CCE Vs SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD:
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT
(Dated: June 7, 2016)
Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Denial of Input services credit availed by Respondent firm, of tax paid on Management Consultancy Service and attendant demands set aside by the Tribunal on merit as well as limitation, and agitated by Revenue herein.
Appeal dismissed
2016-TIOL-1270-HC-MAD-CX
ROBUST HOTELS PVT LTD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER :
MADRAS
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 14, 2016)
Central Excise - SSI Exemption - Petitioner engaged in hospitality industry; and manufacture of excisable goods, such as cakes, pastry, ice creams etc., claiming turnover based exemption under Notification 8 of 2003, CE, dated 01.03.2003 - Revenue viewed that the turnover of these items was not computed in aggregate value for exemption; that they are disentitled to value based exemption since the threshold was crossed - In adjudication, the appellant was fastened with the demand of duty, under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with interest under Section 11AA and penalty under Rule 25 & 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2002; and agitated herein.
WP dismissed
2016-TIOL-1269-HC-MAD-MISC
KANTILAL N SHAH Vs AUTHORISED OFFICER :
MADRAS
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 3, 2016)
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Petitioner had imported Olive Oil from Turkey, which was examined by the authorised officer, who sent a communication to the 2nd respondent, stating that the consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement as required under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 - the petitioner filed a W.P.No.20409 of 2015, challenging the report of the authorised officer - during the course of hearing, an interim direction was issued on 28.09.2015 by which the petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent with all supporting documents so as to prove the specific name of the manufacturer and the name printed whether it is in English or in Turkish language - subsequently, the authority has passed the order dated 24.11.2015 which is impugned in this writ petition.
WP disposed of
2016-TIOL-1268-HC-MAD-CUS
MOHAMED ANSAR ABDUL GAFOOR Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS :
MADRAS
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 7, 2016)
Customs - Redemption fine - In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a direction to release the goods (gold jewellery) which have been detained pursuant to the order by which the concerned adjudicating authority had given an option of redemption to the petitioners for re-export subject to payment of fine and personal penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief by reducing quantum of RF and penalty, claimed by Revenue to be under revision proceedings.
WP disposed of
2016-TIOL-1267-HC-MAD-ST
CCE Vs CMS (INDIA) OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COMPANY PVT LTD :
MADRAS
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 13, 2016)
Service Tax - Appellate Jurisdiction - CESTAT Chennai Final Order dated 21/5/2007 challenged by Revenue in the instant appeal - the questions of law framed are, whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the second respondent (1) did not render composite services bearing the essential characters of taxable service of Maintenance and Repair, Business Auxiliary Services, Management Consultancy, Consulting Engineering Services and C & F Agents stipulated under Section 65 A (2) (b) of Finance Act, 1994; and (2) is the manufacturer of Electricity, contrary to the fact that ST-CMS is the manufacturer of Electricity as evident in the Power Purchase Agreement between the TNEB and ST-CMS and in extension of the Notification No.08/2005-ST dated 1/3/2005 amended by Notification No.19/2005-ST dated 1/3/2005, exempting service tax on the Business Auxiliary Service of manufacture of goods on behalf of clients even for the Service Tax liable to be paid by the second respondent for the manufacture of electricity on behalf of ST-CMS for the period prior to 1/3/2005.
CMA dismissed
2016-TIOL-1266-HC-MAD-ST
SREE DAKSHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Vs CCE :
MADRAS
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 7, 2016)
Service Tax - Rectification of Mistake - Abatement under Notification No.12/2012-ST denied; Tax demands under "Works Contract" service in terms of Section 66E(h) of the Act read with Section 65B (54),confirmed under Sec 73 of the Finance Act 1994 with interest and penalties under Sec 75, 76 & 77 ibidem - Appellant filed an application under Sec 74, contending inter alia that although particulars were furnished, the assessing authority without considering it, held that no corroborating and convincing evidence was given in support of the petitioner's claim that the land value has to be excluded - The respondent, by the impugned orderagitated herein, held that no action under Section 74 of the Act is required and such power could be exercised for rectification only if there is an error apparent from the records of the case and it cannot be a long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions, in terms of the Apex court ruling in the case of Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Co-op. Group Housing Society.
Matter remanded
2016-TIOL-1265-HC-AHM-VAT
TANUJ AGENCY PVT LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT :
GUJARAT
HIGH COURT (Dated: June 8, 2016)
Whether the procedure adopted by the department is permissible in law where the appellate authority upon remand of the proceedings by the Tribunal heard the assessees and decided to grant refund but he was however under directives from the Government not to finalise the order which, he therefore, kept at draft stage and sent for pre-audit and the Additional Commissioner, thereupon inquired into various details and directed him to verify three aspects and to amend his order and pass a fresh order – No: HC
Assessee's petitions allowed
