Dismissed

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise v. Vikhroli Corporate Park Pvt. Ltd.

Income Tax – Service Tax

Bombay HC4 Apr 2019CEXA/18/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a CESTAT order regarding valuation of service for renting immovable property. The Court held that the appeal was neither maintainable under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 nor an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the Revenue lies with the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal w

What the court decided

AI extract

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs Vikhroli… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2019)

cexa18.doc

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.18 OF 2019

¶5

The Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, Navi Mumbai ...Appellant
vs.
Vikhroli Corporate Park P.Ltd....Respondent

¶6

Mr.Sham Walve a/w Mr.Ram Ochani for the appellant
Mr.Bharat Raichandani for the respondent

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 4, 2019

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1This appeal under section 35-G of the Central
Excise Act,1944 read with section 83 of the Finance
Act,1994 challenges the order dated 2nd December 2016
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for
short `CESTAT').

¶10

2Following questions of law arise for
consideration :

¶11

“(a) Whether Tribunal was correct in treating
the advance rent received and forfeited by
the assessee as “Security deposit” relying
upon judgment in the case of M/s.United
Breweries Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh –
1997 3 (Supreme Court Cases 530)?

¶12

(b) Whether Tribunal was right in remanding

¶13

2 cexa18.doc

¶14

the issue of admissibility of Cenvat
amounting to Rs.3.30 Crores without calling
for cenvatable documents for verification,
especially when the adjudicating authority
has in his findings mentioned that no
documents were provided to substantiate the
eligibility of Cenvat claimed?”

¶15

3As it is evident from the proposed question (a)
the issue that arises for consideration is the
valuation of the service provided by the respondent
in respect of the renting of the immoveable
property. The Revenue sought to include the
notional interest on security deposit as part of the
consideration received on providing service of
renting immoveable property. The Tribunal by the
impugned order held that the Revenue cannot include
the notional interest on security deposit as
consideration received for renting immoveable
property services. Thus, the issue is one relating
to valuation of service. In view of section 83 of
the Finance Act,1994 which incorporates section 35G
and 35L of the Central Excise Act, the appeal is not
maintainable before this Court. The remedy of the
appellant-Revenue would be by filing an appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶16

4In the above circumstances, the appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise v. Vikhroli Corporate Park Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise v. Vikhroli Corporate Park Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Senior Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corpn of India Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd. Vs State Election Commission and 2 Ors.

Cancure Pharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S.Bms Chemie and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Luis Santan Coleco Vs the Honble Grievance Redressal Committee and 5 Ors.