Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-05-24
The present Miscellaneous Application for early hearing has been filed for the reason that the identical matter for the subsequent period since decided by the Commissioner in favour of the assessee. Further, no appeal has been filed against such an order by Revenue.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-05-23
There is delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reason of delay as been explained by the applicant in the application seems reasonable. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-05-21
In view of the request for adjournment submitted by the appellant on the ground of ill-health of their authorized counsel the matter is adjourned to 31.05.2018.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-17
Heard both sides and perused the records. This is a case of credit of the service tax paid on the food provided to the workers outsourced by the appellant. The definition of input service specifically excludes outdoor catering provided to the employees. The appellant argues that they have outsourced manpower to work in the factory and the service provider supplies manpower and bills for it. In addition to the wages for the workers, the appellant is also obliged to pay the manpower supplier charges towards food subsidy and few other allowances as per the contract. Providing subsidised food is necessary in view of the contract which they have with manpower supplier and also in view of the requirement of the Factories Act which requires the workers to be provided with subsidised food during work. The man power service provider supplies workers who are his employees and not the employees of the appellant. These workers work in the factory and they also get subsidised food in the canteen of the appellant. It appears that the canteen contractor is paid by the man power service provider for the subsidised food although it is not evident from the records. In turn, the man power service provider bills the appellant for the food subsidy including the service tax thereon. The issue in dispute is the credit of the service tax element on this food subsidy. It is the case of the Revenue that this food subsidy amounts to outdoor catering services for employees and the credit of the service tax thereon is inadmissible in view of the specific exclusion in the Rules. The appellant argued that although it is called food subsidy, in fact , it is manpower outsourcing service and it is also a component of the charges paid to the manpower supplier. The department, on the other hand, argues that the bill is raised specifically for food subsidy which is provided by outside canteen contractor and paid for by the appellant. Although the beneficiaries of the food subsidy are not regular employees of the appellant, nevertheless they are working in the factory of the appellant and enjoying the food in the canteen and hence this should be considered as an outdoor catering service which falls under the excluded category for service tax credit. It is also the argument of the department that even though the Factories’ Act mandates the provision of food, that does not itself entitle the appellant to credit of service tax paid as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Neuland Laboratories Limited [2013-TIOL-1970-CESTAT-Bang].
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-05-17
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the appellant not being a much literate person and not aware of the provisions regarding filing of appeal in order to seek relief, the above delay has occurred in preferring the appeal in time. Only after the department initiated recovery proceedings in January 2018, the appellant approached the counsel with the assistance of trade and the appeal was filed with a delay of 749 days. He submitted that the delay is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-16
This application for condonation of delay was filed seeking condonation of delay of 154 days by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that, they are filed an application for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 some portion which was sanctioned and the portion relating to supplied to EOU was rejected. For the rejected portion they had filed Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld that the Order-in-Original. They did not pursue with the matter as they were able to utilize the CENVAT credit and found it not worthwhile to pursue the matter further. On the portion which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) arguing that this includes some portion of the goods which were not exported but which were only sent to SEZ units. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered in favour of the Department and the Departmental Officers came to recover the amounts from the assessee. It was then that they realized the mistake not filing of appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) within time, and that they have to return in cash. As all the files were bundled together they lost sight of the case. When the matter was last time heard on 19.04.2018, the appellants were directed to file an affidavit explaining the facts of the matter which they have done on 20.04.2018. This matter is listed today to decide on the issue of condonation of delay.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-05-15
Miscellaneous application has been filed requesting for tagging the present appeal No. E/51982/2017 in the case of Surendra Kumar. Since the present appeal emerged out of the same impugned order, tagging is allowed. List both the appeals for final hearing on 23.05.2018
When this matter was called out, the issue is regarding the demand of duty liability under provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said issue is before the Supreme Court in the case of Indsur Global Limited and the matter is under consideration of the Apex Court as to the Constitutional ultra vires of the said provisions. This matter is adjourned sine die, both sides are at liberty to mention the matter as soon as Supreme Court finally decides the issue
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-05-08
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that on the dispute involved in the present case relates to denial of credit of input service and recovery thereof. The applicants have already reversed the credit and considering the amount involved and the fact that six other appeals involving identical issue are filed before this Tribunal, the early hearing may pleased to be granted
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-05-08
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Department is in process to decide a protective show-cause notice for recovery of the amount of refund which was already sanctioned, therefore there is an urgency to hear the present matter out of turn