The Hon’ble CESTAT Bangalore relying upon the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Muniruddin [2013(31) STR 136 (All.)] held that even ignorance of law can be one of the reasons for invoking erstwhile Section 80 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, penalties imposed under various Sections of the Finance Act were waived.
In the instant case, Fazlani Exports Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in export of goods outside India for which it has availed various services viz. Terminal Handling Service, GTA services etc. Accordingly, the Appellant filed several refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated July 7, 2009 read with Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated October 6, 2007 as amended,
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even though the goods were found to be different, payment of duty taking comparative value was done with bona fide belief. When entire exercise was revenue neutral (i.e. credit of duty paid on captive consumption was available to the Appellant itself), the Appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade duty.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SERVICE TAX: NEGATIVE LIST, DECLARED SERVICES, EXEMPTION AND SERVICE TAX RULES, 1994 – ISSUES AND WAY FORWARD With the Government paving the way for Finance Act, 2015, the rate of Service Tax has been hiked from 12.36% to 14% w.e.f. 1st June 2015. The Government is also proposing to impose another two per […]
Where VAT has been collected without authority of law and Service tax demand also has been raised for the same period then the VAT Assessing Authority is liable to transfer amount of VAT to Service Tax Department. Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2015) 57 taxmann.com 293 (Punjab & Haryana)]
Jyoti Electronics (the Respondent) purchased certain goods after payment of Input Tax credit. Thereafter, manufacturer of the goods granted trade discount on the goods purchased during the Assessment Year 2008-09 of an amount of Rs.9,60,183/-.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act would get attracted and goods may be liable for confiscation when value of goods in invoices is exaggerated. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow Vs. G.P. Jaiswal [2015 (57) Taxman 295 – SC]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since CT-3 certificates were filed before the Department, no clearance could have taken place without the knowledge of the officer as to the ultimate destination of the goods and the fact that they were cleared without payment of duty in terms of the exemption notification, which was specified in the application.
Excess credit reversed by assessee under protest in course of investigation, for which no SCN has been issued, cannot be retained by Department -Refund thereof is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. Finolex Industries Ltd. [2015 (57) Taxman 153 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
Import freight/ charges etc., which are incurred prior to import or which are included in Customs valuation, cannot be charged to Service tax under Cargo Handling or any other service. United Shippers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II [2015 (57) Taxman 429 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
