Case Details: Bureau of Indian Standards vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (2026) 39 Centax 372 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (J) & M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri G. Natarajan, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Ms G. Krupa, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was a statutory body responsible for issuing hallmark certification for jewellery through approved assaying centres and was receiving royalty from such centres. The department initiated proceedings alleging non-payment of service tax and issued multiple show-cause notices (SCNs) proposing that the activity be treated as an intellectual property service under the Finance Act, 1994. Four SCNs were adjudicated, and both the adjudicating and appellate authorities upheld the demands, and further appeals against those orders were pending before the tribunal. The remaining five SCNs were still pending adjudication when the appellant filed a declaration of tax dues under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), which was rejected by the designated authority on the ground that notices or orders had already been issued on the same issue. The appellant contended that the issue raised in the earlier SCNs under the previous levy framework was different from the issue arising under the subsequently introduced scheme of taxation. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the issue in the earlier SCNs was whether the appellant was a holder of intellectual property rights rendering intellectual property services to assaying and hallmark centres, so as to fall within the scope of the then-applicable taxable service provisions. It observed that the declaration filed under VCES related to a distinct issue, namely, whether permitting such centres to administer the hallmarking scheme on payment of royalty constituted a service within the meaning of the subsequently introduced statutory definition. CESTAT analysed the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the nature and scope of the issue examined in the earlier proceedings could not be treated as identical to the issue forming the basis of the declaration. It therefore held that rejection of the declaration on the ground that an SCN had been issued earlier on the same issue was not legally sustainable. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the rejection of the declaration and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant.
List of Cases Cited
- Assistant Commissioner, Designated Authority, VCES v. Frankfinn Aviation Services P. Ltd. — 2020 (41) G.S.T.L. J51 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Bureau of Indian Standards v. Commissioner — 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 273 (Tri. – Chennai) — Referred [Para 20]
- Frankfinn Avition Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner — 2014 (34) S.T.R. 165 (Del.) — Relied On [Paras 6, 22]
- G.R. Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 105 (Tri.-Bang) — Distinguished [Paras 7, 23]
- Suprasesh General Insurance Service and Brokers (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 276 (Mad.) — Distinguished [Paras 7, 23]
- Yashwant Agarwal & Co Company v. Union of India — 2017 (47) S.T.R. 10 (M.P.) — Distinguished [Paras 7, 23]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 170/5/2013-ST, dated 8-8-2013 [Paras 7, 23]
