Goods and Services Tax

Hetero Labs. Limited Versus CCT, Hyderabad GST
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1531 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 4-6-2018
Appeal No. ST/31175-31177/2016 – A/30677-30679/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Respondent.
[Order per: P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO]
1. These appeals are filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad.
2. The appellants are manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs with manufacturing units located across India and also outside India. They have branches and associate companies in countries such as Mexico, Russia, Dubai and Vietnam. These Branches and the Associate companies are located in their own premises and maintain their infrastructure with manpower and are registered as permanent establishments in the juris

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eable to service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism and the appellant had not discharged the service tax on these services for which he had paid. As they have not disclosed these amounts in their Service Tax Returns, extended period of demand was invoked and interest under section 75 and penalties under sections 76 & 77 were also proposed to be imposed on the appellant. After following due process of law, Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties and interest upon them. The current appeals are against these orders of Ld. Commissioner. Earlier, vide Miscellaneous Order No. M/30081-30084/2018, dated 25.04.2018, the appellant's request for an early hearing was allowed as the amount of service tax liability confirmed is substantial. Accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing today.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. The appellants have submitted a list of 91 expenses incurred by them on various items on which the service tax is proposed to be charged.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rough their branch offices. The appellant argues that these are not IPR charges and no IPR service is received in India. In fact, these are the amounts which they have paid to the Governments of those countries to register their intellectual proprietary rights in those countries. Since registration is a statutory function done by the Governments, these services are covered by the negative list of services under Section 66 D of chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his further submission that during the relevant period, all services rendered by the government or local authority excluding some specified in that section were exempted. It is only w.e.f. 14.05.2015, the statutory definition for 'Government' has been introduced through Section 65 B(26A) restricting the scope of government to the departments of Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories. Therefore, these services rendered by the respective governments and for which they have aid, appropriate fees can not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uch amount on these charges and no claim for relief is made out by the appellant. The appellants argument is that salaries and other office expenditure are not liable to tax and at any rate without specifying the authority of law, no demand of service tax can be made on these amounts.
(f) Sl.No. 35 to 45: These expenses pertain to Clinical Test Charges, Consultancy Charges, Consumption of innovatory samples and testing charges. The department sought to classify the clinical test charges as technical testing and analysis service and Scientific Consultancy Service and had not made any specific classification of the remaining services. Appellant argues that these services were received and consumed outside India and hence no service tax needs to be paid on them.
(g) Sl.No. 46 to 91: These are pertain to variety of charges such as Factory Audit Expense, Translation Charges, Audit Expenses, Bank Interest, Factory Maintenance, Repair and Maintenance of computers, Membership and subscriptio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

le service has been provided is not correct. In respect of the demand under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, it is alleged by the appellant that the amounts taken by the department for some orders were wrong in the first notice. In respect of one entry head under the head “audit expenses”, demand was made on an amount of Rs. 31,97,77,299/- whereas the actual amount was only Rs. 3,19,77,299/- thus inflating the amount by Rs. 28.00 crores. They further argued that the department found a difference between the ledger amounts and the ST-3 returns because the ledger amounts reflected the provision made whereas the liability to pay service tax in the case of reverse charge mechanism is on making the payment. The amounts mentioned in the Ledger would include the amounts paid, amounts for which provision was made, amounts relating to past period and amounts which are written off. Therefore, the demand of service tax simply based on the Ledger amount is incorrect.
6. The service tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y them. The department's proposal to charge these as business promotion expenses and charge them under reverse charge mechanism is not correct. The appellant relied on the following case laws:
(a) Milind Kulkarni and others vs. CCE, Pune [2016-TIOL-709-CESTATMumbai]
(b) Genym biotech vs. CCE,Nasik [2016(42)STR 918 (Tri.-Mum.]
(c) KPIT Cummins Info System Ltd. CCE Pune [2013-TIOL-1568- CESTAT-Mumbai]
(d) CCE Bangalore vs. Pragati Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd [2015(322)ELT 818 (SC)]
(e) Sunil Forging & Steel Industries vs. CCE, Belapur [20176(332)ELT 341 (Tri.-Mum.)]
(f) CCE Bangalore vs. MTR Foods Ltd [2012(282) ELT 196 (Kar.)]
(g) Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune [2015(40)STR 490 (Tri.-Mum.)]
8. Ld. DR reiterated the arguments made in the Orders-in-Original and vehemently opposed the appeal. It is his submission that the appellant was bound to have filed the returns reflecting the actual amount of services and the service tax liability thereon and paid the service ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es.
9. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The demand is sought to be made on the ground that there is a difference between the ledger amounts and the amounts reflected in the Service Tax returns filed by the appellant. The amounts in the Ledger reflects the amounts transferred by the appellant to their branch offices or associate companies in foreign currency. The Department viewed these as payments made for services rendered by the overseas service provider and consumed by the appellant in India. The appellant argues that the expenses included several expenses which are the office expenses including salaries incurred by their branch offices which are being supported by the appellant. It is also their argument that there were several services for which no classification was made by the department, hence it is impossible to understand and show why the service tax under reverse charge mechanism is not payable on such expenses.
10. As has been held b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

liable to charge to service tax under reverse charge mechanism. It has been held in the case of DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that consideration received from a recipient of service for the services rendered by the provider alone is taxable and the demand for alleged short paid tax must be based on a finding that a specific taxable service has been provided as agreed to be provided and on the consideration that was paid or payable by the recipient of the service to the provider of the service. Similarly, in the present case, where the appellant is supposed to have received the services and is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, it is essential that the department say what services were received by the appellant and how they were unclassifiable and how they were liable to be charged under reverse charge mechanism and compute their tax liability accordingly. This is an original work to be done with respect to each of the specific items of expenditure on which

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extension of Time limit for filing FORM GSTR-6
11/2018 Dated:- 4-6-2018 Telangana SGST
GST – States
Telangana SGST
Telangana SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
TGST Notification No. 11/2018
CCT's Ref No. A(1)/115/2017,
Dt. 04-06-2018
Sub:- Extension of Time limit for filing FORM GSTR-6.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 39 read with Section 168 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (23 of 2017) (hereinafter r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Versus BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 676 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-6-2018
C.M.A. No. 1052 of 2018
Service Tax
S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ.
For the Appellant : Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar
JUDGMENT
( Judgment of this Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J. )
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (CESTAT) dated 31.07.2017 in Final Order No.41584 of 2017.
2. It is the case of the appellant that M/s.BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Private Limited, Chennai, respondent is an 100% EOU, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Service. Respondent filed refund claim with Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Division III, for Rs. 71,39,495/- for the service tax paid on input s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

h Floor of Menon Eternity, New Door No.165, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18
1486920
The premises were not registered at the time of export but subsequently obtained Registration.
07
Services received at International Tech Park Unit No.1 to 4, 11th Floor, Taramani Chennai.
1144872
 
3. Aggrieved by the above orders, the respondent filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The first appellate authority, Commissioner (Appeals) vide combined Order-in-Appeal No.24/2016 dated 18.02.2016 set aside a portion of the order of the original authority, and allowed refund as detailed above:
S. No.
Services
Sanctioned by Commissioner (Appeals)
Sl.No. As in table at para 2 above.
01
Car Parking charges
111240
2
02
Services received at 4th and 5th Floor of Menon Eternity, New Door No.165, St.Mary;s Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 18
1486920
6
03
Services received at International Tech Park Unit No.1 to 4, 11th Floor Taramani Chennai
1144872
7
 
4. In so far as

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of the premises occupied by the respondent. He also held that the service tax paid on the rental charges is eligible for CENVAT credit, then service tax paid on the car parking charges is equally eligible for CENVAT credit and set aside the disallowance of CENVAT credit and upheld the disallowance of CENVAT credit in respect of Event Management service.
6. While the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the credit in respect of Car Parking Charges was found acceptable, the decision in respect of credit availed on the inputs received in the premises which was not registered prior to export, but subsequently obtained Registration was found to be not legally correct and hence the Department filed an appeal before CESTAT.
7. Contentions of the appellant herein were not accepted by CESTAT, Madras and vide FO No.40778 dated 22/05/2017 dismissed the appeal, as hereunder:
“2. On 21.07.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the department Ld.AR, Shri K.P.Muralidh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Sutham Nylocots as reported in 2014(306) ELT 255 (Mad.). No doubt, the Hon'ble High Court in the said judgment had ruled that credit accrued can take effect only after the date of registration, however, the Hon'ble High Court in the subsequent judgment passed on 10.4.2017 in the case of Scioinspire Consulting Services, referred to supra, have distinguished the facts contained in Sutham Nylocots observing that the said case was dealing with the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the only ground rejection of the refund therefor was that the additional building was not registered with the concerned authority. The Hon'ble High Court agreeing with the views on identical issue of law taken by the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Allahabad in mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and dismiss the appeal of the department.”
8. Aggrieved over the same, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the decision of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (CESTAT for short) in allowing refund of CENVAT credit even without registration is correct?
2. Whether CESTAT, i.e. 1st respondent is erred in not considering the safeguards, conditions and limitations as stipulated in the Appendix to the Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2016 .
9. Supporting the prayer sought for, Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that:
(i) Registration is an act by which every manufacturer / assessee / service provider comes under the ambit of Central Excise Act, 1944 / Finance Act, 1994. In order to avail any substantive benefit, like, CENVAT Credit given under the statute, registration of premises from which the taxable service is rendered is a pre-requisi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ly in respect of the registered premises of the service provider from where the output services are exported.
(iv) It has been held that registration was not a pre-requisite to claim refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Larger Bench of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Steel Strips Vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2011 (269) ELT (Tri-Del) vide para 5.16 has categorically stated that Modvat law has codified procedure for adjustment of duty liablity against Modvat Account. That is required to be carried out in accordance with law and unadjusted amount is not expressly permitted to be refunded. In absence of express provision to grant refund, that is difficult to entertain except in the case of export. There cannot be presumption that in the absence of debarment to make refund, in other cases that is permissible. Refund results in outflow from treasury, which needs sanction of law and an order of refund for such purpose is sine qua non. Law has only recognized the event of expo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eason that Rule 4 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 permitted a service provider to export services without payment of service tax, and thus, there is liability to pay service tax on export of service, but for this rule. Hence, for export of service by a service provider, registration is a sine qua non for procedural and substantive compliance.
(vi)The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-III Vs. M/s.Scionispire Consulting Services (India) P Ltd., applied by CESTAT for deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent was accepted by the department due to monetary limit and not on merits, and therefore, it is humbly submitted that the ratio of the said judgment should not have been taken as a binding precedent in view of Section 35R (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944.
(vii)The subsequent decision of CESTAT issued vide FO No.42500/2016 dated 20/12/2016 in the case of the same pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ilized input CENVAT credit taken towards rendering the input services availed and used in providing the taxable output services exported, would not arise prior to the date of registration.
10. Heard Ms.Aparna Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for the revenue and perused the materials available on record.
11. Going through the material on record, and adverting to the submissions duly supported by the grounds of challenge, we are of the view that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Services Tax-III, Chennai Vs. M/s. Scioinspire Consulting Services India Private Limited, Chennai and another, in C.M.A.No.860 of 2017, wherein the following substantial questions of law were framed:-
“1. Whether the decision of CESTAT i.e. Respondent No.1 in allowing refund of Cenvat credit even without registration is correct?
2. Whether CESTAT i.e. Respondent No.1 is correct in not considering the safe guards, conditions and limitations as

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed input service credit. The only clause of the notification, which, perhaps, the Department could have relied upon, is Clause 3, which, to our minds, has no bearing on the issue arising in the instant case. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said notification is extracted hereafter :
“Notification No.05/2006-Central Excise (N.T.) 14th March 2006 G.S.R. (E) In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), and in supercession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.11/2002 – Central Excise (NT), dated 1st March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R.No.150(E), dated 1st March 2002, the Central Government hereby directs that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed in respect of :
(a) input or input service used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

proceeds.”
7.2. A bare perusal of the clause would show that in so far as the provider of output services is concerned, for making an application for refund of CENVAT Credit, he is required to file an application in the prescribed form, i.e., Form A, which is annexed to the notification, and the said application is required to be made to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, or, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be. In so far as the jurisdiction of the concerned Officer is concerned, the same is fixed, in consonance with the location of the registered premises of the service provider, from which, the output service are exported. Furthermore, the application is required to be accompanied with a copy of the relevant invoices and a certificate from the bank, indicating therein, the realization of export proceeds.
7.3. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no limitation. Clearly, the notification does not prohibit the grant of CENVAT credit, even, if, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

X export turnover / Total turnover ………”
7.5. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the said notification would disentitle the claim of the Assessee qua refund of CENVAT credit.”
13. On Questions of Law 1 and 3, the Hon'ble Division Bench, at paragraph Nos.8.4 to 8.7, considered thus
“8.4.What is relevant to note is that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
8.5.In so far as the Assessee in this case, is concerned, it had obtained registration of its premises way back on 23.01.2009. The record shows that allegation of non-registration of premises relates to another building, which was taken on lease by the Assessee and is located in Alwarpet, Chennai. Concededly, services were exported to a overseas Company, from this building which was not registered. Similarly, Rule 4 of the 1994 Rules, inter alia, provides that in case where a person is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. Unit – III Versus Commissioner of GST & CCE, Pondicherry
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 247 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 4-6-2018
Appeal Nos. E/42620 & 42621/2017 – Final Order No. 41725-41726 / 2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial )
Ms. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent.
ORDER
The issue involved in both these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of computer systems and were availing the facility of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and services tax paid on input services. On verification of records, it was noticed that during the period from April 2012 to September 2012, as well as October 2012 to March 2013, the appellants had availed Cenvat Credit on outward transportation of goods up to the bu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ctual credit availed by the appellant pertains to service tax paid on 25% of the gross amount of the freight charge incurred, whereas the appellant had paid the excise duty at the rate of 10% on the assessable value of the final goods, which is inclusive of the entire freight charge incurred. Thus, the credit availed in respect of the freight incurred is very meagre when compared to the excise duty paid on the assessable value. The department had insisted to add the freight value to the assessable value for the payment of excise duty treating the place of the client as the place of removal. Whereas, thereafter, the department has not accepted the customer's place, as the place of removal in order to deny the Cenvat Credit availed on the outward freight incurred. She submitted that as the excise duty paid on the assessable value, being at a relatively high rate, the denial of Cenvat Credit availed on service tax paid on 25% of the gross amount on reverse charge mechanism is a clear case

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e of removal, read with outward transportation up to the place of removal, would lead to the meaning of the term “place of removal”, as stated in respect of transportation services availed up to such “place of removal”. She adverted to the definition of “place of removal” contained in Section 4 (3) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and also referred to Master Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007. Relying on the decision in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE 007 (6) STR 364 (Tribunal), the learned Counsel argued that the crux of the clarification given by the Board is as to the scope of the term “place of removal”. Once, the term “place of removal” is thus understood, Cenvat Credit is eligible for transportation up to the place of removal. If buyer's premises can be considered as place of removal, then credit for GTA services up to buyer's place is also eligible. Further, that since the clarification as per the decisions as well as the Master Circular has not overcome the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ent. The Circular only clarifies that the buyer's place can become place of removal if the three conditions are satisfied. If these three conditions are satisfied, the place of removal would be the buyer's place up to 31.03.2008 and credit would be eligible. After 01.04.2008, credit is not eligible for clearance of final products up to the place of removal and the GTA services availed for transporting the goods from the factory or depot to the buyer's place could be covered within the expression for clearance of final products up to the place of removal, if otherwise, the buyer's place can be considered as the place of removal. That, therefore, the conclusion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said clarification is not relevant after 01.04.2008, as it appears to be incorrect. That the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court does not deal with these issues and, therefore, does not cover the issue under consideration. She prayed that the credit on the service tax, paid on outward transportatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax Settlement of Funds (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018.
F. No. 31013/16/2017-ST-I-DoR – G.S.R. 524(E) Dated:- 4-6-2018 Central GST (CGST)
GST
CGST
CGST
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2018
G.S.R. 524(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 53 read with section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), sections 17 and 18 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017) and section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the Goods and Services Tax Settlement of Funds Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These ru

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E WAY BILL
Query (Issue) Started By: – YUWRAJ KOTHARI Dated:- 2-6-2018 Last Reply Date:- 7-6-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
My Client has a business of Cement (Reseller). Whereas Company send Cement bags via rail to a particular destination. After that Company provide Transport facility to send cement bags to client but during the transit client request transporter to send Cement bags directly to the 3 customer situated at three different places. My queries is whether we have to generate e way bill and if yes then HOW or Transporter will take care of such transaction.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
One can transport goods through different modes of transportation – Road, Rail, Air, Shi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

fted from railway siding to buyer plant by around 200 trucks(16 km distance). In that case how to update part-B of e-Way bill.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
Where the goods are transported by railways or by air or vessel, the Part B of the e-way bill can be updated either before or after the commencement of movement. But, where the goods are transported by railways, the railways shall not deliver the goods, unless the e-way bill as required under these rules is produced to them, at the time of delivery.
One e-way bill can go through multiple modes of transportation before reaching destination. As per the mode of transportation, the EWB can be updated with new mode of transportation by using 'Update Vehicle Number'.
Let us assume t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods to Other State Branches Under GST Can Use Invoice Value as Open Market Value with Full Input Tax Credit.
Case-Laws
GST
GST – Valuation of a supply – Goods transferred to branches in ano

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RECORDS IN GST REGIME_ELECTRONIC Vs PHYSICAL
By: – Ram Akshya
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 2-6-2018

1. Introduction
Maintenance of books of account and documentation is one of the important compliance requirement under any tax law. The tax payer or the assessee is required to record all transactions in his books of account and keep all the documents entered into for any transaction in safe custody up to a particular period of time. Different tax law specifies different period for which records, documents etc. should be preserved. Further, the correct assessment, audit, verification of compliances are based on proper maintenance of books of accounts and records keeping. Goods and Service Tax (GST) is mainly self-assessment based system where the registered person is required to assess his liability and pay it by filing applicable returns. Off course, the basis for this is underlying records for a particular transaction. The GST law has also prescribed documents

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iche.”
* As per Section 2(12) of Companies Act 2013, “book and paper' and 'book or paper' include books of account, deeds, vouchers, writings, documents, minutes and registers maintained on paper or in electronic form.”
* As per Section 2(13) of Companies Act 2013, “books of account' includes records maintained in respect of-
(i) all sums of money received and expended by a company and matters in relation to which the receipts and expenditure take place;
(ii) all sales and purchases of goods and services by the company;
(iii) the assets and liabilities of the company; and
(iv) the items of cost as may be prescribed under section 148 in the case of a company which belongs to any class of companies specified under that section.”
* As per Section 2(36) of Companies Act 2013, “document includes summons, notice, requisition, order, declaration, form and register, whether issued, sent or kept in pursuance of this Act or under any other law for the time being in force or otherwi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

form of data stored on any electronic device. In case, there is any change in the registers and other documents maintained electronically, a log of every entry edited or deleted is required to be maintained. Further, proper electronic back up of all the records is required to be maintained and preserved so that in case of destruction of such records due to any reason, it may be restored within a reasonable period of time. The person maintaining electronic records is to submit the relevant records, documents in hard copy or in electronic readable format, duly authenticated by him to the appropriate authority if demanded. Further, the details of files stored electronically, password of such files and explanation for codes used etc. is also required to be provided on demand.
4. Location of maintenance of books of accounts
The GST law requires every registered person to maintain the books of accounts at his places of business respectively. In case, there is multiple business locations

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e of business shall be kept at such place of business. Accordingly, every registered person is to keep and maintain the account of:
* Manufacture of goods
* To maintain monthly production accounts showing quantitative details of raw material or services used in the manufacture and quantitative details of goods so manufactured including waste and by-products
Inward & outward supply of goods or services
* Stock of goods
* Input tax credit availed
* Output tax payable and paid
* It should contain the details of tax payable including payable as per Section 9(3) & Section 9(4), tax collected and paid, input tax, input ta credit claimed together with a register of tax invoice, credit notes, debit notes, delivery challan issued or received during any tax period
Import or export
* Supplies attracting payment of tax on reverse charge basis
* Relevant documents including invoices, bills of supply, delivery challans, credit notes, debit notes, receipt vouchers, payment voucher

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d therein.
6. Period of preservation of accounts
Every registered person who is required to keep and maintain books of accounts or other records as per GST law shall preserve the same till the expiry of seventy two months (six years) from the due date of furnishing the annual return. The due date of filing of annual return is 31st December from the end of the relevant financial year. Thus, the books of accounts or other records must be preserved at least seventy nine months from the end of the relevant financial year.
In case, there is any appeal or revision or investigation or any other proceeding/case going on, the books of accounts and other records pertaining to such proceeding is required to be preserved for a period of one year after final disposal of such proceeding/case or till the expiry of seventy two months from 31st December of relevant financial year, whichever is later.
7. Conclusion
From the above, it is derived that the GST law has extensive accounting and record k

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund in case of Inverted Duty Structure
Query (Issue) Started By: – Riya Jain Dated:- 2-6-2018 Last Reply Date:- 2-6-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Sir
In Gst refund form of inverted duty structure ,where output tax is 12% and 18% and input tax 18% and 28% , it asks for turnover of inverted supply of goods, in that will only be 12 percent will be taken or 12% and 18‰ both turnover.Also if only 12% turnover is to be taken, then it becomes contradictory

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST revenue collection for May 2018
GST
Dated:- 1-6-2018

GST revenue collection for May 2018
Rs 94,016 Crore of total gross GST revenue collected in May2018
Gross revenue collection in may is much higher than the monthly average of GST collection in the last financial year
The total gross GST revenue collected in the month of May2018 is Rs. 94,016 crore of which CGST is ₹ 15,866 crore, SGST is ₹ 21,691 crore, IGST is ₹ 49,120 crore (including ₹ 24,447 crore collected on imports) and Cess is ₹ 7,339 crore (including ₹ 854 crore collected on imports).The total number of GSTR 3B Returns filed for the month of April up to 31st May, 2018 is 62.47 lakh.
The total revenue earned by Central Gove

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Printing Customer Content on Photographic Paper Classified as Service Under SAC 9989, 12% GST Applies.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of supply – Activity of Printing content supplied by the cu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Late payment of GST amount
Query (Issue) Started By: – Yugank Goel Dated:- 1-6-2018 Last Reply Date:- 8-6-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Dear All,
Suppose we have not depsited tax on time then what is the interest rate that we will be liable to pay.
Is it 18% or 24%??
If 18%, then when we got liable for 24%.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
Interest on Late GST Payment
An interest of 18 percent is levied on the late payment of taxes under the GST regime.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gst paid but return not submitted
Query (Issue) Started By: – Yugank Goel Dated:- 1-6-2018 Last Reply Date:- 7-6-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Dear All,
There is a issue which I had discussed with many consultants but I found that this is debatable as every consultant comes with their own view which is different from others. Please help me to solve this.
We have not submitted the GSTR 3B returns for past 3-4 months but we have deposited the tax amount timely. We just want to know that when we will file the return, shall we have to pay interest also on amount which we have already paid in advance as we have not setoff our GST liability or there will be only penalty for late filing.
Reply By YAGAY and SUN

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reply By Yugank Goel:
The Reply:
Regarding late fee this is true but is there any provision that tax paid in advance without being setoff the liability in GSTR3B still be liable for interest for the output liability?????
Reply By Praveen Nair:
The Reply:
Dear Yugank
If there are no change in the Output liability and the amount paid advance (credit / cash) is unutilized as on the date of filing the GSTR3B return, which you desire to file with the late payment fees, it is a matter of representation to the right authority. No interest is leviable.
Regards
Pravin Nair
Reply By Mahadev R:
The Reply:
In GST law, tax amounts are deemed to be paid only when they are adjusted with the liability in liability register which can happen only on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sanction of pending IGST refund claims where the records have not been transmitted from the GSTN to DG Systems
15/2018 Dated:- 1-6-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CITY CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE, P.B. NO. 5400, C.R. BUILDING QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU 001560.
C.NO.VIII/09/ 09/2018 City Cus. Tech
Dated: 01.06.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 15/2018
Subject: Sanction of pending IGST refund claims where the records have not been transmitted from the GSTN to DG Sys

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. BC Examinations and English Services India Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1495 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 107 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – AAR
Dated:- 1-6-2018
AAR No. HAR/HAAR/R/2017-18/11
GST
SANGEETA KARMAKAR AND VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER
Present for the Applicant: Sh. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate and Sh. Ankit Awal, C.A.
Present for the department: –
Factual Background
1. As per the statement of facts submitted by the Applicant, it is a subsidiary of the British Council which is the U.K.'s International Organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities. International English Language Testing System (hereinafter referred as 'IELTS') is a highly regarded English Language proficiency test developed, managed and owned by the British Council, U.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'BCUK').
2. BCUK furthers its charitable, educational and cultural relations by offering

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ervices would cover the following:
(i) To source and manage the running of suitable test centre venues in India for the examination:
(ii) To receive registration information from BCUK and its registration agents for IELTS;
(iii) To maintain supplies of Test Materials for administration and comply with security requirement set by BCUK and relevant external exam boards in relation to logging in and out. To distribute test materials to candidates on the test day and collect them after test administration for processing; 
(iv) To manage test administration and logistics for test days, including scheduling of the Applicant's staff and liaison with the test centres;
(v) To provide back office support in relation to financial controls and accounting processes in respect of examinations held at test centres managed by the Applicant;
(vi) To print IELTS result in paper form from BCUK's global system and distribute certificates on BCUK's behalf to successful candidates i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r alt the activities involved in the exam support services constitute a mixed supply or a composite supply?
2. What will be rate of GST applicable on these exam support services?
3. What is the place of supply of these exam support services rendered by the Applicant BCKU?
Comment of the Officer under section 98 (1) of the CGST, HGST Act 2017
The Assistant Commissioner, Division East-II, Central GST, Gurugrum vide his comments dated 17.05.2018 has stated as follows:
1. Regarding question no. 1
“The impugned services proposed to be provided by the Applicant constitute a composite supply of conduction of examination and other back end support Services.”
2. Regarding question no. 2
“The principal supply is of the conducting exams which is taxable @ 18%.”
3. Regarding question no. 3
“The place of supply the impugned service shall be the location of the recipient of the service.”
Record of Personal Hearing
The applicant was afforded a personal bearing for 24.05.2018 and on 31.05.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rts. As per schedule-I appended to the copy of agreement submitted on record part-A is for responsibilities of service recipient, part-B specifies 8 types of exam support services and pan-C specifies to services pertaining to student facilitation services.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant had argued that the proposed services as per part-B in schedule -I appended to the copy of agreement are exam support services and constitute a composite supply of conduction of examination and the services mentioned in part-C of said agreement are other back end support services which are so bundled together that such back end support services cannot be said to have an independent existence. These are only ancillary to conduction of examination. The bundle of these  services is classifiable as other educational support services under service code 999299 group code 99929 and beading 9992 as per scheme of classification of services appended to notification no. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to several case laws and particularly to section 2 (6) of the IGST Act.
After hearing these present in detail the decision on admissibility of the application was pronounced and as regard decision on question 1 & 2, on which the application was admitted, was reserved which is being released today.
Discussion and finding of authority
Since the ruling is restricted only to the question of nature of supply and rate of tax applicable, it is relevant to understand the provisions of law on these issues.
1. Section 2(30) of the CGST/HGST Act 2017 defines a “composite supply” to mean a supply made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the course of business, one of which is a principal supply.
2. Further Section 2(90) Of CGST/HGST Act 2017 defines a “principal supply” to mean the supply of goods or services which const

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nistration and comply with security requirement set by BCUK and relevant external exam boards in relation to logging in and out. To distribute test materials to candidates on the test day and collect them after test administration for processing;
(iv) To manage test administration and logistics for test days, including scheduling of the Applicant's staff and liaison with the test centres;
 (v) To provide back office support in relation to financial controls and accounting processes in respect of examinations held at test centre; managed by the Applicant;
(vi) To print IELTS result in paper from from the BCUK's global system and distribute certificates on BCUK' s behalf to successful candidates in India;
(vii) To recruit, train and monitor invigilators, examiners and test paper markers for the IELTS tests, in accordance with the standards set by BCUK and their own administrative and management staff;
(viii) To periodically inspect the quality of test centres and pr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Gitwako Farms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1494 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 127 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – AAR
Dated:- 1-6-2018
HAR/HAAR/R/2017-18/10
GST
Sangeeta Karmakar Member CGST and Vijay Kumar Singh Member SGST
ADVANCE RULING NO.HAR/HAAR/R/2017-18/10
(In Application No.: 10, dated 06.03.2018)
Present for the Applicant: Sh. Gourav Gupta C.A. and Sh. Neeraj
Present for the department: Sh. Rakesh Dahiya, ETO, Mewat.
Factual Background
M/s. Gitwako Farms (India) Pvt. Ltd supplies to Army and Para Military Forces sheep/goat meat in carcasses of different weight and size in frozen State. Each frozen carcass is put in LDPE bag (primary packing) which is sealed with a tie and no weight is mentioned on such LDPE bags. Thereafter, one or two of such LDPE bags are put in dust and moisture proof food grade HDPE bags (secondary packing). On such HDPE bags, contents including produc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hearing
The applicant was afforded a personal hearing for 24.05.2018. The issue raised by the applicant for advance ruling, whether their product can be said to be packed in a unit container to fall under the scope of notification no. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or notification no. 2/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. is covered under the scope of section 97 of CGST/HGST Act 2017 and therefore, the application was admitted.
As regard the classification of their product, the departmental representative had stated that the applicant firm is packing the animal carcasses in bags for supplying to their customers, i.e. Army, in unit containers and therefore it attracts GST @ 12%.
The applicant had strongly argued that the packing done by them cannot be said to be unit containers as it is defined in the explanation to mean a package designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number which is indicated on such package. The applican

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ut up in a 'unit container, it would be exigible to tax @12%.
Correspondingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Central Government vide notification no. 2/2017-lntegrated Tax (rate) New Delhi dated 28.06.2017 has exempted, Inter-State supplies of goods, from the whole of the Integrated Tax leviable thereon. Relevant extract is reproduced below:
Schedule-
Sr. No.
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item
Description of Goods
10.
0204
Meat of sheep or goats, [other than frozen and put up in unit containers]
W.e.f. from 15th November 2017 onwards.
Schedule I of the Notification no. 43/2017-Integrated Tax (rate) dated 14th November, 2017 deals with the products which are subject to 5% GST and entry No. 1 which pertain to sheep meat and poultry meat are provided below:-
Schedule-I
Sr.No.
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item
Description of Goods
1.
0204, 0207
All goods (other than

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the Central Government via notification no. 44/2017 Integrated Tax (rate) New Delhi dated 14.11.2017 has exempted, Inter-State supplies of goods, from the whole of the integrated tax leviable thereon. Relevant extract is reproduced below:
Schedule-
Sr.No.
Chapter/Heading/Sub- heading/Tariff item
Description of Goods
8
0204
0207
All goods, fresh or chilled
7.
0204
0207
All goods (other than fresh or chilled) other than those put up in unit container and,-
(a) bearing a registered brand name; or
(b) bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been foregone voluntarily], subject to conditions as in the annexure I]”,
A conjoint reading of the extracts of the above mentioned notifications reveal that on products of Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item 0204 and 0207 GST is ch

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

packing) which is sealed with a tie and no weight is mentioned on such LDPE bags. Thereafter, generally two of such LDPE bags are put in HDPE bags (secondary packing) and the weight of both the packed carcasses is mentioned on the secondary packing. Thus, the packing of the frozen carcasses done by them is only a medium of delivery and since these are not in pre-determined units, these packing cannot be termed as 'Unit Containers'.
To substantiate their view regarding unit container the applicant had cited several case laws. Reliance is placed on the case of CCE Vs Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) ELT 695 (Tri.-Mumbai] and Surya Agro Oils Ltd. vs CCE, Indore, 2000 (116) ELT 514.
In of CCE Vs Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) ELT 695 (Tri.-Mumbai] the Hon'ble bench had considered the question of 'Unit Container' and observed in para 3:
“3. . . .However, unit container, as per the definitions contained in several dictionaries, is a container containing pre-determine

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

one by the applicant cannot be regarded as 'Unit Container' since it is not standardised to hold a uniform predetermined quantity. Also in the explanation appended to the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 a unit container means a package, whether large or small (for example tin, can, jar, box, bottle, bag, carton, drum, barrel or canister) designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, which is indicated on such package. The explanation itself suggests that the make of the container should be such which can hold a predetermined quantity or number. It should be such that when packed it holds the predetermined quantity or the number for which it is designed. As shown to us the packaging by the applicant can weigh 10 Kgs or 11 Kgs or for that matter 10.5 or 10.25 Kgs depending upon the weight of two frozen carcasses, packed in secondary packaging. Neither the packaging is uniform or standardised nor the packages are designed to hold a predet

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shreeji Adhesive Versus CGST & CE, Ujjain
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 519 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Appeal No. E/50872/2018-CU[DB] – A/52268/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Represented by Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellant.
Represented by Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per Rachna Gupta:
Present is an appeal filed against the order dated 15.01.2018 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty on the value of subsidy received by the Appellant during the years 2010-11 to 2014-15. In addition, a penalty under Section 78 has also been confirmed. The factua

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Virchow Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax -Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1413 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Appeal No. E/31133/2017 – A/30613/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
None for the Appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0038-17-18 dated 29.08.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Marine Insurance services which were used for export of finished goods exported and Air Travel Agent's services used for business travel of directors for sales promotion; reversal of CENVAT credit availed on the capital goods cleared without being used as such and whether invocation of extended perio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he matter was called out, submits that the lower authorities were in error in confirming the demands raised as Marine Insurance service is for the exports of the goods and cost of the export goods increasing by disallowing the credit on Marine Insurance service; Air Travel Agent's services were used for appellant movement of the directors and employees and used for business travel purpose and they have correctly reverse the CENVAT credit while discharging the duty on one of the machineries. He draws my attention to the various documents annexed to the memorandum of appeal. It is his further submission that the entire demand is hit by limitation as the show cause notice is issued on 17.05.2016 invoking the extended period, in spite of the fact that two audit parties have taken place in the appellant's premises and draws my attention to the audit report the copy annexed to the returns submitted today.
6. The matter was kept today for hearing arguments of Learned Departmental Representat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

od 26.01.2014 and 28.01.2014 and audit reports for January, 2014 to December, 2014 audited on 06.01.2015 – 21.01.2015. The said audit reports did not indicate any of the allegations made in the present show cause notice. It is also seen from the said show cause notice dated 17.05.2016, the basis for issuance of show cause notice is the audit report of the CAG. It is settled law in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. MTR Foods Ltd., [2012 (282) ELT 196 (Kar.)] wherein, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has specifically held that once returns were regularly filed and no objections raised about same in first audit by Revenue Officers and during second audit, objections raised about same, and the said returns indicated availment of CENVAT Credit Rules, the audit party accepted the same, and it is not proper to invoke the extended period. The said ratio squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside only on the ground o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to notify NACIN as the authority for conducting the examination for GST Practitioners under rule 83(3)of the Assam GST Rules,2017.
009/2018-GST Dated:- 1-6-2018 Assam SGST
GST – States
Assam SGST
Assam SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
ASSAM KAR BHAWAN
NOTIFICATION No. 9/2018-GST
Date 1st June, 2018
NO.CT/GST-14/2017/124.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 48 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due date for filling of FORM GSTR-6 for the months from July 2017 till June, 2018.
010/2018-GST Dated:- 1-6-2018 Assam SGST
GST – States
Assam SGST
Assam SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
ASSAM KAR BHAWAN
NOTIFICATION No. 10/2018-GST
Date: 1st June, 2018
No. CT/GST-14/2017/128.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (Assam Ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notified Telangana Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
G.O.Ms. NO.108 Dated:- 1-6-2018 Telangana SGST
GST – States
Telangana SGST
Telangana SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
G.O.Ms. NO.108,
DATED 1-6-2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No.23 of 2017), the State Government hereby makes the following Rules further to amend the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:
(1) These Rules may be called the Telangana Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) Save as otherwise provided, they shall deemed to have come into force with effect from 18th day of April, 2018.
2. In the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017,-
(i) in rule 89, for sub-rule (5), the following shall be substituted, namely:
"(5) In the case of refund on account of inverted duty structure, refund of input tax credit shall be gran

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

termined under sub-section (5) of section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall be deposited in the Fund.
(2) Where any amount, having been credited to the Fund, is ordered or directed to be paid to any claimant by the proper officer, appellate authority or court, the same shall be paid from the Fund.
(3) Accounts of the Fund maintained by the Government shall be subject to audit by the Principal Accountant General, Telangana.
(4) The Government shall, by an order, constitute a Standing Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee') with a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Member Secretary and such other members as it may deem fit and the Committee shall make recommendations for proper utilisation of the money credited to the Fund for welfare of the consumers.
(5) (a) The Committee shall meet as and when necessary, generally four times in a year;
(b) the Committee shall meet a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

documents, instruments, or commodities in custody and control of the applicant, as may be necessary for proper evaluation of the application;
(c) to require any applicant to allow entry and inspection of any premises, from which activities claimed to be for the welfare of consumers are stated to be carried on, to a duly authorised officer of the State Government, as the case may be;
(d) to get the accounts of the applicants audited, for ensuring proper utilisation of the grant;
(e) to require any applicant, in case of any default, or suppression of material information on his part, to refund in lump-sum alongwith accrued interest, the sanctioned grant to the Committee, and to be subject to prosecution under the Act;
(f) to recover any sum due from any applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Act;
(g) to require any applicant, or class of applicants to submit a periodical report, indicating proper utilisation of the grant;
(h) to reject an application placed before

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vailable in the Fund;
(c) making available grants (on selective basis) for reimbursing legal expenses incurred by a complainant, or class of complainants in a consumer dispute, after its final adjudication;
(d) making available grants for any other purpose recommended by the Central Consumer Protection Council (as may be considered appropriate by the Committee);
(e) making available up to 50% of the funds credited to the Fund each year, for publicity/consumer awareness on GST, provided the availability of funds for consumer welfare activities of the Department of Consumer Affairs is not less than five crore rupees per annum.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule,
(a) 'applicant' means,-
(i) the Central Government or State Government;
(ii) regulatory authorities or autonomous bodies constituted under an Act of Parliament or Legislature of the State;
(iii) any agency or organization engaged in consumer welfare activities for a minimum period of three years, re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cified by the Standing Committee from time to time;
(c) 'Central Consumer Protection Council' means the Central Consumer Protection Council, established under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), for promotion and protection of rights of consumers;
(d) 'Committee' means the Committee constituted under sub-rule (4);
(e) 'Consumer' has the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), and includes consumer of goods on which central tax has been paid;
(f) 'Fund' means the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the State Government under section 57 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (19 of 2017);
(g) 'Proper Officer' means the officer having the power under the Act to make an order that the whole or any part of the state tax is refundable.".
(iii) in FORM GST ITC-03, after entry 5 (e), for the instr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

oods held in stock and capital goods /plant and machinery
Unit Quantity
Code (UQC)
Qty
Value (As adjusted by debit / credit note)
Input tax credit/
Tax payable (whichever is higher) (Rs.)
No.
Date
Central tax
State/
Union territory tax
Integrated tax
Cess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
8 (a) Inputs held in stock (where invoice is available)
8 (b) Inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock (where invoice is available)
8 (c) Capital goods/plant and machinery held in stock
8 (d) Inputs held in stock or inputs as contained in semi-finished /finished goods held in stock ( where invoice is not available)
9. Amount of tax payable and paid (based on Table 8)
Sr.
No
.
Description
ITC reversible/T ax payable
Tax paid along with application for cancellation of registration (GST REG-16)
Balance tax payable (3-4)
Amount paid through debit to electronic cash ledger
Amount paid through debit to electronic credit ledger
Cen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ection 10;
(iii) Non-resident taxable person;
(iv) Persons required to deduct tax at source under section 51; and
(v) Persons required to collect tax at source under section 52.
2. Details of stock of inputs, inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods and stock of capital goods/plant and machinery on which input tax credit has been availed.
3. Following points need to be taken care of while providing details of stock at Sl. No.8:
(i) where the tax invoices related to the inputs held in stock or inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock are not available, the registered person shall estimate the amount under sub-rule (3) of rule 44 based on prevailing market price of the goods;
(ii) in case of capital goods/ plant and machinery, the value should be the invoice value reduced by 1/60th per month or part thereof from the date of invoice/purchase taking useful life as five years.
4. The details furnished in accordance with sub-rule (3) of rule 44 in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Anant Bomb, Ajay Goel, Lalit Thakuria, Neeraj Thakur Versus CGST, CE & CC, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 784 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Appeal No. E/52137/2016-SM, E/52153/2016, E/52143/2016, E/52842/2016 – A/52094-52097/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, Shri M.K. Sharma, CA (52842/16) – for the appellant
Shri H.C. Saini, D.R. – for the respondent
Per Bijay Kumar:
The present order disposes off the above four appeals filed by the appellant against a common adjudication Order No. 19-20/PR. COMM/CEX/BPL-1/2016 dated 31.3.2016, wherein a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed upon each of the appellant, viz. (i)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e ledger, as stated by the ld. Advocate, is a crucial document for the verification of the transactions in question. Further, the order is based on the third party statement without any corroborative evidence. That there is no dispute that the goods were cleared by the appellant but the allegation that those are diverted en-route to have been not investigated and discussed by the ld. Adjudicating authority. Also that the transactions with M/s Ujala Electricals Ltd. by the banking channel and there is no evidence of any financial flow back to the appellant. Ld. Advocate further relied upon the decision of M/s Z.U. Alvi Vs. CCE, Bhopal – 2000 (117) ELT 69 (Tribunal ) and Manohar Singh Rana Vs. CCE, Indore – 2017 (357) ELT 1163 (Tri.-Delhi) Th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vocate is of the opinion that there is no case of penalty which has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 ibid. from the above ground.
3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the fact contained in the impugned order and stated that all these invoices were issued by the appellant companies without supply of the goods and, therefore, facilitated the availment of the wrong Cenvat credit which is contrary to the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
4. Heard both the parties and considered the case record.
5. The only issue involved in the present case is regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs each under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as a co-noticee, for the fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Sanwariya Tiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s Rajaram Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd. Versus CEC&CGST, Jodhpur
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 783 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Ex. Appeal Nos.50849 & 50868 of 2018-SM – A/52101-52102/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the Respondent
Per: Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in both of them is identical
2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs out of the imported marble slabs. During the period prior to February, 2015, they were availing the benefit of small scale exemption Notification. The exemption limit of value of clearances was crossed by them in February, 2015 and as such in terms of provisions of rule 3(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they became entit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).
Hence, the present appeals.
4. The appellate authority, while rejecting the assessee's appeal observed as under:-
“6. The basic defence of appellant is that both sub rules cannot be applied simultaneously and they are entitled for availment of credit in view of rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, I observe that from the wording of above two rules, there is nothing to suggest that both these rules cannot be applied simultaneously. I observe that while Rule 3(2) prescribes the eligibility to avail cenvat credit as soon as the unit crosses threshold limit, Rule 4(1) prescribes particular condition for availment of that credit. If, a condition under Rule 4 specifically disallows cenvat credit on a particular goods or service, the cenvat credit cannot be allowed under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
7. I find that the case laws quoted by the appellant are not relevant in the pre

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ly, the appellants were not in a position to avail the credit immediately on receipt of the goods or within a period of six months from the issuance of bills of entry, as long as they were working under the small scale exemption notification. Their right to avail the credit would arise only on crossing the exemption limit. Such right specifically stands extended to them by the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and cannot be extinguished by making reference to Rule 4(1). Rule 4(1) which provide for availment of credit within a period of six months from the relevant document applies whether an assessee is already working under the cenvat credit scheme and is availing the cenvat on regular basis. A harmonious interpretation of both the rules leads to the above conclusion. By referring to one provision of law, the other provision cannot be made otiose, as per the settled principle of interpretation. It is not the appellant's fault that they crossed the exemption limit afte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Govind Ram Bhojak., M/s. Hanut Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 782 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Excise Appeal No. 2993-2994 of 2005 SM – A/52121-52122/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri P Juneja, AR for the Respondent
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).
2. As per facts on record, M/s. Hanut Industries is engaged in the manufacture of PET performs and PET bottles falling under Chapter 39. Their factory was visited by Ce

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

factory for manufacture of bottles. Shri Govind Ram Bhojak, authorized signatory of M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries, in his statement dated 17.8.2001 deposed that during the period 1999-2000, they were manufacturing bottles from the premises of one M/s. V K Enterprises by taking their premises and machines on rent basis and during the period 2000-2001, they manufactured PET bottles from the premises of M/s. Tambi Powerloom on rent basis.
5. The officers made inquiries at the end of M/s. V K Enterprises and M/s. Tambi Powerloom whereas it was found that M/s. V K Enterprises had entered into a rental contract with M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries for the period 1999-2000. The proprietor of M/s. Tambi Powerloom Ltd. also agreed that he has p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sinha, learned representative of the appellant and Shri P Juneja, learned representative of the Revenue, I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the sole factor that M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries could not establish that during the relevant period, they had entered into an agreement with either M/s. V K Enterprises and M/s. Tambi Powerloom Ltd. This factor by itself cannot lead to conclusion that present appellant had cleared PET bottles in the guise of PET preform without payment of duty. It is well settled law that allegations and findings of clandestine removal are required to be made on the basis of positive evidence and cannot be upheld merely on doubts. There is virtually no evidence on record to show as to who wer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mahavir Spinning Mills Versus Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 245 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
E/60303/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 62441/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate- for the appellant
Shri. A.K. Saini, AR- for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein a demand at the rate of 6% of the value of exempted goods has been confirmed against them on the ground that the appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of 100% Grey Cotton Textile Yarn. The appellant is adopting method by selling their goods under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on payment of duty and under Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 09.07.2004 without payment of duty.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ods cleared under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 on proportionate basis and no cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant on the inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 and waste. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount in terms of Rules 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. On the other hand, the ld. AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. On perusal of the record, I find that in the show cause notice the only allegation against the appellant is that they are not maintaining separate account of inputs used in dutiable as well as exempted final goods, therefore, in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they are required to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of waste cleared at nil rate of duty. In such a situation, the CBEC has issued Circular No. 845/3/2007-CE dated 01.02.2007 which clarifies the position as u

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ared at nil rate of duty. In the impugned order also, the ld. Commissioner (A) has not given any finding to the claim made by the appellant that they are availing proportionate cenvat credit of inputs used in manufacture goods at the end of the month.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is required to be examined by the authorities below whether the appellant is availing proportionate cenvat credit of inputs at the end of the month which has been used in manufacture of dutiable goods and the same has not been denied by the authorities below. In that circumstances, the claim of the appellant has been proved that they have taken the cenvat credit proportionate to inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods. In that circumstances, the appellant is not required to reverse any amount or pay 6% of the value of waste cleared at the rate of nil rate of duty, therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =