SHARE

| Nov-24-2021

Deleted addition of value of goods deemed to be supplied in execution of works contract services in trading turnover

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s. Deify Infrastructures Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs [Final Order No. 51927/2021 dated October 27, 2021], held that the value of goods deemed to be supplied in the course of works contract cannot by any stretch of imagination be added to the trading turnover of the appellant as it is not a trading simplicitor.

Factually, M/s. Deify Infrastructures Limited (“the Appellant”) filed the current appeal being aggrieved of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Raipur in which addition of value of goods deemed to be supplied in execution of works contract services was made to trading turnover of the Appellant.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi observed that the Appellant is not maintaining separate books of accounts and has opted for reversal under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“Cenvat Credit rules”). Thus, the dispute is whether the numerator of the formula (as specified in in Rule 6(3A)(c)(iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules) should also include the value of the supplies or the goods used in the execution of the works contract service, as trading goods.

Noted that the value of the goods transferred in the course of rendering of works contract service is not a trading simplicitor. There are separate rules namely Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which provides determination of taxable value for levy of service tax. The value of goods deemed to be supplied in the course of works contract cannot by any stretch of imagination be added to the trading turnover of the Appellant. 

Further, held that that the addition to the trading turnover, of the value of the goods deemed to be supplied in the execution of the works contract, is erroneous and wrong and allowed the appeal.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

 

Similar reads

Appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit to the date of refund

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Waiver of pre-deposit is not tenable on account of financial inability

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Excise duty cannot be demanded for clandestine removal based on third party evidence

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Arbitrary valuation of goods not subjected to BIS specifications is invalid

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods

Nov-24-2021

Read More

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Nov-24-2021

Read More