More Judgements

2021-VIL-550-CESTAT-BLR-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Refund of SAD - Time Limit - Appellant/assessee made claim for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007 – Asst. Commissioner rejected refund claim being time barred in terms of Notification – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld rejection - Hence, instant appeal – HELD - appellant was correct in claiming refund of 4% SAD which is in terms with settled position - When there is a reasonable interpretation of a legal and factual situation, which is favourable to assessee, such an interpretation is to be adopted - Supreme Court has laid down a principle that... [Read more]

Customs - Refund of SAD - Time Limit - Appellant/assessee made claim for refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dt. 14/09/2007 – Asst. Commissioner rejected refund claim being time barred in terms of Notification – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld rejection - Hence, instant appeal – HELD - appellant was correct in claiming refund of 4% SAD which is in terms with settled position - When there is a reasonable interpretation of a legal and factual situation, which is favourable to assessee, such an interpretation is to be adopted - Supreme Court has laid down a principle that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours assessee must be adopted - In number of decision it has already been held that neither statute nor original notification has prescribed any limitation for claiming refund of SAD and hence, imposition of time restriction by an amending notification is clearly bad in law - Denial of refund is not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside - Assessee’s appeal allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-542-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit, doctrine of substantial compliance - export of services - Appellant received various input services on which they paid tax and taken credit being entitled to same – Appellant claimed refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012-CE - Refund claim was rejected observing that appellant had not debited amount of refund claimed in cenvat credit account, as required under Condition 2 (h) of the Notification - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld rejection of refund claim - Hence, the instant appeals – HELD - the debit of the amount of refund claim in the cenvat credi... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit, doctrine of substantial compliance - export of services - Appellant received various input services on which they paid tax and taken credit being entitled to same – Appellant claimed refund under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012-CE - Refund claim was rejected observing that appellant had not debited amount of refund claimed in cenvat credit account, as required under Condition 2 (h) of the Notification - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld rejection of refund claim - Hence, the instant appeals – HELD - the debit of the amount of refund claim in the cenvat credit account suo moto before the adjudication, is sufficient compliance Condition No. 2(h) of the Notification No.27/2012-CE – In instant case Commissioner (Appeals) has mis-conceived and mis-directed himself by ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal, which is both judicial indiscipline and also in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution - Impugned order is set aside and adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order - Assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-738-GUJ  | High Court SGST

GST – TRAN-1 - Non-compliance of direction of High Court to allow filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 – HELD - it was expected of the authority concerned to abide by the directions issued by the High Court – the Bench is disturbed by the fact that it’s been more than two years but the directions have not been complied with when all that is required to be done is to open the portal and allow the assessee to file declaration in Form GST TRAN 1 and GST TRAN 2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in t... [Read more]

GST – TRAN-1 - Non-compliance of direction of High Court to allow filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 – HELD - it was expected of the authority concerned to abide by the directions issued by the High Court – the Bench is disturbed by the fact that it’s been more than two years but the directions have not been complied with when all that is required to be done is to open the portal and allow the assessee to file declaration in Form GST TRAN 1 and GST TRAN 2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - the Nodal Officer concerned is directed to personally remain present before this Court on 27.10.2021 – Matter is listed [Read less]

2021-VIL-388-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Maintainability of Advance Ruling application – Applicant is a healthcare company in India and Novartis AG is Switzerland based pharma company which owned rights of Trade Marks - Vide a Deed of Assignment NAG agreed to permanently transfer trademarks to applicant at an agreed consideration - Applicant filed instant application seeking advance ruling that activity of transfer of registered trademarks was a ‘supply of goods’ or ‘supply of services’ under the CGST Act, 2017/IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - as per Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017 there are two conditions to be fulfilled for mak... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Maintainability of Advance Ruling application – Applicant is a healthcare company in India and Novartis AG is Switzerland based pharma company which owned rights of Trade Marks - Vide a Deed of Assignment NAG agreed to permanently transfer trademarks to applicant at an agreed consideration - Applicant filed instant application seeking advance ruling that activity of transfer of registered trademarks was a ‘supply of goods’ or ‘supply of services’ under the CGST Act, 2017/IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - as per Section 95 (a) of the CGST Act, 2017 there are two conditions to be fulfilled for making an advance ruling application: firstly, question asked shall be in relation to supply undertaken by applicant and secondly question shall be in relation to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by applicant- In instant case first condition is not satisfied in as much as it is NAG, Switzerland which is undertaking supply and not applicant - With respect to second condition for supply ‘to be undertaken or proposed to be undertaken’ it is found that on date on filing of subject application subject supply has already completed and is neither being undertaken, nor is proposed to be undertaken - Applicant does not satisfy conditions of Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 and is therefore rejected as being not maintainable – Order accordingly [Read less]

2021-VIL-731-GUJ  | High Court SGST

GST – Applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail - the applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with case registered in connection with offence relating to issue of fake bills and wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit – applicant challenged the validity of Section 69 of the CGST Act/GGST Act before the Supreme Court - the Supreme Court directed the present applicants to remain present before the respondent authority – HELD - In the present case, during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that at the time of registration of the firm, the concerned persons have provided necessary documents fo... [Read more]

GST – Applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail - the applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with case registered in connection with offence relating to issue of fake bills and wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit – applicant challenged the validity of Section 69 of the CGST Act/GGST Act before the Supreme Court - the Supreme Court directed the present applicants to remain present before the respondent authority – HELD - In the present case, during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that at the time of registration of the firm, the concerned persons have provided necessary documents for the purpose of registration, however as per the case of the prosecution, subsequently it was found that without there being any actual movement of the goods, false invoices were raised and after the arrest and during the course of investigation, it is revealed that those 36 firms were dummy firms - in the facts of the present case, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary as there are more than 700 transactions between the applicants and other persons of dummy firms and transactions worth of Rs.737.00 Crores were entered into between the parties - As per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicants remained present before the concerned officer of the department but the applicants gave evasive reply to certain important questions. Thus, the Court is of the view that though directed, the applicants have not cooperated with the Investigating Agency - in the facts of the present case, the Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants - the applications are dismissed - Reasonable belief - Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to arrest a person, who has committed any offence stipulated in the said section if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the said person has committed any offence as stated in the said provision - It is contended by the applicants that even assuming that the Commissioner is empowered to delegate his powers to his subordinate, as per Section 69 of the GGST Act, reasonable belief should be that of the Commissioner - the power under Section 69 of the GGST Act can be exercised by the authority upon whom the power is delegated provided the delegatee has reasons to believe that the assessee has committed offence under Section 132 of the GGST Act. Thus, the condition precedent, i.e. 'reasonable belief', for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 69 of the Act remains the same - the submissions canvassed by the applicants on this aspect is misconceived because the decision rendered by the Division Bench in case of Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan is clear on this point - It is also contended by the applicants that without registration of the FIR no arrest can be made and authorized officer cannot arrest the person alleged to have committed non-cognizable and bailable offence without a warrant of arrest issued by the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – HELD - in case of Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami it is specifically held by the Division Bench that any person can be arrested for any offence under Section 69 of the GGTS Act by the authorized officer to whom the authority to arrest is given by the Commissioner if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that such person has committed an offence punishable under Section 132 of the CGST/GGST Act. It is also held that when any person is arrested by the authorized officer in exercise of power under Section 69 of the CGST/GGST Act, the authorized officer effecting arrest is not obliged in law to comply with the provision of Sections 154 to 157 of the Code, however, the authorized officer, after arresting such person, has to inform such person about grounds of his arrest and the person arrested will have to be taken to Magistrate without unnecessary delay if the offences are cognizable and non-bailable [Read less]

2021-VIL-543-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand of tax, Imposition of penalty - Taxability – Appellant / assessee was working as Direct selling agent for various financial institutions - Appellants used to receive commission from institutes for providing services – Dept of the view that commission received by appellant was taxable in terms of section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery from appellant - Proposal was confirmed and assessee appeal was rejected - Hence, the instant appeal – HELD - services being rendered by appellant are defined u/s. 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - When provision is read with sect... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand of tax, Imposition of penalty - Taxability – Appellant / assessee was working as Direct selling agent for various financial institutions - Appellants used to receive commission from institutes for providing services – Dept of the view that commission received by appellant was taxable in terms of section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery from appellant - Proposal was confirmed and assessee appeal was rejected - Hence, the instant appeal – HELD - services being rendered by appellant are defined u/s. 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - When provision is read with section 68 of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that service is taxable and appellant is liable to pay service tax - There has been a major change in Finance Act with effect from 01.07.2012 by virtue of negative list u/s.66B of the Finance Act, 1994 is provided - It is held that services which are not covered under said list are taxable - Services of DSA to Financial institute is not mentioned in negative list nor any exemption for same is brought to notice - Appellant did not get himself registered immediately after 01.07.2012, he has got registration when services are under scrutiny by Income Tax department - Thus, plea of unawareness and confusion as taken by appellant is not unavailable to him - Act of delaying the registration till it is actually pointed by Department is sufficient to hold that appellant is wilfully abstaining his service tax liability - Keeping in view admission for liability and proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 entire demand was confirmed and order of imposition of penalty is directed to remain confined to 15% of total demand instead of it being @ 100% of amount of demand - Order under challenge stands modified - Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed - Imposition of penalty for amount to extent of 100% amount of demand – HELD - appellant has paid amount demanded along with interest within 30 days of issuance of show cause notice but same does not absolve him from imposition of penalty - 15% of penalty has still to be paid by appellant in terms of proviso to Section 78 of the Service Tax Act, 1944 - No doubt said amount also stands already paid in terms of proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 thus proceedings against appellant be deemed to be concluded - Keeping in view admission for liability and proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 entire demand was confirmed and order of imposition of penalty is directed to remain confined to 15% of total demand instead of it being @ 100% of amount of demand - Order under challenge stands accordingly – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-541-CESTAT-HYD-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Confiscation of goods - Waiver of demurrage charges – Appellant/ assessee imported ‘Green Peas’ - As per DGFT Notification No. 37/2015-2020 dated 18.12.2019, import of peas was restricted - Department found that appellant violated provisions of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 and thereby goods under import were liable for confiscation under provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - Goods of appellant lying in specified places were restrained under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Goods confiscated was allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal of department the... [Read more]

Customs - Confiscation of goods - Waiver of demurrage charges – Appellant/ assessee imported ‘Green Peas’ - As per DGFT Notification No. 37/2015-2020 dated 18.12.2019, import of peas was restricted - Department found that appellant violated provisions of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 and thereby goods under import were liable for confiscation under provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - Goods of appellant lying in specified places were restrained under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Goods confiscated was allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal of department thereby setting aside order of adjudicating authority allowing redemption of impugned goods - Appellant seeking permission to redeem goods for purpose of re-export also request to grant demurrage waiver certificate – HELD - goods are confiscated for violation of Notification / Trade Notice - These are serious infractions on part of appellant importer - After issuance of notification, appellant approached jurisdictional High Court and on basis of interim stay of notification, he proceeded to import subject goods - Various other High Courts (Madras, Gujarat) upheld validity of notification - validity of notification has also been upheld by Supreme Court and goods of appellant are detained due to violation on his part – when the appellant is aware that decisions are against him there cannot be any bonafide belief on part of appellant when it has taken chance to import goods - the plea for re-export is a belated one and same cannot be put forward by appellant when the issue in respect of the validity of the Notification / Trade Notice is under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Immediately on coming to know of the judgment, appellant have requested for permission to re-export in accordance with the direction in of the judgment - appellant is not entitled to get certificate of waiver of demurrage charges – the impugned order is modified to extent of allowing appellant to re-export goods on payment of redemption fine – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-533-CESTAT-CHE-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – SEZ unit - Rejection of refund claim, issue of Deficiency Memo - Time barred - Appellants/assessees were engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services - Appellants had set up units in Special Economic Zones from where they exported services - Issue involved in present appeals related to 25 SEZ units in regard to which they had filed refund claims - SCNs were issued proposing to reject refund claims - Original Authority rejected a part of refund claims and same was upheld by First Appellate Authority - Appellants submitted that lower authority erred in rejecting refund claims on ground that o... [Read more]

Service Tax – SEZ unit - Rejection of refund claim, issue of Deficiency Memo - Time barred - Appellants/assessees were engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services - Appellants had set up units in Special Economic Zones from where they exported services - Issue involved in present appeals related to 25 SEZ units in regard to which they had filed refund claims - SCNs were issued proposing to reject refund claims - Original Authority rejected a part of refund claims and same was upheld by First Appellate Authority - Appellants submitted that lower authority erred in rejecting refund claims on ground that original invoices had not been submitted – HELD - when the claim has been filed within the limitation period of one year and returned by the Department for removal of defects, the date of subsequent re-submission cannot be taken as the date on which the claim is filed afresh. In the present case, the appellant has filed the refund claims originally within a period of one year and therefore, the date on which the claims were re-submitted along with documents cannot be considered to be the date of filing claim so as to deny the refund on the ground of limitation - conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 04/2004-ST, Notification No. 09/2009-ST superseded by Notification No. 17/2011-ST, issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be pressed into application on appellants to deny benefit of exemption when there is no dispute that services have been received/provided to SEZ units - Terms and conditions of the Notifications (04/2004-ST, 09/2009-ST and 17/2011-ST), as applicable for different periods cannot be pressed into application to deny substantive benefit of exemption enshrined in Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 - Appellants filed refund claims originally within a period of one year and therefore, date on which claims are re-submitted along with documents cannot be considered to be date of filing claim so as to deny refund on ground of limitation- Rejection of refund claims on ground of being time-barred cannot sustain and set aside - Assessee’s appeals are partly allowed - Rejection of refund claim - Submission of original invoices - appellants assert that they have produced photocopies of all invoices - Requirement as per Notification is to produce proof of payment of Service Tax and if photocopies of invoices establish transaction as well as payment of Service Tax, Department ought not to have rejected refund claim stating that original invoices are not produced - If appellant produces proof of payment of Service Tax, same should be considered - However, this issue is remanded to Adjudicating Authority to reconsider this issue after verifying copies of the invoices/documents produced by appellant - Assessee’s appeals are partly allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-538-CESTAT-MUM-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Revocation of license – Inquiry conducted against appellant/assessee found that appellant imported mobile phones that was found to be in excess of quantity declared and lacking in mandatory BIS mark- Department alleged that breach of obligations and lack of proper supervisory control over employees was proved against appellant - Order was passed for revocation of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 and forfeiture of security deposit as condition for operation under the Regulations - Hence, the instant appeal – HELD - On finding of license having been tra... [Read more]

Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Revocation of license – Inquiry conducted against appellant/assessee found that appellant imported mobile phones that was found to be in excess of quantity declared and lacking in mandatory BIS mark- Department alleged that breach of obligations and lack of proper supervisory control over employees was proved against appellant - Order was passed for revocation of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 and forfeiture of security deposit as condition for operation under the Regulations - Hence, the instant appeal – HELD - On finding of license having been transferred, appellant shall not be held accountable for compliance with obligations that devolve on a licensee in handling of clients - Nor can licensee on record be proceeded against for acts of employees as alteration of employee-employer relationship erases existence of expectation as far as employees are concerned - Reliance placed by licensing authority on findings of adjudicating authority in proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 not only weakens conclusion in light of subsequent developments but is also inconsistent with principles of natural justice that mandates independent appraisal of charges framed under the Regulations on findings evinced in enquiry proceedings - in light of submissions made by customs broker on alleged misuse of license coupled with absence of Director from day-to-day functions, sustainability of charges requires afresh determination - Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to licensing authority - Assessee’s appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

2021-VIL-548-CESTAT-DEL-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Demand of duty on amount received by the appellant to cover the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the cancellation of the contract for supply of auto parts - Imposition of penalty - Appellant/assessee was engaged in manufacture of auto parts - Appellant entered into a contract with Honda India for supply of auto parts used in manufacture of motor vehicles - Show cause notice was issued to appellant proposing to demand central excise duty alleging that consideration received by appellant from Honda India under guise of compensation was liable to be included in transaction value of goods - Addit... [Read more]

Central Excise – Demand of duty on amount received by the appellant to cover the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the cancellation of the contract for supply of auto parts - Imposition of penalty - Appellant/assessee was engaged in manufacture of auto parts - Appellant entered into a contract with Honda India for supply of auto parts used in manufacture of motor vehicles - Show cause notice was issued to appellant proposing to demand central excise duty alleging that consideration received by appellant from Honda India under guise of compensation was liable to be included in transaction value of goods - Additional Commissioner confirmed demand of central excise duty and recovery of same from appellant with interest and penalty – HELD - Lower authorities have recorded a categorical finding that the amount received by the appellant from Honda India is includible in the transaction value since the amount received was for those very auto parts which were to be sold to Honda India but were ultimately sold by the appellant to buyers since the contract was cancelled - The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that it was a business arrangement between the appellant, Honda India and the buyers of scrap to evade payment of excise duty on the amount called as ‘compensation’ and infact Honda India actually paid some amount to the appellant for the goods sold to buyers - it transpires from business arrangement between appellant, Honda India and buyers that appellant has received some amount from buyers of scrap and some amount from Honda India for value of auto parts and there is no good reason as to why this amount received by appellant from Honda India shall not be included in transaction value of goods - Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 talks of additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from buyer to appellant - In view of peculiar nature of business arrangement between appellant, Honda India and buyers of auto parts, it is clear that amount received by appellant from Honda India has flown indirectly from buyers - There is no error in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Assessee’s appeal dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-551-CESTAT-DEL-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Issuance of show cause notice - Jurisdiction of DRI Authority - Assessee/importer was in business of providing Direct to Home television channel services to its subscribers for which, it imported Set top boxes and Transmission Dishes and viewing cards - DRI received information that importer imported Viewing Cards for their STBs mis-declaring them as “Smart Cards” and misclassifying them under Customs Tariff Heading 85235290 and wrongly availed ineligible duty exemption - Show cause notice was issued proposing to reclassify Viewing Cards under CTH 85287100, enhance assessable value, recover short paid duty, c... [Read more]

Customs - Issuance of show cause notice - Jurisdiction of DRI Authority - Assessee/importer was in business of providing Direct to Home television channel services to its subscribers for which, it imported Set top boxes and Transmission Dishes and viewing cards - DRI received information that importer imported Viewing Cards for their STBs mis-declaring them as “Smart Cards” and misclassifying them under Customs Tariff Heading 85235290 and wrongly availed ineligible duty exemption - Show cause notice was issued proposing to reclassify Viewing Cards under CTH 85287100, enhance assessable value, recover short paid duty, confiscate imported goods and impose penalty - DRI passed order confirming proposal of show cause notice, however set aside penalties imposed on assessee – assessee in appeal – HELD - Supreme Court in case of Cannon India Ltd.vs Commissioner of Customs has held that officers of DRI are not proper officers to issue SCNs under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - In instant case, since SCN has been issued by DRI, impugned order arising out of SCN cannot be sustained - Impugned order is set aside – Assessee’s appeals allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-545-CESTAT-BLR-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of CENVAT credit - Appellant/assessee sought for refund claim - Adjudicating Authority rejected refund claim on ground that appellant had not debited amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account and it was in violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Commissioner (Appeals), upheld order of Adjudicating Authority - Appellant filed instant appeal contending that it was entitled for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD - claim of appellant has been filed before expiry of quarter in which one year period from last date of receipt of falls... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of CENVAT credit - Appellant/assessee sought for refund claim - Adjudicating Authority rejected refund claim on ground that appellant had not debited amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account and it was in violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - Commissioner (Appeals), upheld order of Adjudicating Authority - Appellant filed instant appeal contending that it was entitled for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD - claim of appellant has been filed before expiry of quarter in which one year period from last date of receipt of falls and accordingly applications for refund is well within time - however, as regards reversal, adjudicating officer has no chance of verifying veracity of appellant’s claim vis-à-vis ST-3 Returns in subsequent period wherein said reversal has claimed to have been made - Matter is remanded to file of adjudicating authority before whom appellant shall furnish its ST-3 Returns for subsequent period wherein said reversal is reflected - Adjudicating Authority shall, if reversal is available, consider same - Assessee’s appeal is allowed by way of remand [Read less]

2021-VIL-546-CESTAT-BLR-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment- Appellant/assessee was a service provider providing Works Contract Service, Maintenance and Repair Service and Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency Service - appellant filed a refund claim for refund of service tax paid on services provided to Military Engineering Services [MES] - lower authorities rejected appellant’s refund on ground of unjust enrichment – assessee in instant appeal – HELD - in case of SN Atiwadkar Vs Commissioner of Central Tax And Central Excise, Belgaum it has been held that refund claim has been filed at instance of MES as the MES is ultim... [Read more]

Service Tax - Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment- Appellant/assessee was a service provider providing Works Contract Service, Maintenance and Repair Service and Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency Service - appellant filed a refund claim for refund of service tax paid on services provided to Military Engineering Services [MES] - lower authorities rejected appellant’s refund on ground of unjust enrichment – assessee in instant appeal – HELD - in case of SN Atiwadkar Vs Commissioner of Central Tax And Central Excise, Belgaum it has been held that refund claim has been filed at instance of MES as the MES is ultimate consumer and entire tax burden borne by MES only and has not been passed on to any other person - Appellant is claiming refund as a representative of MES and not on his own account therefore principle of unjust enrichment under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable - In instant case, service recipient is a Government entity thus denial of refund cannot be sustained - the impugned order is set aside and assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-387-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Manufacture or Job Work - applicant is engaged in rendering premium CED Coating and Powder Coating services for various products belonging to its clients - whether the process carried out by the applicant on goods received from its clients amounts to jobwork – applicability of provisions of Notification No. 20/2019 – C.T. (Rate) dated 30/09/2019 whereby the GST Rate on Job work is reduced to 6% from 9% - HELD - The product comes into emergence after the coating process is undertaken is not the different product but the process undertaken by them only increases the life span of the said product... [Read more]

GST – Maharashtra AAR - Manufacture or Job Work - applicant is engaged in rendering premium CED Coating and Powder Coating services for various products belonging to its clients - whether the process carried out by the applicant on goods received from its clients amounts to jobwork – applicability of provisions of Notification No. 20/2019 – C.T. (Rate) dated 30/09/2019 whereby the GST Rate on Job work is reduced to 6% from 9% - HELD - The product comes into emergence after the coating process is undertaken is not the different product but the process undertaken by them only increases the life span of the said products - since no new product comes into existence after the process conducted by the applicant on the goods supplied by its principals, the process undertaken will come under the purview of jobwork defined under Section 2 (68) of the CGST Act - the impugned services supplied by the applicant are in the nature of job work services and is covered by Entry at item (id) under heading 9988 of Notification No. 20/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dt. 30.09.2019 [Read less]

2021-VIL-534-CESTAT-AHM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Denial of Cenvat credit - Time Limit - Appellant/assessee had availed Cenvat credit pertaining to period of 2009-2010 and 2010-11 in July 2013- Case of department was that appellant had not availed Cenvat credit immediately on receipt of inputs therefore, it became time bar accordingly, Cenvat credit was denied - assessee in appeal – HELD - appellant has taken credit in month of July 2013 in respect to goods received during period 2009-10 and 2010-11 - During that period no time limit has prescribed for taking credit, therefore department cannot import time limit which is not statutorily stipulated in la... [Read more]

Central Excise - Denial of Cenvat credit - Time Limit - Appellant/assessee had availed Cenvat credit pertaining to period of 2009-2010 and 2010-11 in July 2013- Case of department was that appellant had not availed Cenvat credit immediately on receipt of inputs therefore, it became time bar accordingly, Cenvat credit was denied - assessee in appeal – HELD - appellant has taken credit in month of July 2013 in respect to goods received during period 2009-10 and 2010-11 - During that period no time limit has prescribed for taking credit, therefore department cannot import time limit which is not statutorily stipulated in law - Time limit has been prescribed by Notification No 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.14 whereby assessee is supposed to take credit within 6 month/1 Year from date of invoice - Considering this amendment for past period tribunal has considered similar issue wherein it has been held that invoice issued prior to date of Notification No 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on ground of limitation - in view of settled legal position of law cenvat credit cannot be denied on ground of limitation in absence of any statutory time limit prescribed – the impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-547-CESTAT-AHM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Demand of duty - Clandestine removal - Appellant/assessee is engaged in manufacture of SS Pipes and availed benefit to SSI Exemption from duty as clearance value not exceed threshold limit under exemption notification - Officers of DGCEI searched factory of appellant also made coordinated search at various premises - Officers seized stock of finished goods lying in factory under belief that clearance value during relevant year had exceeded limit of SSI Exemption notification and hence liable to confiscation - Show cause notices were issued, one for seizure portion and other for demand of duty and proposing... [Read more]

Central Excise - Demand of duty - Clandestine removal - Appellant/assessee is engaged in manufacture of SS Pipes and availed benefit to SSI Exemption from duty as clearance value not exceed threshold limit under exemption notification - Officers of DGCEI searched factory of appellant also made coordinated search at various premises - Officers seized stock of finished goods lying in factory under belief that clearance value during relevant year had exceeded limit of SSI Exemption notification and hence liable to confiscation - Show cause notices were issued, one for seizure portion and other for demand of duty and proposing penalty on appellant - Commissioner confirmed demand with interest and penalty stating that appellant clandestinely removed goods which resulted into exceeding threshold limit of SSI Exemption due to which appellant was not eligible for SSI Exemption - Hence, instant appeals by assessee – HELD - Appellant’s name is not appearing anywhere in documents recovered from various places - All evidences are third parties’ evidence and no cross examination in terms of Section 9D the Central Excise Act, 1944 was allowed of witnesses therefore, such evidences could not have been used for confirming demand - Documents recovered from appellant’s premises were not accepted by appellant’s director - Department also could not establish who is author of that diary and no contents of documents was revealed either by Director of company or any employee - Charge of clandestine removal was not established beyond doubt - Since charge of clandestine removal against main appellant are not established, penalties will also not sustain- Impugned order is set aside – Assessee’s appeal allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-544-CESTAT-HYD-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand of tax - Appellant was providing Share Transfer Agency Services - Revenue held that service provided by appellant were taxable under revised head of Business Auxiliary Services - show cause notice demanding service tax under head Business Auxiliary Service and amount on reimbursable expenses received by appellant under heads of ‘share transfer agent’ service and ‘registrar to issue’ service - Third demand was on ‘manpower recruitment and supply agency’ services - Show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty equivalent to amount of service tax demanded u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 199... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand of tax - Appellant was providing Share Transfer Agency Services - Revenue held that service provided by appellant were taxable under revised head of Business Auxiliary Services - show cause notice demanding service tax under head Business Auxiliary Service and amount on reimbursable expenses received by appellant under heads of ‘share transfer agent’ service and ‘registrar to issue’ service - Third demand was on ‘manpower recruitment and supply agency’ services - Show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty equivalent to amount of service tax demanded u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Commissioner confirmed order passed against assessee - Hence, instant appeal – HELD - it is settled that no service tax can be levied on reimbursable expenses recovered by a service provider - Service tax has to be levied only for consideration received for service - After a tax has been levied in a particular date, it is not taxable prior to that date - Since appellant’s services were made taxable under ‘Share Transfer Agent’ Service and ‘Registrar to Issue’ Service from 1 May 2006, they were not taxable prior to this date - As far as demand of service tax under head Manpower Recruitment Agency Service is concerned this is not a case of Manpower Supply Agency Service rendered by Manpower Agency Service to appellant - Therefore, same cannot be charged to service tax under reverse charge mechanism merely because one person has sent on deputation by overseas company to appellant and appellant reimbursed the salary to foreign company - Demand set aside and assessee appeal is allowed - Imposition of penalty - amount equal to service tax confirmed has imposed as penalty on appellant u/s.78 of the Finance Act - This penalty cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside on ground that elements required for imposition of penalty u/s.78 viz., fraud or collusion or wilful statement or suppression of facts have not been established - All facts are known to Department from beginning, the only thing which changed is that DGCEI has chosen to take a different view from one already taken and Commissioner has chosen to agree with that view ignoring fact that issue has already settled - Penalty u/s.78 of the Finance Act is equal to tax evaded since entire demand of tax is not sustainable, therefore, there cannot be any penalty - Assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-527-CESTAT-AHM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Refund of Cenvat Credit, Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Respondents/assessees were engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. Motor spirit, High-speed Diesel Oil, LPG – Respondent availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid on input, capital goods and input service and reversed /paid Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for relevant period attributed to excisable goods viz. LPG removed without payment of duty under Domestic LPG Subsidy Scheme - Respondents filed an application for of Cenvat Credit reversed/paid for LPG – Dy. Commissioner rejected refund claim - Commissioner (... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of Cenvat Credit, Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Respondents/assessees were engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. Motor spirit, High-speed Diesel Oil, LPG – Respondent availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid on input, capital goods and input service and reversed /paid Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for relevant period attributed to excisable goods viz. LPG removed without payment of duty under Domestic LPG Subsidy Scheme - Respondents filed an application for of Cenvat Credit reversed/paid for LPG – Dy. Commissioner rejected refund claim - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside Order in Original and allowed appeals - Revenue filed instant appeals – HELD - Respondent cleared LPG by charging duty and also cleared same by exemption notification therefore, in absence of two different product being manufactured and cleared, one being chargeable to duty and another being exempted provision of rule 6 (2) of CCR does not apply - LPG is a by-product generated during refining of crude oil - Since cenvat credit is admissible on input contained in byproduct same cannot be denied on by applying Rule 6 of CCR - In case of by product Rule 6 of CCR has no application - In respondent’s case input and input services are used for manufacture of other dutiable goods i.e. MS, HSD, ATF, Naphtha, Fuel oil etc. and LPG emerged unavoidably - Cenvat Credit cannot be reduced on input and input services attributed to LPG - Respondent is not required to pay any amount under Rule 6(3) of CCR in respect of LPG cleared under exemption under PDS – Revenue’s appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-528-CESTAT-AHM-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - Enhancement of assessable value - Original Adjudicating Authority relying on contemporaneous import price of goods of same description rejected assessable value declared by Appellant/assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld and partly remanded matter- Commissioner accepted enhancement of assessable value of importers made by appellant- Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner - Matter was again taken up for adjudication - Original Adjudicating Authority accepted declared assessable value - Commissioner set aside order and once again remanded matter back to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh order ... [Read more]

Customs - Enhancement of assessable value - Original Adjudicating Authority relying on contemporaneous import price of goods of same description rejected assessable value declared by Appellant/assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld and partly remanded matter- Commissioner accepted enhancement of assessable value of importers made by appellant- Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner - Matter was again taken up for adjudication - Original Adjudicating Authority accepted declared assessable value - Commissioner set aside order and once again remanded matter back to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh order – Hence, the instant appeal – HELD - there are no independent findings in so far as rejection of declared assessable value is concerned - Commissioner held that adjudicating authority has erred in comparing import data by taking aggregate/ consolidated quantity of glass chatons rather than taking quantity of a particular item - Moreover revenue reliance on order of Commissioner (Appeals) in their grounds of appeal is misplaced - In appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) revenue has argued that adjudicating authority while passing order had not considered order of Commissioner (A) – the said order has already been set aside and no reliance can be placed on said order – Order-In-Original gives specific grounds why declared value cannot be rejected - Impugned order does not give any findings on why said order is incorrect except to rely on earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) which has already been set aside by Tribunal - No merit in impugned order and same is set aside and matter once again is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) – Assessee’s appeal allowed by way of remand [Read less]

2021-VIL-536-CESTAT-AHM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Violation of principles of natural justice - Case of department was that appellant had availed Cenvat Credit in respect of imported copper scrap, brass scrap, zinc scrap, aluminum scrap as shown received in their factories but same was diverted in market and Cenvat Credit was availed on strength of bills of entry - Commissioner confirmed demand of Cenvat Credit and corresponding interest, penalties as proposed in Show Cause Notice -Appellants filed instant appeals alleging that entire adjudication was done in gross violation of principles of natural justice as all relied upon documents were not made availa... [Read more]

Central Excise - Violation of principles of natural justice - Case of department was that appellant had availed Cenvat Credit in respect of imported copper scrap, brass scrap, zinc scrap, aluminum scrap as shown received in their factories but same was diverted in market and Cenvat Credit was availed on strength of bills of entry - Commissioner confirmed demand of Cenvat Credit and corresponding interest, penalties as proposed in Show Cause Notice -Appellants filed instant appeals alleging that entire adjudication was done in gross violation of principles of natural justice as all relied upon documents were not made available – HELD - it is not only correspondence between appellant and DGCEI and adjudicating authority but there are also number of letters written by office of adjudication authority to DGCEI for supplying required documents - This itself shows that appellant has not been given all relied upon documents at any point of time - Since, there is no dispute that appellant are not supplied relied upon document as mentioned by it, adjudication should not have taken place in absence of providing said documents to appellant - It is a settled law that principles of natural justice is foremost requirement to be complied with before passing adjudication order - Impugned order since passed without observance of principles of natural justice, shall not sustain and same is set aside - Adjudicating authority is directed to supply all relied upon documents to appellants only thereafter sufficient opportunity for filing their defence and personal hearing be given before passing a denovo adjudication order - Assessee’s appeals are allowed by way of remand [Read less]

2021-VIL-531-CESTAT-ALH-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Classification of service - Refund claim - Appellant/assessee was a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s CHF International Limited - During relevant period, appellant provided services in nature of ‘assistance in procurement of goods’ by parent company in Hong Kong, directly from third parties in India - On basis of some wrong legal advice that services provided by appellant to its parent company were taxable services of “Management or Business Consultancy Services”, appellant erroneously paid service tax - On realizing mistake, appellant filed revised returns and entire amount received in convertible forei... [Read more]

Service Tax - Classification of service - Refund claim - Appellant/assessee was a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s CHF International Limited - During relevant period, appellant provided services in nature of ‘assistance in procurement of goods’ by parent company in Hong Kong, directly from third parties in India - On basis of some wrong legal advice that services provided by appellant to its parent company were taxable services of “Management or Business Consultancy Services”, appellant erroneously paid service tax - On realizing mistake, appellant filed revised returns and entire amount received in convertible foreign exchange was claimed exempt against ‘export of services’ - Appellant filed refund claims – Asst. Commissioner rejected refund claims and same was confirmed by Commissioner holding that service provided by appellant were not covered under Condition No. (d) of Rule 6A(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - assessee filed instant appeal – HELD - a subsidiary and its parent company located in different taxable territories are distinct tax payer(s) or different persons/entities - Rule 2(f) read with Rule 9 of Place of provision of Service Rules, 2012, clearly provides that ‘intermediary’ which means one who procure or an agent, does not include a person who provides main service or supply of goods on his account - Appellant has provided services to their holding company located India outside India, on their own account, thus, appellant has exported services - Appellant is entitled to refund of service tax paid under mistake - Further, the tax has been paid under mistake, is in the nature of Revenue deposit and no limitation is attracted for refund on such deposit - Impugned order is set aside and assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-385-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Telangana AAR – Valuation of supply, Reimbursable expenses, Liability to pay tax - Applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited for providing Housekeeping services - It was opinion of applicant that as salary / wages were fixed by Hospital management and as EPF, ESI were statutory payments, therefore these amounts reimbursed by Hospital management could not form value of supply - Applicant filed instant application seeking advance ruling that applicant was not liable to pay tax on amount of wages / salaries, EPF/ ESI etc., reimbursed by client – HELD - no g... [Read more]

GST – Telangana AAR – Valuation of supply, Reimbursable expenses, Liability to pay tax - Applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited for providing Housekeeping services - It was opinion of applicant that as salary / wages were fixed by Hospital management and as EPF, ESI were statutory payments, therefore these amounts reimbursed by Hospital management could not form value of supply - Applicant filed instant application seeking advance ruling that applicant was not liable to pay tax on amount of wages / salaries, EPF/ ESI etc., reimbursed by client – HELD - no general principles have been laid down for determination of value of supply on service which travel beyond interpretation of Rule 5 of Service Tax Rules and Provision pertaining to pre GST Service tax - Applicant is not a pure agent under GST Law - Further deductions available under Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not include amounts pertaining to EPF, ESI, Salary, or Wages - Therefore entire amount received from Hospital are exigible to CGST Act, 2017 - Order accordingly [Read less]

2021-VIL-386-AAR  | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Telangana AAR - Eligibility for concessional rate of tax - Applicability of Notification No. 11/2017 dated: 28.06.2017 - Applicant is in business of construction and selling of residential flats – applicant’s project contained flats of various dimensions - Applicant informed that some of customers claimed that they were eligible for the benefit of PMAY scheme and hence insisting to pay a reduced rate of tax under Notification No. 01/2018 dated: 25.01.2018 - Appellant filed instant application seeking advance ruling on applicability of Notification No. issued under provisions of CGST Act, 2017 on amount received... [Read more]

GST – Telangana AAR - Eligibility for concessional rate of tax - Applicability of Notification No. 11/2017 dated: 28.06.2017 - Applicant is in business of construction and selling of residential flats – applicant’s project contained flats of various dimensions - Applicant informed that some of customers claimed that they were eligible for the benefit of PMAY scheme and hence insisting to pay a reduced rate of tax under Notification No. 01/2018 dated: 25.01.2018 - Appellant filed instant application seeking advance ruling on applicability of Notification No. issued under provisions of CGST Act, 2017 on amount received from customers claiming benefit of PMAY scheme – HELD - Government of India in Notification No. 01/2018 has inserted entry “a civil structure or any other original works pertaining to “houses constructed or acquired under Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme for Economically Weaker Section (EWS)/ Lower Income Group (LIG)/ Middle Income Group-1 (MlG-1)/ Middle Income Group-2 (MlG-2)”under Housing for All (Urban) Mission/ Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)” in Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017 - In view of new entry, if a person is acquiring a dwelling under credit linked subsidy scheme for economically weaker section fulfilling all conditions and formalities from designated banks / financial institutions under such scheme then he is eligible for concessional rate of tax under Notification No. 01/2018 – the Notification No. 01/2018 is applicable if condition of credit linked subsidy scheme is availed under PMAY (Urban) – Order Accordingly [Read less]

High Court Judgement  | High Court SGST

All the technical glitches that may occur during the transition phase shall not stand in the way of ultimate relief of refund to the assessee or else the sanctity of the whole scheme of Sec. 129 of the CGST Act will lose the confidence of taxpayers.

2021-VIL-535-CESTAT-DEL-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Restoration of appeal - Pursuant to show cause notice vide order-in-original, cenvat credit was disallowed to appellant/assessee along with interest and equal amount of penalty - Appellant filed appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal directed appellant to make a pre-deposit - Appellant deposited amount and Tribunal allowed appeal - Appellant filed application for refund of pre-deposit with interest- Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned refund but no interest was granted - Commissioner dismissed appeal filed for grant of interest- Being aggrieved, appellant filed present appeal but appeal was disposed of ex parte on... [Read more]

Central Excise - Restoration of appeal - Pursuant to show cause notice vide order-in-original, cenvat credit was disallowed to appellant/assessee along with interest and equal amount of penalty - Appellant filed appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal directed appellant to make a pre-deposit - Appellant deposited amount and Tribunal allowed appeal - Appellant filed application for refund of pre-deposit with interest- Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned refund but no interest was granted - Commissioner dismissed appeal filed for grant of interest- Being aggrieved, appellant filed present appeal but appeal was disposed of ex parte on merits- Appellant filed instant application for restoration of appeal – HELD - Supreme Court in case of J.K. Synthetics Vs. CCE held that wherein appeal is dismissed ex parte on merits, same shall be restored when sufficient cause is shown for absence of party – For ends of justice as party is unable to appear for no fault of his own, ex parte order shall be set aside- Practice of sending notice of adjournment of hearing has been recently discontinued vide Public Notice No.3/2019 dated 18.02.2019 - appellant was not aware of such new practice adopted by Tribunal and accordingly, in absence of such notice of hearing, appellant was absent when matter was taken up for hearing and disposal - There is no deliberate latches on part of appellant in not appearing for hearing, and appellant is prevented by sufficient cause - Appeal is restored to its original number – Assessee’s application is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-549-CESTAT-CHD-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - After conclusion of hearing, certain documents and reports were called from jurisdictional officer and said verification report was not supplied to appellant but impugned order had been passed - appellant filed instant appeal praying that impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and same had to be set aside – HELD - personal hearing is concluded on 05.02.2018 and thereafter certain correspondence was going on between appellant and respondents - Moreover, verification report has not been supplied to appellant and impugned order has been passed - there is gross violation o... [Read more]

Service Tax - After conclusion of hearing, certain documents and reports were called from jurisdictional officer and said verification report was not supplied to appellant but impugned order had been passed - appellant filed instant appeal praying that impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and same had to be set aside – HELD - personal hearing is concluded on 05.02.2018 and thereafter certain correspondence was going on between appellant and respondents - Moreover, verification report has not been supplied to appellant and impugned order has been passed - there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back with direction to Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate matter after providing verification report to appellant and thereafter appellant be granted opportunity to counter verification report and thereafter Adjudicating Authority will pass order in accordance with law by following principles of natural justice - Assessee’s appeal is disposed of by way of remand [Read less]

2021-VIL-532-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Interest on refund amount - Show cause notices were issued to respondent-assessee alleging non-payment of service tax on registration fees/ transfer charges including cess - Show cause notices were adjudicated, whereas respondent was successful - Respondent filed refund claim praying for refund of amount deposited with respect to SCNs – Asst. Commissioner allowed refund of principal amount, however rejected interest claim - Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest @ 6% from date of deposit till date of refund - revenue filed instant appeal – HELD - Division Bench of Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd. has held... [Read more]

Service Tax - Interest on refund amount - Show cause notices were issued to respondent-assessee alleging non-payment of service tax on registration fees/ transfer charges including cess - Show cause notices were adjudicated, whereas respondent was successful - Respondent filed refund claim praying for refund of amount deposited with respect to SCNs – Asst. Commissioner allowed refund of principal amount, however rejected interest claim - Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest @ 6% from date of deposit till date of refund - revenue filed instant appeal – HELD - Division Bench of Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd. has held that amount deposited during investigation and /or pending litigation is ipso facto pre-deposit and interest is payable on such amount to assessee being successful in appeal, from date of deposit till date of refund - Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse amount interest @ 12% per annum - Revenue’s appeal is dismissed [Read less]

High Court Judgement  | High Court SGST

Summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper SCN; although the Form GST DRC-01 mentioned mismatch between GSTR-3B and 2A but that is not sufficient as the notice continues to be vague.

2021-VIL-726-BOM  | High Court VAT

Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Delay in filing - Petitioner/assessee filed instant writ petition seeking direction to respondent-Commissioner to grant refund and interest and prayed for a declaration that rejection order was non-est and void as it was not served on petitioner till date - Respondent alleged that instant petition was suffering from delay and laches - Maintainability of Writ petition – HELD - explanation given by petitioner for delay in filing writ petition is unsatisfactory - Repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action to petitioner and mere making of representation cannot justify... [Read more]

Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Delay in filing - Petitioner/assessee filed instant writ petition seeking direction to respondent-Commissioner to grant refund and interest and prayed for a declaration that rejection order was non-est and void as it was not served on petitioner till date - Respondent alleged that instant petition was suffering from delay and laches - Maintainability of Writ petition – HELD - explanation given by petitioner for delay in filing writ petition is unsatisfactory - Repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action to petitioner and mere making of representation cannot justify a belated approach - It cannot be said that petitioner was pursuing statutory remedies in respect of refund claim - Petitioner was not vigilant of its rights and therefore court shall not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in its favour - Right to seek refund having been crystalised on September 30, 2011 and in any case as order rejecting refund is passed on September 20, 2012, it is expected that petitioner approaches Court as early as possible and without undue delay - Petitioner slept over its rights- In Bhailal Bhai’s case it has held that even if there is no such delay in cases where Government or statutory authority raises a prima facie triable issue as regards availability of such relief on merits on grounds like limitation, Court should ordinarily refuse to issue writ of mandamus for such payment - Delay in moving writ petition is unreasonable - Assessee’s writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-733-TRI  | High Court VAT

Tripura Value Added Tax Act - Breach of principles of natural justice, Permission of virtual hearing, Validity of assessment order - Petitioner challenged order passed by Superintendent of Taxes demanding sum by way of unpaid taxes with interest and penalty for assessment year 2015-16 - Petitioner also challenged order passed by Superintendent of Taxes rejecting petitioners’ application for rectification of assessment order - These orders were challenged primarily on ground of breach of principles of natural justice – HELD - though Assessing Officer(AO) has contended that several notices are sent to petitioner, there i... [Read more]

Tripura Value Added Tax Act - Breach of principles of natural justice, Permission of virtual hearing, Validity of assessment order - Petitioner challenged order passed by Superintendent of Taxes demanding sum by way of unpaid taxes with interest and penalty for assessment year 2015-16 - Petitioner also challenged order passed by Superintendent of Taxes rejecting petitioners’ application for rectification of assessment order - These orders were challenged primarily on ground of breach of principles of natural justice – HELD - though Assessing Officer(AO) has contended that several notices are sent to petitioner, there is no evidence of service of any of them - AO did not use electronic mode of communication of hearing dates - Assessee deserves an opportunity of making further arguments before AO - if the department wishes to rely upon any other documents or material which is not within knowledge or possession of petitioner, principles of natural justice require that same must be provided to petitioner before it can be used against it - Stand of department that even during time when Corona Virus is at its peak, administrative and legal representatives of the assessee company must appear before AO physically for conducting hearings cannot be accepted - Insisting on personal hearing would either expose representatives to catching infection or force AO to adjourn hearings resulting into delays - In interest of justice such virtual hearing is permitted - Impugned order is set aside also order rejecting petitioner's application for rectification does not survive - Order of assessment is quashed on ground of inadequate hearing - Assessee’s petition disposed of [Read less]

2021-VIL-736-BOM  | High Court SGST

GST - Review of Judgment, encashment of bank guarantee consequent to the order of the Appellate Authority - Authority encashed bank guarantees of assessee - Writ petition filed by assesseee was disposed of directing respondents to refund the amount covered by encashed bank guarantees with applicable statutory interest thereon - Instant review petition by the Department seeking review of judgment – HELD - grounds urged by review petitioners may be grounds of appeal but would not be grounds for review within ambit and meaning of section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - No rehearing of a ... [Read more]

GST - Review of Judgment, encashment of bank guarantee consequent to the order of the Appellate Authority - Authority encashed bank guarantees of assessee - Writ petition filed by assesseee was disposed of directing respondents to refund the amount covered by encashed bank guarantees with applicable statutory interest thereon - Instant review petition by the Department seeking review of judgment – HELD - grounds urged by review petitioners may be grounds of appeal but would not be grounds for review within ambit and meaning of section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - No rehearing of a concluded matter is permissible while seeking review - There is neither any error apparent on face of record nor any documents which review petitioners could not present at time of hearing despite due diligence - There is also no sufficient cause to rehear concluded matter - Present case not found to be a fit case for review - Review petition dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-537-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of duty in cash - Appellant/assessee had made a pre-deposit pending litigation - appellant was successful in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Appellant applied for refund of pre-deposit amount which was allowed vide order-in-original – part refund of was allowed in cash and balance amount was allowed by way of Cenvat credit – Commr. (Audit) acting as Commr. (Appeals) ordered that there was no error in order of Joint Commissioner granting refund by way of Cenvat credit - Hence, instant appeal – HELD - order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in conflict with transitional provisions, as contained i... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of duty in cash - Appellant/assessee had made a pre-deposit pending litigation - appellant was successful in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Appellant applied for refund of pre-deposit amount which was allowed vide order-in-original – part refund of was allowed in cash and balance amount was allowed by way of Cenvat credit – Commr. (Audit) acting as Commr. (Appeals) ordered that there was no error in order of Joint Commissioner granting refund by way of Cenvat credit - Hence, instant appeal – HELD - order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in conflict with transitional provisions, as contained in Section 142 of CGST Act wherein it has been provided that on or after 1.7.2017, any adjustment regarding refund of duty or liability on assessee has to be adjusted in cash - Order-in-appeal is modified directing Adjudicating Authority to disburse refund of Rs.41,94,304 in cash - Assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-540-CESTAT-HYD-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Demand of duty - Requirement of pre-deposit - Assistant Commissioner passed order demanding duty and imposing penalty on appellant-assessee – Against order of Assistant Commissioner, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeal holding that appeal was filed not only beyond period of 60 days from date of communication of order but also beyond extended period of 30 days - Commissioner (Appeals) also stated that appellant had not deposited requisite percentage of duty before filing appeal, as contemplated u/s.35F of the Excise Act, 1994 – HELD - Section 3... [Read more]

Central Excise - Demand of duty - Requirement of pre-deposit - Assistant Commissioner passed order demanding duty and imposing penalty on appellant-assessee – Against order of Assistant Commissioner, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeal holding that appeal was filed not only beyond period of 60 days from date of communication of order but also beyond extended period of 30 days - Commissioner (Appeals) also stated that appellant had not deposited requisite percentage of duty before filing appeal, as contemplated u/s.35F of the Excise Act, 1994 – HELD - Section 35F of the CEA, 1994 deals with deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal, it provides that Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal unless appellant has deposited 7.5% or 10% of duty demanded or penalty imposed - Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur has observed that authority has no power to condone delay after expiry of 30 days - Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited case has held that when statue has provided waiver of pre-deposit to extent of 90% or 92.5% of duty amount and made it mandatory to deposit 7.5% or 10% of duty amount, as case may be, Court cannot waive requirement of deposit – Commr. (Appeals) committed no error in dismissing appeal for reason that mandatory requirement of pre-deposit was not satisfied - assessee appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-539-CESTAT-HYD-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Classification of goods - Appellant/assessee sought classification of Nimbooz’ under CETH 2202 10 20 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Department held that Nimbooz’ deserved classification under CETH 2202 90 20 under category of ‘fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks - Commissioner passed order and confirmed differential duty against assessee on ‘Nimbooz’ removed during relevant period along with interest and penalty – Hence, instant appeals – HELD - Tribunal in M/s. Brindavan Beverages Private Limited case held that product “Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh, 7UP “Nimbooz... [Read more]

Central Excise - Classification of goods - Appellant/assessee sought classification of Nimbooz’ under CETH 2202 10 20 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Department held that Nimbooz’ deserved classification under CETH 2202 90 20 under category of ‘fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks - Commissioner passed order and confirmed differential duty against assessee on ‘Nimbooz’ removed during relevant period along with interest and penalty – Hence, instant appeals – HELD - Tribunal in M/s. Brindavan Beverages Private Limited case held that product “Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh, 7UP “Nimbooz Masala Soda” or 7UP “Nimbooz” are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule under the category of “fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks” – Hence, ‘Nimbooz’ will be classifiable under CETH 2202 10 20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act - Order passed by Commissioner confirming demand of differential duty for normal period of limitation with interest and penalty, cannot be sustained and is set aside – Assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-530-CESTAT-MUM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Imposition of penalty - Investigation was conducted in appellant/assessee’s case - It was found that buyers of impugned goods and other persons specifically stated in statements recorded under summon that goods were not actually supplied by appellants and only invoices were issued, facilitating availment of fraudulent Cenvat credit - Commissioner (Appeals) passed order that appellants were liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for offence that only Cenvatable invoices were issued to various customers, without actual supply of goods – aggrieved assessee in appeal – HELD - ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Imposition of penalty - Investigation was conducted in appellant/assessee’s case - It was found that buyers of impugned goods and other persons specifically stated in statements recorded under summon that goods were not actually supplied by appellants and only invoices were issued, facilitating availment of fraudulent Cenvat credit - Commissioner (Appeals) passed order that appellants were liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for offence that only Cenvatable invoices were issued to various customers, without actual supply of goods – aggrieved assessee in appeal – HELD - Department has not conducted any detailed enquiry in factory of appellant to ascertain that impugned goods are in fact manufactured and cleared under cover of central excise invoices to buyers or not - Proceedings were initiated by department solely based on statements recorded from third party and no corroborating documentary evidences were relied upon in support of confirmation of adjudged penalties – on similar issue in the assessee own case the Tribunal has already set aside imposition of penalties holding that appellants have delivered goods along with invoices and reliance placed on ledger account “Bill Condition” is not sustainable - In instant case it cannot be concluded that appellants does not issue any invoices accompanying goods thus imposition of penalty cannot be sustained – Impugned order is set aside and assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-727-DEL-CU  | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Re-export of Gold bars - Petitioner/assessee was importer of Gold Dore Bars also holder of Warehouse License - Petitioner surrendered Warehouse License and applied for grant of a Special Warehouse License under section 58A of the Customs Act, 1962 which was allowed - Respondent rejected petitioner’s request for reconsideration of its earlier decision not to grant petitioner a Special Warehouse License u/s.58A of the Act - Court passed order that respondents were willing to allow petitioner to re-export Gold Dore and prayer in petition stood satisfied - Union of India/Petitioner by means of present petition soug... [Read more]

Customs - Re-export of Gold bars - Petitioner/assessee was importer of Gold Dore Bars also holder of Warehouse License - Petitioner surrendered Warehouse License and applied for grant of a Special Warehouse License under section 58A of the Customs Act, 1962 which was allowed - Respondent rejected petitioner’s request for reconsideration of its earlier decision not to grant petitioner a Special Warehouse License u/s.58A of the Act - Court passed order that respondents were willing to allow petitioner to re-export Gold Dore and prayer in petition stood satisfied - Union of India/Petitioner by means of present petition sought review of order – HELD - no Bill of Entry is filed in respect of Gold Dore Bars, and as they still remained within Customs bond, factum of import of bars is, as yet, incomplete - It cannot be said that import of Gold Dore Bars into India is completed at this point of time - Right of importer to re-export imported goods, even after clearance and removal to its factory premises, for bona fide grounds, stands acknowledged - Assessee disclosed fact that import was made against a license which contained an actual user condition and that goods still remained in Customs bonded area - Nature of objections raised by Customs authorities are also disclosed to DGFT - Despite this, DGFT clarifies that export of gold not being prohibited, assessee is entitled to re-export of Gold Dore Bars - No reason found to interfere in order passed granting request of petitioner to re-export Gold Dore Bars - No case for review of is made out - Review petition is dismissed [Read less]

2021-VIL-730-MAD  | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Demand of tax, Imposition of penalty - Assessment order was passed demanding tax and imposing penalty on assessee - On direction of Court, AO passed revised assessment order confirming pre-revision notice issued demanding tax and levy of penalty - Appellant challenged revised assessment order by filing writ petition - Writ petition was dismissed on ground that appellant, having admitted tax liability, could not maintain writ petition - Hence, instant appeal was filed – HELD - so far as demand of tax is concerned, appellant have opportunity to go before Assessing Officer to establish... [Read more]

Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Demand of tax, Imposition of penalty - Assessment order was passed demanding tax and imposing penalty on assessee - On direction of Court, AO passed revised assessment order confirming pre-revision notice issued demanding tax and levy of penalty - Appellant challenged revised assessment order by filing writ petition - Writ petition was dismissed on ground that appellant, having admitted tax liability, could not maintain writ petition - Hence, instant appeal was filed – HELD - so far as demand of tax is concerned, appellant have opportunity to go before Assessing Officer to establish its case by producing records and it is unable to do so on alleged ground that purchase bills are missing due to shifting of place of business - If such is case, then obviously, appellant has not been able to establish that allegation made is not true - There is no error in order passed by Assessing Officer confirming proposal to levy tax on enhanced turnover - for levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of TNVAT Act there should be finding rendered by Assessing Authority regarding wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover - While confirming proposal in pre-revision notice and completing assessment, Assessing Officer does not record any finding that appellant is guilty of willful suppression - Representation given by appellant is to effect that there is no wilful misstatement or wilful default committed by it , but only on account of loss of purchase bills, they are unable to establish genuineness of transaction - there is nothing specifically brought on record by Assessing Officer to show that appellant is wilfully suppressed assessable turnover - appellant has not admitted penalty because of its inability to produce records, and agreed to pay tax, but specifically made request for waiver of penalty on ground that there is no fault committed by them - Appellant can be granted a limited relief to extent of levy penalty alone - assessee’s appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-737-MAD  | High Court SGST

GST – the summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules was generated online but without giving any time to the assessee to respond, on the same day the impugned assessment order was passed – aggrieved assessee filed instant petition seeking quashing of impugned order – HELD - The uploading or serving of summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under CGST Rule 142(1) is not a mere formality, but it is mandated under the CGST Rule so that the assessee would have a chance of getting summary of show cause and to respond the same - without giving any breathing time to assessee, on the very ... [Read more]

GST – the summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules was generated online but without giving any time to the assessee to respond, on the same day the impugned assessment order was passed – aggrieved assessee filed instant petition seeking quashing of impugned order – HELD - The uploading or serving of summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under CGST Rule 142(1) is not a mere formality, but it is mandated under the CGST Rule so that the assessee would have a chance of getting summary of show cause and to respond the same - without giving any breathing time to assessee, on the very same day the date on which GST-DRC-01 notice was uploaded, the impugned order was passed - the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed - the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration – writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

2021-VIL-529-CESTAT-DEL-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Entitlement of cenvat credit - Appellant/assessee company was availing credit of input, capital goods and input service - Show cause notice was issued demanding tax in respect of Credit availed on doors and windows, annual maintenance charges , outward freight paid for good cleared to sister concern - Adjudicating Authority dropped demand with regard to cenvat credit on maintenance charges and non-payment of duty on scrap cleared - Demand with respect to other three issues was confirmed - Commissioner (A) confirmed demand of cenvat credit for doors and windows and credit taken on outward freight – Appell... [Read more]

Central Excise - Entitlement of cenvat credit - Appellant/assessee company was availing credit of input, capital goods and input service - Show cause notice was issued demanding tax in respect of Credit availed on doors and windows, annual maintenance charges , outward freight paid for good cleared to sister concern - Adjudicating Authority dropped demand with regard to cenvat credit on maintenance charges and non-payment of duty on scrap cleared - Demand with respect to other three issues was confirmed - Commissioner (A) confirmed demand of cenvat credit for doors and windows and credit taken on outward freight – Appellant filed instant appeal challenging demand of cenvat credit with regard to ‘doors and windows’ and ‘outward freight’- HELD - Any input purchased by the manufacturer which are used in the factory for the manufacture of final products, are allowable as inputs, whether it forms part of the finished goods or not - doors and windows have been used in factory of appellant for manufacture of good quality drugs thus, cenvat credit is allowable on doors/window - So far cenvat credit on GTA services is concerned, appellant has cleared goods to their sister concern by charging duty on value of goods as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Appellant unit has incurred transport charges for clearance of finished goods which forms part of their cost, as per arrangement between them and their sister concern - Both units are under same company and situation is wholly Revenue neutral, as output duty of appellant unit at Pithampur, is input of their Goa unit - Thus, appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of GTA service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Assessee’s appeal is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-728-UTR  | High Court SGST

GST - Cancellation of registration - Opportunity of hearing - Petitioner/assessee was a company and its registration was cancelled by respondent - Petitioner contended that decision on application submitted for cancellation of registration was required to be taken by respondent within a period of 30 days as provided under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 - Hence, the instant petition – HELD - the petitioner should have been mandatorily provided with an opportunity of hearing and in the absence of there being any prior show cause issued to the petitioner, calling his explanation, the order of cancellation of his registration would... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of registration - Opportunity of hearing - Petitioner/assessee was a company and its registration was cancelled by respondent - Petitioner contended that decision on application submitted for cancellation of registration was required to be taken by respondent within a period of 30 days as provided under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 - Hence, the instant petition – HELD - the petitioner should have been mandatorily provided with an opportunity of hearing and in the absence of there being any prior show cause issued to the petitioner, calling his explanation, the order of cancellation of his registration would be apparently and statutorily bad in the eyes of law - Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically creates a statutory obligation that where registration is required to be cancelled, under either of modes, i.e. on account of commission of default or on account of an application submitted by registered assessee, opportunity of hearing is required to be provided – the impugned order suffers from violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act - the impugned order is quashed - Matter is remitted back to respondent to take appropriate decision only after providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioner – Assessee’s petition is allowed [Read less]

2021-VIL-729-KAR-CE  | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Sanction of refund claim - Respondent/assessee was engaged in manufacture of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling - assessee had paid duty more than what was payable on final assessment and it filed refund claims for excess payments - lower authority held that respondent was eligible for refund - CESTAT upheld order of refund claim – Revenue appeal on the ground that in terms of Rule 7(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the respondent-manufacturer has to be subjected to the test of unjust enrichment for claiming refund – HELD - Rule 7[6] of Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that duty of excise paid by m... [Read more]

Central Excise - Sanction of refund claim - Respondent/assessee was engaged in manufacture of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling - assessee had paid duty more than what was payable on final assessment and it filed refund claims for excess payments - lower authority held that respondent was eligible for refund - CESTAT upheld order of refund claim – Revenue appeal on the ground that in terms of Rule 7(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the respondent-manufacturer has to be subjected to the test of unjust enrichment for claiming refund – HELD - Rule 7[6] of Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that duty of excise paid by manufacturer, if he has not passed an incidence of such duty to any other person be paid to applicant instead of crediting to fund, refund amount determined under rule 7[3] of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - It cannot be held that Rule 7[6] of Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be equated to Rule 9[5] Central Excise Rules, 1944 as much as claim of refund is concerned - Issue of unjust enrichment has been raised for first time on sanction of refund order consequent on finalization of provisional assessment - Authorities have admitted that credit notes were issued by assessee to their dealer representing various discounts which have been actually passed on, in accordance with marketing policies - It is also observed that on verification of sample depot invoices at time of completion of provisional assessment, that assessee has not issued any cenvatable invoice from depot which a prescribed document for availment of Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Thus, it cannot be held that assessee has not subjected to test of unjust enrichment - Revenue’s appeal dismissed – answered in favour of the assessee [Read less]

2021-VIL-735-KAR-ST  | High Court SERVICE TAX

SVLDRS - Benefit of SVLDRS Scheme, Adjustment of pre-deposit amount – Petitioner made an application in Form SVLDRS-1 seeking to claim benefit of Settlement Scheme wherein petitioner claimed benefit of pre-deposit amount - Declaration of petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 came to be rejected stating that there were no supporting documents available to support claim - Petitioner filed instant petition seeking to quash letter of rejection and to direct respondent to consider pre-deposit amount – HELD - assertion of the petitioner while making application in Form SVLDRS-1 is to effect that there is pre-deposit of Rs.32,94,023/- ... [Read more]

SVLDRS - Benefit of SVLDRS Scheme, Adjustment of pre-deposit amount – Petitioner made an application in Form SVLDRS-1 seeking to claim benefit of Settlement Scheme wherein petitioner claimed benefit of pre-deposit amount - Declaration of petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 came to be rejected stating that there were no supporting documents available to support claim - Petitioner filed instant petition seeking to quash letter of rejection and to direct respondent to consider pre-deposit amount – HELD - assertion of the petitioner while making application in Form SVLDRS-1 is to effect that there is pre-deposit of Rs.32,94,023/- - record of personal hearing would indicate that pre-deposit of Rs.32,33,181/- as per Challan bearing No.01206 is requested to be considered after necessary clarification - Material on record indicates that petitioner has furnished Challan for a sum of Rs.32,33,181/- at time of personal hearing - considering material on record, it would be appropriate to direct reconsideration of petitioner's application and if it are to be so that pre-deposit as claimed and supported by Challan relates to dispute which is subject matter of appeal, Designated Committee to re-look into matter and dispose of petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 in accordance with SVLDR Scheme - petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 to be reconsidered - letter of rejection is set aside - Assessee’s petition disposed of [Read less]

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page