Page 57 - Corporate_Professional_Today
P. 57
Weekly reVieW
filed by the revenue. Again, the revenue not indicate any additional tax liability. The
filed an appeal in the High Court. assessee filed an appeal in the High Court
The High Court held that the benefit of against the same.
the services had accrued outside India to The High Court held that the Assessing
the foreign company. Therefore, the services Authority had not fully understood the
rendered by the assessee would fall under facts given in the Division Bench judgment.
the category of ‘export of service’. Therefore, the matter deserved to be remanded
to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh
‘Reishi Gano & Ganocelium’ capsules orders for each month separately by accepting
are ‘Food supplements’; taxable @ all the revised returns for the period from
16% under excise law July, 2005 to March, 2006.
FRP composite doors and frames
DXN Manufacturing (India) (P.) Ltd. v.
CCE&ST, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 324 (Chennai classifiable as ‘Articles of wood’ un-
- CESTAT) der excise law
The assessee claimed that the products Reishi
Gano (‘RG’) and Ganocelium (‘GL’) capsules Fimen Fibre Products (P.) Ltd. v. CCE,
were classifiable as ‘Ayurvedic Proprietary C&ST [2017] 88 taxmann.com 304 (Bang. -
Medicines’ under Tariff Heading No. 3003 39. CESTAT)
The department held that the above products The assessee was engaged in the manufacture
were classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 2108 of FRP Composite Doors and Frames. It claimed
99 as ‘Food supplements’. The assessee filed that the said articles were classifiable under
an appeal in the Tribunal against the same. Tariff Heading Nos. 4410 19 and 4410 90 as
The Tribunal held that such products were articles of wood. The department rejected
nothing but a food supplement promoted only the claim of the assessee and held that the
for general health or well being. Therefore, aforesaid articles were classifiable under
the products ‘Reishi Gano & Ganocelium’ Tariff Heading No. 3925 20 as articles of
capsules were ‘Food supplements’ under plastics. The assessee filed an appeal to the
Heading No. 2108. Hence, such products Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner
were taxable at the rate of 16%. (Appeals) allowed the appeal in favour of
revenue. Again, the assessee filed an appeal
HC remanded back case as revised in the Tribunal.
returns were rejected merely on The Tribunal held that such doors were made
ground that they didn’t indicate ad- out of wood coated with FRP skins. Hence,
such goods were classified under Heading No.
ditional tax liability 4410 19 as articles of wood (door) as well
as under Heading No. 4410 90 as wooden
Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Asstt. frames.
CCT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 253 (Kar.)
The Single Judge of the High Court directed Construction of hostel for university
the Assessing Authority to accept the monthly not covered under definition of
VAT revised returns filed by assessee for the ‘Construction of complex services’
period from July, 2005 to March, 2006, which
were filed with additional tax liability. The CST v. Gandharva Infrastructure & Projects
Assessing Authority had accepted some of Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 15 (New Delhi
the revised returns and rejected others on - CESTAT)
the ground that such revised returns did
164 January 20 To January 26, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 58
