be reversed by the Applicant.
6 RECORD OF PERSONAL HEARING:
Shri Shree Nikhilesh Mlshra, DGM and Shree Vishal Shreevastav, Tax Consultant, appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the submissions already made in the application. Subsequent to PH, the Applicant also submitted additional write-up on 09.07.2018 giving further details in furtherance of their extant application. The same are briefed as under:
A. Process description of Restaurant services: The Applicant submitted that they mainly selling popcorn, cold drinks, sandwiches, tea & coffee etc. in the Snack Bar for which they have the facility of electric fryers, grillers, warmers, dispensing machine etc. These items are served in disposable plates/glasses etc.
B. For movie show exhibition they have an agreement with V N Exhibitors who char

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

these questions one by one to arrive at conclusion.
7.3 The first question reads, “Whether GST @5% can be charged on food, soft drinks, and snacks sold in the Snack Bar & Food Court in terms of Notification no.46/2017- Central Tax (Rate)?'. On a careful consideration of the legal position under the GST law, we find that the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 further amended by Notification No.46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) vide entry at Serial Number 7 and corresponding notifications issued under MPGST ACT ,2017, squarely covers the services provided by the Applicant at item no.(i) which reads:
'Supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or drink, where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, provided by a restaurant, eating joint including mess, canteen, whether for consumption on or away from the premises wh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

utdoor Catering. The term 'Outdoor Catering' was defined under Section 65(76)(a) of the erstwhile Finance Act 1994 as “Outdoor caterer means a caterer engaged in providing service in connection with catering at place other than his own but including a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving such service”. On considering the common parlance meaning of 'Outdoor Catering' and its above definition for Service Tax, we come to the conclusion that the supply of food, soft drinks and snacks sold in the Food Court or Snack Bar of the Applicant cannot by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a part of outdoor catering. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the services provided by the Applicant in Snack Bar would be classifiable under SAC 9963 and chargeable to GST @ 5% (CGST @2.5% + SGST @2.5%), provided they fulfill the conditions laid down under Notification 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and corresponding notifications i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

roviding exempted supplies shall be subject to reversal in terms of Section 17(1) of the GST Act, 2017. To illustrate, Security Services and Housekeeping in particular shall be utilized for Snacks Bar and Food Court also and hence ITC on such services would be available partially in terms of provisions of Section 17(1) of the GST Act, 2017.
7.5 Now moving on to the third question posed before the Authority, we observe that the question is; 'Whether ITC on GST paid on goods purchased for the purpose of maintenance such as Vitrified Tiles, Marble, Granite ACP Sheets, Steel Plates, TMT TOR, Bricks, Cement, Paint, Chemicals, Sanitary items like wash basin, urinal pots, and toilet accessories can be claimed in full?'.
The Applicant has been purchasing the materials under question for the purpose of utilising the same in maintenance/renovation of the Mall building. Broadly speaking, the extant law i.e. the GST Act 2017 prohibits such ITC in terms of clause (d) of Section 17(5) whic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. Explanation to the sub-section (5) has defined the term 'Construction' to encompass all the activities '…….to the extent of capitalization to the said immovable property.' Going by the said definition it has been argued that ITC of materials used for maintenance can be claimed in full if the cost of maintenance is not capitalized. We find that capitalization of expenditure depends on the nature of expenditure and the period of benefit from such expenditure. However, the Application falls pretty short in elucidating the nature of expenditure i.e. capital or revenue. Thus we are constrained to reach any definitive conclusion on this argument. Mere statement that expenditure is not capitalized cannot come to the rescue of Applicant. Be that as it may, the eligibility of ITC does not depend on the treatment given to the expenditure. If the expenditure is revenue in nature but subsequently capitalized in the books of account it would not make Applicant eligible to ITC on s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of Section 16 and sub-section (1) of Section 18, Input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:
(a)…………….
(b)…………….
(c) works contract service when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service,
Thus we do not find anything for us to discuss and deliberate on this issue. It is admittedly clear that Works Contract Service which the Applicant intends to engage is for the civil work etc. for repair/renovation/maintenance of Mall building. Such service is fully consumed at the end of Applicant and it is not an input service for further provision of output service as Works Contract. That being the case, we have no hitch in concluding that ITC in respect of Works Contract Service utilised by the Applicant for repair/renovation/maintenance of Mall building shall not be available to them.
7.7 Having regard to the discussi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Asia Cables Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1570 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 27-8-2018
Appeal No. E/75/2011 – Final Order No. 42317/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Akhil Suresh, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in manufacture of PVC insulated cables and are registered with the Central Excise Department. It was alleged that the appellants have collected separately, in addition to the price of the goods sold, Inspection Charges, Service charges and Freight Charges from their buyers through debit notes. According to the department, these amounts have to be included in the assessable value for discharging the excise duty. As the appellant did not include these amounts in the transaction value and did not pay duty on su

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeals) has excluded the railway freight. These are service charges which are not relatable to 'sale' effected by the appellant to the contractors on whose behalf the railway transport is arranged. Once the appellants have dispatched the goods from their end, that is the place of removal, which is the factory, contract terms are completed. In other words, the title to the goods is passed on to the contractor and the subsequent transport of goods is only at the instance of the contractor as it can be seen from one of the contracts that the consignee has been indicated as OS, S&T Stores, Projects, Boiguda, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The appellants have rendered such services only as per the instructions of the contractor. Therefore, the said amount cannot be included in the assessable value.
3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. With respect to service charges, he submitted that the appellant has raised debit notes for collection of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o transport arrangement through rail. These charges have been paid to M/s. ARR Cargo Movers towards making arrangements for the transport of goods through railway. It can be seen that these are in connection with the loading / cargo handling of the goods for transportation by railway. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the freight charges are not includible in the assessable value since the said charges are collected after the place of removal which is the factory gate. On the very basis, it can be definitely held that the service charges collected for cargo handling on the instruction of the contractor cannot be included in the assessable value.
6. From the above discussion, we hold that the demand raised alleging that the service charges as well as pre-delivery inspection charges are includible in the assessable value cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(O

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Divya Singla and others Versus Union of India and others
GST
2018 (9) TMI 431 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 530 (P&H.)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-8-2018
CWP No. 12390 of 2017 (O&M)
GST
MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ.
For The Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate
For The Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL J.
The petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of notice dated 15.05

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

For HSN CODE
Query (Issue) Started By: – Vijaykumar Boora Dated:- 26-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 29-8-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
He'll sir,
I am small vendor, I am in embroidery Business. I do embroidery on different fabrics (cotton, velvet, Nylon, silk, etc). In this regards I want to know HNS to be applicable as I Following under the chapter 58 of HSN code but I confused whether I follow this or needs to follow HSN applicable to different fabrics, as embroidery is done on that fabrics. Please can you clarify that HSN applicable.
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
Sir,
Your product will fall under heading 5810 attracting CGST 6% and SGST or UTGST 6% or 12% IGST if the supply made is in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Place of supply
Query (Issue) Started By: – Archna Gupta Dated:- 25-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 27-8-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
I have one query regarding place of supply. The situation is if a person supplying some art work, decorative items, paintings etc. to Indian embassy in China but the order is given by ministry of external affairs and he will raise invoice to Ministry of external affairs in India.
Will it be treated as export? Do bill to ship to model works for supplying goods out of India?
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
Madam,
You are supplying the goods to Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore both supplier and recipient are located in India though the goods supplied is meant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST is applicable.
Ship to model is not applicable in this case, as order is not from the Embassy in Chaina. Here, Ministry is required to take registration under GST and has to engage CHA for export to embassy.
Our experts may like to correct me if mistaken.
Thanks
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
I endorse the views of Shri Rajagopalan sir
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply:
If the supplier is in Delhi, any supply to Ministry of External Affairs is a local supply. That is point of supply – Intra State. (CGST + Delhi GST).
If the supplier is other than Delhi, then the point of Supply is Inter State and IGST is payable.
it is not an export in such case.
If the goods are shipped directly to the Indian Embassy in China, i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Receipt of replacement Material under Warrenty
Query (Issue) Started By: – Manjunath S Dated:- 25-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 1-9-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
We are a registered Manufacturers in Karnataka,
In July 2018, We Purchase a Machinery spares by paying IGST, after installation of that spares, it is get damaged within10 days, but actual warranty for that material is 1 year.
We intimated the supplier and he agreed to give replacement, and he told us to scrap that material since it is UnRepairable/Exposed.
Now he is supplying New Material with Another Tax invoice with IGST and giving Credit Note only for the Basic Amount for the rejected material.
My Query is:
a) Is this Procedure i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion 34 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 "any registered person who issues a credit note in relation to a supply of goods or services or both shall declare the details of such credit note in the return for the month during which such credit note has been issued but not later than September following the end of the financial year in which such supply was made, or the date of furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier, and the tax liability shall be adjusted in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no reduction in output tax liability of the supplier shall be permitted, if the incidence of tax and interest on such supply has been passed on to any other person.
Therefore in your case since Machinery spares were suppli

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

High Court Denies Relief to Petitioner for Transporting Goods Without E-Way Bill, Following Repeated Offenses.
Case-Laws
GST
Release of detained vehicle with goods – e-way bill was not tendered for the goods in movement – The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is to transport the goods without e-way bill and as and when he is caught and the Truck is detained, he will make payment of tax and get the Truck released. – HC refuses to grant any relief.
TMI Updates – Highlights, qui

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Government Extends Filing Deadlines for FORM GSTR-3B for July 2018 and August 2018 to Ease Compliance Burden.
Notifications
GST
Seeks to extend the due dates for filing FORM GSTR-3B for the m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

KRISHI KALYAN CESS: ITC IN GST NOT ALLOWED
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 25-8-2018

Under section 16 the GST law, during the transition from pre-GST regime to GST regime w.e.f. 1.7.2017, earlier tax credits are allowed to be carried forward in GST regime and benefit could be availed subject to transitional provisions as contained in section 140 of the GST law.
While there are doubts amongst taxpayers as to whether Cenvat Credit of Cesses (e.g., Krishi Kalyan Cess, Swachh Bharat Cess etc) paid under pre-GST regime would be allowed to be carried forward and availed in the GST regime like other taxes or duties, assessees have resorted to advance ruling under section 97 of the GST law from Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under section 96 of the said law.
The background of this case is that KKC was levied as per section 161 of the Finance Act, 2016. Section 161(5) of the Finance Act specified that for levy and collection of KK

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sible under the Act. Cenvat Credit Rules has recognized KKC as Cenvat credit and Section 16 and Section 17 of the Act, which determines admissibility of input tax credit puts no restriction in admission of KKC as Cenvat credit under the aforesaid provision of the Act.
According to one such advance ruling in the matter of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. (2018) 12 GSTL 526 (AAR-Maharashtra); (2018) 5 TMI 458 (AAR-Maharashtra); in the pre-GST regime, the assessee was registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD) for its Head Office to distribute eligible credit to its respective manufacturing units. The assessee wanted to carry forward the accumulated credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC)appeared in service tax return on June 30, 2017 to the electronic credit ledger under the GST Act. In the post-GST regime, neither there is specific restriction in law regarding admissibility of KKC nor there is any specific provision regarding admissibility of KKC as input tax credit. It filed the application f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f India v. Union of India [WP (Civil) 7837 of 2016] [ 2018 (2) TMI 1264 – DELHI HIGH COURT ] case denied cross utilisation of unutilized education cases against excise duty and service tax liability as these cesses had not been subsumed and there was no provision in law to cross utilize the unutilized education cesses with excise duty and service tax. Secondly, one of the response given by CBEC in its FAQ's had negated the assessee's claim. (which does not have any legal binding).
Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal u/s 100 of the GST law before Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) which approved the aforementioned ruling of AAR by passing an order u/s 101 of the GST law.
The AAAR examined the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and formed a view that KKC could be utilized towards payment of KKC only. The KKC cannot be adjusted or cross utilized against the payment of excise duty or service tax. It was made expressly clear that Cenvat credit of input duty spec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Proposed Changes in GST Form
By: – Legal Raasta
Other Topics
Dated:- 25-8-2018

August 7th Tuesday, the Lok Sabha passed 4 new bills in an attempt to GST procedures with a focus on empowering the MSME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises) sector. The government is also targeting to plug loopholes in existing laws and lightening ROC compliances requirements described as 'complex' by many a business owners. The new return filing system is expected to be put in place by the revenue department by January 2019 and would actively replace the current GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns.
In addition to these, an attempt has been made for the empowerment of digital payments such as UPI with incentives via cashback offers. The Lok Sabha also facilitated changes in GST return filing forms and also helping in reducing the frequency of return filings for businesses. The bills passed by the Lok Sabha are
* Central GST(Amendment) Bill, 2018
* Integrated GST (Amendment) Bill, 2018
* Union

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

) The single return process will continue to have dates of filling vary based on the turnover of the company.
The simplified GST return filing forms have prospects for:
* Reducing Confusion among Taxpayers
The government plans to introduce a modular approach in which the aim is to introduce many business types into a simple form. Various modules in one common return will facilitate the filing process for eg. One for traders and one for exporters. The one form approach will help taxpayers pick and choose their type of business module and go to a section which remains relevant to other traders. According to the finance minister “This kind of a modular approach will help significantly in improving the compliance process too”.
2. Decreasing the number of returns from 36 to 12 a year.
Return filings frequency will drop and single return procedures will be introduced per monthly basis to help facilitate the compliance process.
3.One-Monthly return
Barring a few exceptions like compos

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o automatic reversal of credit
In the case of non-payment of tax by the seller, automatic reversal of input tax credit from buyer has been prohibited. Options have been put in place to make recovery of defaults in payment of tax by the retailer. In addition to this, however, special provisions have been made to address exceptional situations like the closure of Business, missing dealer or supplier lacking assets to return due payment.
7. Process for recovery and reversal
Issuing of notice and order will be done in an online and automated process to reduce the human interface.
8. Supplier Side Control
Sellers who have defaulted in payment of taxes above a certain threshold will be blocked from raising invoices to avoid misuse of input tax credit facility. Safeguards like these will be deployed for new dealers as well as addition, analytical tools would be employed to prevent loss of revenue.
9. Transition
Transition to the new system will be achieved in three stages.
Stage 1: Fi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. PDCOR LIMITED,
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1334 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 445 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 25-8-2018
RAJ/AAR/2018-19/13
GST
NITIN WAPA AND SUDHIR SHARMA MEMBER
Present for the applicant: Mr. Subhash Sharma (CFO) and Mr. Manmohan Mahipal (CA) Authorised Representative
Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The Issue raised by M/s PDCOR LIMITED (hereinafter referred as the applicant also) is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under ambit of the Section 97 (2) (a), it is given as under:
(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
Fu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

relation to “Rejuvenation of Amanishah Nallah (Dravyavati River), Jaipur”. The agreement between TATA Projects Ltd. and JDA was executed on 18th of March, 2016.
(d) In this instant case, the applicant is concerned whether the PMC services to JDA for Rejuvenation of Amanishah Nallah (Dravyavati River), Jaipur will attract GST or will be exempt from GST as per Serial No. 3 of CGST Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28th of June, 2017?.
Further, the applicant wants the authority to clarify whether their services for the concerned project will be under SAC 9983 and fall under Serial No. 3 or any other entry of CGST Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28th of June, 2017.
The applicant also wants to know whether JDA is a Local Authority Governmental Authority or Governmental Entity.
2. Scope of the works in Contract:
PDCOR shall act as Project Management Consultant (PMC) for the Project and shall be responsible for overall management of all components of the Project on technical, financial and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nts. The reviewed and/or modified drawings will then be released for construction at site. The design/drawing shall cover the following:
a. Topography survey, L-sections and cross section of nallah.
b. Hydraulic design of nallah section sufficient to discharge the highest flood generated by rain over a 100 years recurrence period.
c. Comprehensive drawing of main nallah channel showing the proposed structures check dams, de-silting walls, crossing strictures and access road etc.
d. Hydraulic design of intercepting sewer system
e. Campus plan of sewerage treatment plants
f. Design and drawings of Sewerage Treatment Plants of proposed technology including unit sizing, hydraulic and process design.
g. Design and drawings of collection sumps and pump houses for sewerage and drainage
h. Process design, system design for all project components
i. Site Plans and layout plans.
j. Architectural drawings/ renderings of required project components such as stone railing, garden benches,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d plumbing, service roads, landscaping, area lighting, etc.
t. Master plan for the development with landscaping and master plan of reclaimed area of land
u. Any other design and drawings required to complete the project by contractor as described in the Section Employer's Requirements.
4. The applicant's contention is that;-
4.1 The Jaipur Development Authority is covered under the status of Governmental Authority:
Definition of Governmental Authority: As per the notification no. 32/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017, Government Authority means an authority or a board or any other body Including a Society, Trust, Corporation,
(i) Set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, or,
(ii)Established by any Government with 90per cent or more participation by way of equity or control,
to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.
Since, Jaipur Development Authority set up by an act of State

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PDCOR Ltd is correctly classified under SAC Code 9983?
(b) Whether Jaipur Development Authority falls under the definition of Local Authority or Governmental Authority or Government Entity?
(c) Whether the aforementioned services being provided by M/S PDCOR Ltd. in the above case are exempted from Goods and Service Tax under the serial number 3 of CGST Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017, applicable w.e.f 01.07.2017, as amended from time to time and corresponding Raj. GST Notification issued by Government of Rajasthan?
(d). Whether the services rendered by PDCOR Ltd are covered under any other entry of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and corresponding Raj. GST Notification issued by Government of Rajasthan or any other notifications/rules under GST law ?
7. Comments of Jurisdictional Officer:-
The Jurisdictional Officer (CGST Division-H, Jaipur) in his comments vide letter F.No. V(GST-H) 30/Report-Comments/40/2018/

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

9
18
–
8.2 (a) As per definitions given under notification No. 12/2017-Central Excise (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended vide notification No. 32/2017- Central tax (rate) dated 13.10.2017, “(zo “Governmental Authority” has the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to clause (16) of Section 2 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017). Explanation as mentioned in clause (16) of Section 2 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is as under:-
Government Authority means an authority or a board or any other body Including a Society, Trust, Corporation
(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or
(ii) established by any Government, with 90per cent, or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243 W of the Constitution or to a Panchayat under article 243 G of the Constitution,
(b) Jaipur Development Authority is a body constituted under Jaipur Deve

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

asthan, or a nominee of the Governor during President's Rule;
(iii) Secretary to the Government, Urban Development and Housing Department;
(iv) Jaipur Development Commissioner (appointed under this Act);
(v) Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board;
(vi) Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department;
(vii) Chief Engineer, Public Works Department;
(viii) District Collector, Jaipur;
(ix) Chief Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board;
(x) Chairman/Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur;
(xi) Zila Pramukh of Zila Parishad, Jaipur District;
(xii) Chief Town Planner, Rajasthan; and
(xiii) Non-official members, not exceeding seven, to be nominated by the State Government];
(d). As per Section 90 of the said Act. Control by State Government.-
(1) The Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties under this Act in accordance with the policy framed and the guidelines laid down, from time to time by the State Government for development of the areas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing as to whether the service provided by them to the JDA is exempted vide entry S.No.3 for Notification No. 12/2017Central Excise (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 which reads as under:-
“Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority or a Governmental authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution”.
The Jurisdictional Officer (CGST Division-H, Jaipur) in his comments has stated that the applicant's PMC services to JDA in the project are covered under SAC Code 9983. Further, they have stated that JDA is a local authority as per serial no. 2 in chapter -II of the JDA Act. They have also stated that services provided by the M/s. PDCOR are exempt from GST under serial no. 3 of CGST Notification 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate).
From the scope of services provided by t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for quarterly furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover of upto 1.5 crores for the quarter July, 2018 to September, 2018
(15/2018) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 Dated:- 25-8-2018 Karnataka SGST
GST – States
Karnataka SGST
Karnataka SGST
FINANCE SECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION (15/2018)
No. FD 47 CSL, 2017, Bengaluru, dated: 25-08-2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 148 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited,
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1257 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 526 (A. A. R. – GST), [2018] 59 G S.T.R. 355 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN – AAR
Dated:- 25-8-2018
AAR NO. RAJ/AAR/2018-19/14
GST
NITIN WAPA AND SUDHIR SHARMA MEMBER
Present for the applicant: Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, (Advocate) and Ms. Aditi Lodha (Advocate)
Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/ RGST Act 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The Issue raised by M/s. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited (here in after referred to as 'Applicant') is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under ambit of the Section 97(2) (a), it is given as under:
(d) Determination of liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both.
Further, the a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y is liable to bear the cost of transportation of goods, from the respective country upto Indian ports. Hence, for the transportation of the goods, the supplier/ exporter avails the services of a foreign shipping company, for bringing the said goods to India in a vessel.
The services by the foreign shipping entity of transportation of goods in a vessel to a port in India is an 'inter-state supply' in terms of section 7 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'IGST Act'). Hence, IGST is leviable on the same under Section 5 of the IGST Act. As per the charging section i.e. Section 5, IGST has to be paid by the taxable person. However, as per the provisions of Section 5(3), the government by notification may specify certain categories of supply of services on which tax will be paid by the recipient of the service on reverse charge basis. Hence, it is evident that the government is empowered to notify the categories of supplies/ services on which the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to 01.07.2017, the government was empowered to notify the category of services on which tax was payable on reverse charge basis by the recipient of services or any other person. To this extent the provisions of the service tax regime differ from the current GST regime. In order to collect tax on the services of transportation of goods by vessels upto a port in India, the government notified the importer (i.e. person other than the service provider or service recipient) as the person liable to pay tax. Since, the same was within the legislative competence of the Central Government, the same was intra-vires the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 but the same is not the case with GST as the statute specifically provides for service recipient only.
While importing the said goods on FOB basis, the Applicant (importer) is liable to bear the cost of transportation of goods from the respective country upto Indian ports. Hence, for the transportation of the goods, the Applicant (importer) av

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

territory of India. The relevant provisions read as follows:
Section 5- Levy and Collection-
Ijj***
Provided that the integrated tax on goods imported into India shall be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the value as determined under the said Act at the point when duties of customs are levied on the said goods under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962
Section 3- Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty, sales tax, local taxes and other charges-
***
(7) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to Integrated tax at such rate, not exceeding forty per cent, as is leviable under section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on a like article on its supply in India, on the value of the imported article as determined under sub-section (8).
(8) For the purposes of calculating the Integrated tax under sub-section (7) on any imported article where such tax is leviable at

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pecified under section 3 of the Tariff Act. As per section 3(8) of the Tariff Act the integrated tax on the imported goods shall be levied on the value of the imported article determined in accordance with section 14(1) of the Customs Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act lays down the provisions for determining the value of the goods. The said section reads as follows:
Section 14 Valuation of Goods-(1) For  the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specifi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

de cost of transportation to the place of importation. Moreover, Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Valuation Rules') lays down the provisions to determine the 'transaction value' of the imported Goods. The said rule reads as follows:
Rule 10- Cost and Services
For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and these rules, the value of the imported goods shall be the value of such goods, for delivery at the time and place of importation and shall include – (a) the cost of transport of the imported goods to the place of importation:
As per the aforesaid rule, the cost of transportation of the imported Goods up to the place of importation will be included in the value of imported Goods. Therefore, from the combined reading of section 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rule 10(2) of the Valuation Rules, it is evident that ocean freight will be included in the transa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

onal hearing was given to the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, (Advocate) and Ms. Aditi Lodha (Advocate) of applicant appeared for personal hearing on 17.08.2018. During the PH they submitted a flowchart depicting CIF and FOB. They have also submitted a Supreme Court judgement 'Govind Saran Ganga Saran v/s Commissionerate of Sales Tax and Ors' = 1985 (4) TMI 65 – SUPREME COURT. They also submitted that the case may be decided as per submission already made in the application for Advance Ruling and the case may be decided at the earliest.
The jurisdictional officer in his comments has stated that the applicant in case of import of goods on CIF basis has to pay IGST on component of Ocean Freight paid by foreign supplier to the shipping company as per Notification No. 10/2017-lntegrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. He has further stated that for determination of value of import of goods on FOB basis, the component of Ocean freight will have to be included in the value of import of goods

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs Act, 1962(52 of 1962), located in the taxable territory.
Thus, as per the Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, in the case of import of goods on CIF (COST, INSURANCE AND FREIGHT) basis, the Applicant (Importer) is liable to pay GST on the component of Ocean freight paid by the foreign supplier to the shipping company.
5.2 The Applicant also sought clarification as to whether in the case of import of goods on FOB (Free on board) basis the Applicant (Importer), for the purpose of determination of value of goods for the payment of IGST on import of goods is required to exclude the value of the component of Ocean freight?
Levy and collection of IGST is governed by the Section 5(1) of IGST Act, 2017 which reads as under:-
'Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), there shall be levied a tax called the integrated goods and services tax on all inter-State supplies of goods or services or both, except on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human con

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

valuation of imported goods is to be done by the Customs Authority under the Customs Act, 1962 and this authority is not empowered to decide on the issue of valuation of imported goods. Therefore, this authority cannot give any findings regarding exclusion of any component of expenditure upon imported goods (Ocean freight) while determining the value of imported goods at the time of import.
The question raised by the applicant is regarding the determination of valuation of imported goods at the port. The issue regarding determination of value as sought by the applicant does not fall under the purview of CGST/RGST Act, 2017 as this issue should be correctly dealt as per the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Based on above facts along with provision of law the ruling is as follows:
RULING
a. The applicant is liable to pay IGST on transportation of goods by vessel under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) under Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =