Service Tax Is Leviable On Renting Of Immovable Property: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is leviable on renting of immovable property. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has opined that unless the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service is held to be ultra vires by any constitutional court, it will continue to be a valid levy. The assessee/appellant was registered with the service tax...

Installation & Commissioning Of Goods After Sale Is Not “Works Contracts”; Service Tax Not Leviable: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that installation and commissioning of goods after sale is not a “works contracts”, hence service tax is not leviable. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “merely because the goods were installed and commissioned after sale, the contract would not become a works contract services.” In this case, the show cause was issued to the...

'Cannot Be Forced To Repeatedly Approach Court': Delhi HC Orders Release Of Iran National's Jewellery Confiscated By Customs Almost 3 Yrs Ago

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed.Further, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, who sought the release of his jewelry, and no final order was served on him...

Subsequent Notice U/S 28(4) Customs Act Cannot Be 'Supplementary' To Prior Notice U/S 28(1), Both Provisions Operate In Separate Fields: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices: One under Section 28(4) where elements of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression are made out in...

FOB Value Of Goods Can't Be Modified By Anyone Including Any Customs Officer: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract, including any Customs officer has any right to interfere with the Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has stated that “there is a privity of contract between the buyer and the seller and they alone can decide the terms of contract and in case of non-compliance by one, the...

S.28(4) Customs Act | Genuine Disagreement With Department Regarding Classification Of Goods Not 'Suppression Of Facts' By Trader: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.The expression is relevant in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for the recovery of duty not paid or short paid where elements of collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression...

Customs Broker Not Responsible If Client Moves To New Premises After Verification Of Address Is Complete: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that customs broker not responsible if client moves to new premises once verification of address is complete. “The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete, if...

S.67 Of CGST Act & S.110 Of Customs Act Are Pari Materia; GST Department Must Give Notice To Assessee Before Extending Seizure Period: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that the period of seizure cannot be extended under Section 67)7) for a further six-month period without giving notice to the accused.This, as the Court found the provision to...

Legal & Consultancy Services Under RCM Is Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that legal & consultancy services under RCM is liable to service tax. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “in absence of any reply or any supporting documents, Legal fees expense incurred by the assessee are expenses towards Legal services. Accordingly, Service Tax on Legal Fee expense incurred by the assessee is upheld.” ...

'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear...

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27...

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT,...