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 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