TOP NEWS

Demonetisation fails to dampen revenue collections; CBDT gives away Rs 1.4 lakh crore refund till Jan-end

Gold smuggling 'amplifying' through amplifiers!

CASE LAWS

2017-TIOL-293-HC-AHM-VAT

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: February 03, 2017)

Gujarat VAT Act - Entry 13(ii) vs Entry 87 - Gold Articles - Watch.

The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Watches (NEBULA brand), Jewellery, Spectacles at various factories. The NEBULA Jewellery Watch is made of gold and /or silver and /or diamonds and /or precious stones and /or semi previous stones. While assessing the case the Revenue took the view that the classification of the product as claimed by the assessee is not correct and classified the same as under Entry 87 of Second Schedule. On appeal, the Tribunal decided the case in favour of assessee and held that the product fell under entry 13(ii) of Schedule II.

On appeal, the HC held that,

Whether Entries in the VAT Schedule are to be given widest possible connotation to decide the classification of a product - YES: HC

Whether a gold jewellery which carries the mechanism of a Watch or like nature can be constured as Watch, when it contains more gold than watch mechanism - NO: HC

++ the word "Article or Jewellery" used in Entry No.13(ii) of Schedule II of the Act is to be given the widest meaning and is not required to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and the fullest meaning is required to be given to the words used in the Entry in the texting statute. In the case of The Elel Hotel and Investments Ltd. and Anr the Supreme Court observed that the cardinal rule of interpretation is that the entries in the legislative lists are not to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and that each general word should be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it. It is further observed that the widest possible construction, according to the ordinary meaning of the words in the entry, must be put upon them. As per meaning of Jewel /Jewellery in Law Lexicon Dictionary means Articles manufactured from those for the purpose of personal adornment are known as articles of jewellery. Even hair pin, hat pin, buckles and other similar ornaments adapted for personal use or otherwise, and composed of base metal or imitation of precious metals and otherwise, some being set with imitation precious stones, are dutiable as jewellery. Even the dress having diamond on it predominantly can be in a given case said to be a jewellery. Mainly because the NEBULA Watch carries the mechanism of watch it will not lose the characteristic of jewellery.

Appeal dismissed

2017-TIOL-292-HC-MUM-CX

CCE Vs GLOBAL BOARDS LTD: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 6, 2017)

CX - Issue involved is availment of CENVAT Credit on furnace oil used as fuel to generate steam and which is used in manufacture of exempted and dutiable paper product - Tribunal allowing credit, therefore, Revenue in appeal before High Court.

Held: From the Tribunal's order it is not clear as to whether the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement (2006-TIOL-150-SC-CX) or the subsequent judgment in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited - 2009-TIOL-96-SC-CX - In these circumstances Tribunal to once again decide the matter - Which of the Supreme Court judgment ought to be followed and what is the issue at hand, whether that requires application of any judgment or either of them must be determined by the Tribunal afresh - Since the order passed and impugned in this Appeal is unreasoned and cryptic, no alternative but to allow this Appeal: High Court [para 6, 7]

Appeal allowed

2017-TIOL-291-HC-MUM-CUS

SANDVIK ASIA PVT LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 6, 2017)

Cus - Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof so as to direct the Respondents to forthwith sanction and grant to the Petitioner the deemed export benefit in respect of goods supplied to the holders of EPCG authorization under deemed export and to forthwith grant and refund the terminal excise duty and duty drawback together with interest.

Held: On instructions, Counsel for respondent Revenue stated that Petitioner's application seeking the refund would be considered irrespective of the stand taken in the affidavit in reply/submissions made during the course of argument - fresh speaking order to be passed - Petitioner can place material before the authority to support its stand that the goods supplied are capital goods and not consumables - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11]

Petition disposed of

2017-TIOL-290-HC-MUM-ST

SUPRI ADVERTISING AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD Vs CCE & ST: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 6, 2017)

ST - Substantial question of law is, whether in the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in passing the initial as also the further orders without hearing the Appellant-Assessee and ex-parte.

Held: Since the order in-original passed by the Commissioner would gain finality and the Appellant's valuable right of Appeal would be lost, High Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the Appellant deposits a sum of Rs.60 lakhs within three months and report compliance to the Tribunal's registry, for reviving its Appeal before the Tribunal - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

Appeal disposed of

2017-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL + Story

CCE Vs KP POUCHES PVT LTD: DELHI CESTAT (Dated: February 3, 2017)

CX – Department has adopted a short cut method by demanding the duty on the entire 63,346 bags containing gutka reflected in the 13 unloading registers and gate registers when the fact remains that the assessee is responsible to pay the duty on its trade marked stock only and is not responsible for payment of CE duty on brands not manufactured by them – department has not checked the manufacturing capacity of the assessee and also the vouchers at the time of booking the gutka from Delhi - No attempt was made by the department to examine the records of the manufacturers of gutka bearing brands Goa 1000/Talab/Kuber and Moolchand etc. - AA has correctly demanded duty only in respect of gutka bearing the brand name of "Rajshree" and "Safal" which belong to assessee and contained in 2404 bags – no reason to interfere with order passed by AA - Revenue appeal dismissed: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

Appeal dismissed