Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.
The Tribunal stated that there is no such condition in the Technology License Agreement which provides that royalty payment is a pre-condition for sale/import of raw materials and there is no evidence to establish how the royalty payment is linked to the import of raw materials.
“It is a well settled principle in the law that the taxing statute needs to be construed strictly according to the words phrases used in the statute; there can be no other interpretation when literal interpretation is unambiguous.”
The Tribunal opined that both service provider and service recipient were government undertakings and cannot be said to have any intention to evade the tax payment.
The Tribunal opined that once the coal companies have charged sales tax/VAT at the appropriate rate on the sale of coal to appellant and in turn, appellant has charged sales tax/VAT to the consumers of coal, the transaction is one of sale/purchase and not of rendering service.
The State Commission absolved Flipkart from any liability as it was merely facilitating the sale through its portal. However, it was noted that Flipkart should have displayed a strict attitude vis-à-vis breach of terms regarding sale of counterfeit products on its site.
“It is very simple in the accounting standards that unless invoice is raised consideration is not collected. Therefore, it is very clear from the record that the appellant was not receiving any consideration from card companies.”