Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2969

Whether weighment, sampling, and stuffing service are covered within the scope of technical testing and analysis service?

Case: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE VersusDEWAS SOYA LTD.

Citation:2015 (40) S.T.R. 589 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Fact:Revenue has filed appeals against Order-in-Appeal dated 24-2-2009 in terms of which Revenue’s appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) seeking recovery of the refund amount of Rs. 32,779/-, Rs. 1,12,604/- and Rs. 12,269/- of Service tax paid under technical testing and analysis service [Section [65(105)(zzh) of Finance Act, 1994] in respect of goods exported was sought to be recovered on the ground that the service involved was weighment, sampling and stuffing which was not covered within the definition of technical testing and analysis service given in Section 65(106) ibid. The Commissioner (Appeals) discussed the nature of service provided in the name of weighment, sampling and stuffing service and came to a clear finding that it was covered within the ambit of technical testing and analysis service and thus dismissed the Revenue’s appeal before him.
 
Appellant contention:  Revenue has contended that weighment, sampling and stuffing of containers are not covered within the scope of technical testing and analysis service. Stuffing of containers involved supervision of wagon loading/unloading which is not in the nature of technical testing and analysis service. Similarly sampling and weighing do not fall under the said service.
Respondent contention:In the cross objections, respondent referred to the definition of technical testing and analysis service and the scope of the words testing and analysis and added that the service provider (testing agencies) have submitted reports containing the particulars of the test carried out.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:Tribunal has considered the contentions of both sides. As per definition of technical testing and analysis service given in Section 65(106) ibid, technical testing and analysis means “any service in relation to physical, chemical, biological or any other scientific testing or analysis of goods or material or information technology software or any immovable property, but does not include any testing or analysis service provided in relation to human beings or animals.” Physical testing and analysis would clearly include weighment and sampling also is based on certain physical or chemical characteristics. It is also seen that in this case stuffing required specific conditions/arrangements like putting of silica gel packs together with craft paper which was technical in nature and thus was a specialised job. As per Section 65(108) ibid technical inspection and certification means “any inspection or examination of goods or process or material or any immovable property to certify that such goods or process or material or immovable property qualifies or maintains the specified standards, including function ability or utility or quality or any other character or parameters but does not include any service in relation to inspection of pollution levels.” Testing involves a critical examination, observation or evaluation and analysis involves examination of a complex, its element and their relation, the identification or separation of ingredient of a substance. It is not in dispute that the service was rendered by technical agencies engaged in providing service in relation to technical testing and analysis thus satisfying the definition given in Section 65(107) ibid. In the present case, for determination of the specifications of protein, fat moisture etc. samples were required to be drawn mixed and then analysed. Indeed, we find that the service providers issued proper certificates certifying weighing, packing and stuffing and the specification of protein, fat, moisture, etc.
In view of the analysis above, we are of the view that refund of the aforesaid amounts was correctly sanctioned as per the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 as amended. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Revenue’s appeals are therefore dismissed. Cross-objections also stand disposed of.

Decision:  Appeal dismissed.

Comment:The gist of the case is that the service was rendered by technical agencies engaged in providing service in relation to technical testing and analysis thus satisfying the definition given in Section 65(107) ibid. The testing involves a critical examination, observation or evaluation and analysis involves examination of a complex, its element and their relation, the identification or separation of ingredient of a substance. In the present case, for determination of the specifications of protein, fat moisture etc. samples were required to be drawn mixed and then analysed. that Physical testing and analysis would clearly include weighment and sampling also is based on certain physical or chemical characteristics. Stuffing required specific conditions/arrangements like putting of silica gel packs together with craft paper which was technical in nature. Thus the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

Prepared By:Anash kachaliya

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