It came to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC or the Board) that certain field formations are taking a view that Service tax is payable on services received by the apparel exporters from third party undertaking job work on the premise that the services received by apparel exporters is of manpower supply service, which neither falls under the Negative list nor is specifically exempt. However, trade is of the view that the such services are of job work involving a process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, and thus would fall under the Negative list of services given under Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) and hence would not attract Service tax.
The Committee headed by the Chief Economic Adviser Dr. Arvind Subramanian , had given its recommendations to the Finance Minister last week, recommending a four-tier rate structure wherein some essential items will be taxed at 12%, gold and precious metals at 2-6%, some so-called sin or demerit goods like luxury cars and tobacco products at 40% and most goods and all services at 17-18%.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai, relying upon the decision in the case of Ketan Motors Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST [Final Order No. A/321/2013-WZB/C-1 (CSTB), dated 18-2-2013], held that Section 67 of the Finance Act mandate levy of Service tax on a value or consideration received for rendering the services.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist.
CCE Vs. Shrushthi Plastics (P) Ltd. – CESTAT, Chennai, applied the ratio of the Apex court decision in case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai [2006-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-MAD], which squarely applies to the instant case
CCE Vs. Control & Switchgears Contactors Ltd. – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that while the Respondent had declared that goods were not meant for retail sale, revenue could not produce any evidence to contrary and hence, duty was rightly paid as per Section 4 of the Excise Act.
Shree Krishna Nylon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT MUMBAI] Refund claim cannot be denied when excess duty has been returned through debit/credit Notes, and, the said amount is accounted as ‘receivable’ in the Balance Sheet – sufficient evidence that incidence of duty has not been passed on.
Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – CESTAT, New Delhi, held that a plain reading of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules clarifies that there would be no restriction if assessee avails Cenvat credit on procurement of inputs/input services prior to start of manufacture.
Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs. Riso India (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Duty’ as defined in Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, is wide enough to cover all kinds of duty, including SAD. Hence, as per Section 3(8) of Customs Tariff Act
Dailmer Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT MUMBAI] When import of identical cars have been made at lower values which are comparable to the value declared at the time of filing Bill of Entry for sale of the cars imported under Carnet
