Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Summons and letters were issued to the appellant demanding service tax for the period from 01-07-2012 to 16-02-2014. Furthermore, a show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 2,07,29,576 along with interest for services during the afore-stated period was also issued.
“At the time of executing the Concession Agreements with developers, DMRC had collected “upfront fee” as a price for obtaining the respective Concession Agreements.”
“Adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the classification proposed in the show-cause notice by classifying the product under a classification which was neither claimed by the appellant nor was proposed in the said notice.”
For getting the films exhibited in their theatre, the owner of the said Multiplexes/theatres enter into agreements with the film distributors/producers. The purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”.
“Mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. Presumptions and assumptions can never be the basis for imposition of penalty”
by Harshdeep Khurana*, Rachit Jain** and Aishwarya Vardhan***
“The importer has an obligation to self-assess duty but has no obligation under law to anticipate what view regarding classification of goods may be taken by the proper officer or may be taken by DRI or some other investigating agency at any time in future and file Bills of Entry conforming to such anticipated views of the proper officer or DRI or some other investigating agency.”
The assessee-appellant contended that they acted on principal-to-principal with both the customers (shipper) and the shipping line/airline. A freight forwarder may act as principal and raise invoice to the exporter on his own account, providing transportation of goods and is not acting as “intermediary”.
‘Namkeen’ has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff under Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the adjudicating authority had erred in concluding that the impugned goods were not ‘namkeen’.
All the activities rendered by the appellant are undertaken during hosting the cricket matches alone and if there were no cricket matches played, then all these services become irrelevant.
Kopiko contained flavour coffee to the extent of 1.57 %, whereas the majority ingredients were refined sugar 33.06%, liquid glucose 41.41%, other ingredients constitute to 11.81% and water at the rate of 12.5%.
In absence of any suppression or mis-declaration of the facts, larger period of limitation could not be invoked.
The services were not received by the appellant regarding which invoices have been issued to the appellant’s other two addresses, other than the address for which service tax registration has been taken, is contrary to the contention stated by Revenue in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.
The goods imported by the appellant are IC chips, which are incapable of stand-alone function or connection with any other device. The ICs are only capable of functioning as compressor/decompressor upon connection with external peripherals like power supply and interface.
by Manish Jain*, Ambarish Pandey** and Shruti Khanna***
A show cause notice was issued to the appellant, to recover Central Excise Duty payable on the impugned product, during the period of April 2011 to August 2012, on the grounds that the appellant had misclassified the product as fruit pulp or fruit drink, instead of lemonade.
The Tribunal noted that Rule 4A (1)(i) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 requires disclosure of service tax payable on the value of service provided, thus, it cannot include exempted services. Moreover, a proviso inserted to the Rule by an amendment cannot enlarge the scope of the provision, at best it is only clarificatory.
The Tribunal stated that for a place to fall within the ambit of a public place, the element of right of access of public was a necessary concomitant.
The Tribunal stated that no court has held that prohibited goods were to be released for re-export without payment of redemption fine. Such a stance would encourage importers smuggling/making improper import of goods, to take a chance with the law and if caught, request for re-export without a fine.