I am sharing with you bird eye view of some recent judgements:
CENVAT credit of input services received prior to 01 March 2006 is allowable after issue of Notification 01/2006
The Hon’ble Bench of Mumbai CESTAT in the case of M/s Archivista Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd, clarified that there is no specific bar in the notification 1/2006-ST to disallow the CENVAT credit of tax paid on Input services received prior to 01.03.2006 and credit taken after the issuance of Notification 01/2006. The bar is only about on inputs and input services which are received on or after 01 March 2006.
Order of VCES Rejection is appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the response of writ petition filed by The Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd refereeing the case of M/s Burnala Builders, clarified that provisions of Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 is not a self-contained code, but is a part and parcel of the Chapter V of the Act, 1994, hence, all the provisions of the Act except specifically excluded would apply to proceedings under the VCES scheme. Thus, an order of rejection of declaration filed under VCES Scheme, is appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994
Mandatory Pre-Deposit of 7.5%/10% is not unconstitutional and applicable to the Appeals filed after 06 August, 2014
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India and 3 Others, clarified that provisions of Mandatory Pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be held arbitrary or unconstitutional, hence, applicable on the appeals which are filed on and after the enforcement of the amended provision i.e. 06 August, 2014.
Customs law nowhere required that a ‘Custom Housing Agent’ has to meet new client personally, hence, Penalty set aside
The Principal Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s International Cargo Services vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi, clarified that there are primary three documents which are supposed to verify by a CHA on the first instance while dealing with a new client, details of exporter, IEC obtained by the exporter from DGFT and proper authorization from the exporter under Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004. Further, the Customs law nowhere required that a ‘Custom Housing Agent’ has to meet new client personally before entering into dealing.
Thus, if a CHA is fulfilling above-mentioned requirements of law, the he cannot be held responsible for the violation of provisions of Customs Act or any other law for the time being inforce and Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act 1962 cannot be imposed on him contending that he has not taken due care to deal with exporter being a first time client.
Tags :Service Tax