Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1092

Leviability of service tax on demurrage charges on storage of export cargo – Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise power of adjudicating authority in the absence of power of remand.

Case:Cochin International Airport Ltd v/s Commr of C. Ex., Cochin
 
Citation:2011 (21) STR 169 (Tri-Bang)
 
Issue: - Leviability of service tax on demurrage charges on storage of export cargo – Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise power of adjudicating authority in the absence of power of remand.
 
Brief Facts: - Appellant had allowed many exporters to store their export cargo in their premises during the material time. Appellant collected demurrage charges for the same. Demand of service tax was raised on the demurrage charges. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand which was raised under the head of ‘Storage and Warehousing’ services. Interest was also demanded and penalty was also imposed.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) held that service tax was not leviable on any demurrage collected on agricultural produce and accordingly, case was remanded for re-quantifying the service tax on demurrage charges collected in respect of goods other than agricultural produce. Interest liability was upheld but penalty was set aside by granting benefit of Section 80 to the appellant.
 
Against this decision, appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.
 
On remand, the Adjudicating Authority passed fresh order re-confirming the demand of service tax on Demurrage with interest. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) noted that no evidence was produced by the appellant before him as well as before the lower authority. Relying upon judgment in Karnataka State Beverages Corporation v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2006 (4) STR 469 (Tri-Bangalore)] the matter was once again remanded to the original authority. The said decision is also challenged before the Tribunal. 
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that in so far as storage of agricultural produce is concerned, Service tax I not leviable on any demurrage charges collected by the warehousing company inasmuch as the definition of “storage and warehousing”. Reliance was also made on Board Circular No. B11/1/2002-ST dated 01.08.2002.
 
The Tribunal further held that the Commissioner (Appeal) had rightly held in the first round of litigation that demurrage collected on agricultural produce was not chargeable to service tax. Therefore, pursuant to the remand order, it was not open to the Original Adjudicating Authority to demand service tax from the appellant in respect of such demurrage charges.
 
The remand order has been challenged on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand as held by the Apex Court in the case of MIL India Ltd v/s Commissioner [2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC)].
 
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Lower Authority are liable to be set aside on this sole ground. The Tribunal noted that the contention of the appellant that no service tax was payable on the demurrage collected on any stored goods and they had relied on the judgment given in Karnataka State Beverages Corporation v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. But this contention was not considered by the lower appellate authority.
 
The question that whether demurrage charges were to be included in the taxable value of storage and warehousing services was a fundamental question which went to the root of the dispute between the assessee and the Department and the Commissioner (Appeal) ought to have addressed the issue. On the basis of judgment given in MIL India Ltd it was held that the Commissioner (Appeal) can exercise the power of adjudicating authority also when the Commissioner (Appeal) has no power of remand.
 
Accordingly, matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeal). It was also noted that the question that whether demurrage charges were to be included in the taxable value of storage and warehousing services is no longer res integra and is settled in favour of the assessee.
 
Decision: -Appeals disposed off.
 

***********

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com