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

Adoption of ICT and integration of LIMBS with CESTAT, ITAT and other Tribunals to reduce delay in litigation management

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.C.E. AND S.T., Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Civil Appeal No(s).674/2021 dated November 29, 2021] issued directives for the adoption

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of John’s Cashew Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [Final Order 20792 /2021 dated October

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Registration is not a requirement for filling refund claim

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai

Nov-24-2021

Read More

Penalty demand and proposal of confiscation cannot be separated from Customs duty demand

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s. Dhiren Enterprise v. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai [Final Order

Nov-24-2021

Read More

No violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC

The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“CESTAT”) in the matter of Mr. Subodh Menon v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC Mumbai [Final Order No. A/87045/2021 dated November

Nov-24-2021

Read More