CX - O-i-O confirmed a demand of interest under section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Petitioner filing Writ Petition - High  Court held that the modified scheme sanctioned by BIFR (paragraph 9.4) does not specifically speak about the waiver of interest and penalty under the CEA, though it specifically speaks about the waiver of penalty and interest under the Income Tax Act - therefore, the protection under section 32(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is not available - Petitioner filing SLP.  Held: Order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the CCE & ST, Guntur stayed until further orders: Supreme Court [Para 2]

Stay granted

ST - Respondent received amount in convertible foreign exchange and services were provided to Western Union's clients for the amounts collected abroad and dispatched to Indian beneficiary - commission received by the appellant for transfer of money to persons in India was sought to be taxed under BAS during the period 1.8.2005 to 30.9.2008 - CESTAT by order dated 26.10.2016 [2016-TIOL-3163-CESTAT-MUM] while allowing the appeal oberved that issue is no more  res integra  and is covered in favour of appellant by the ratio of the decisions in  Paul Merchants Ltd.  -  2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL  and  Wall Street Finance Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-1958-CESTAT-MUM  – CCE, Thane-II in appeal before Supreme Court.  Held: Delay in filing appeal condoned and Matter tagged with Civil Appeal no. 5252-5254/2015: Supreme Court [Para 1,3]

Matter tagged with CA 5252-5254/2015

ST – Respondent Assessee engaged various transporters/contractors for moving coal from pithead to railway sidings - These contractors did not issue 'consignment note' to assessee, however, Assessee had issued slips with a view to keep track of goods for onwards transportation – Jurisdictional authorities demanding Service Tax under reverse charge alleging that services are classifiable under GTA – CESTAT [2016-TIOL-2773-CESTAT-DEL] while allowing appeal held that in cases where admittedly no consignment notes have been issued, service tax liability under GTA service cannot be sustained against assessee – Appeal by Revenue before Supreme Court.  Held: After condoning delay, appeal is admitted: Supreme Court [para 2]

Appeal admitted

Cus – Authority for Advance Ruling by its order dated 17.08.2016 expressed its opinion that Selective Catalytic Reduction Honeycomb ('SCR') and SCR with Ammonia Slip Catalyst Honeycomb ('SCR with ASC') were classifiable under the Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 38151900 and CTH 38151210 respectively – in the matter of the Writ Petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, the High Court [2017-TIOL-1078-HC-DEL-CUS] held that where the products are classifiable under one sub head of Chapter 3815 or the other, the duty impact is the same and, therefore, the question, is academic – opining that there was no need to interfere with the order of the AAR, the Petition was dismissed – Revenue filing Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court.  Held: SLP is not entertainable as revenue implication is “Nil”, however, the questions of law are kept open: SC [para 4, 5]

SLP disposed of

Cus - High Court while partly allowing the appeals [2016-TIOL-2969-HC-MUM-CUS] held that the Appellants could not have cleared products manufactured out of duty free inputs in domestic market before fulfillment of export obligation - reworking of duty liability directed - Revenue filing special leave petition.  Held: After condoning delay, notice directed to be issued: Supreme Court [para 3, 4]

Issue notice

2017-TIOL-1407-HC-KERALA-CUS

KRISHNA BROTHERS Vs CC : KERALA HIGH COURT (Dated: June 23, 2017)

Cus - Appellant engaged as a Customs broker, whose license was suspended for allegedly violating provisions of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) - Subsequently, upon adjudication, the appellant's license was revoked - Appellant's appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed - Appellant contends that such adjudication was in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

Held - Inquiry report revealed that several other documents, relied on by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusions of guilt against the appellant, including the offence report, were not furnished to the appellant, or their contents disclosed to appellant - Such conduct was in violation of principles of natural justice - Besides, such documents were statements recorded u/s 108 of the Act and keeping with the mandate u/s 138 B(2) of the Act, such statements could not have been used in any proceedings without the person who made the statement being examined as a witness, so long as the maker of the statement was available - Since the makers of such statements were not examined, such documents could not be relied on - Hence matter merits de novo adjudication by Enquiry Officer: High Court (Para 3,6,9,10,11)

Case Remanded

2017-TIOL-1406-HC-KERALA-ST

PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs DCCE : KERALA HIGH COURT (Dated: July 10, 2017)

ST - Appellant is a co-operative society & provided services like extending deposits, loans or advances - Under the CCR, 2004, paid a monthly amount equal to 50% of credit availed on inputs & input services - Appellant then sought benefit under Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - However appellant's application was denied for alleged violation of Rule 6(3B) of CCR, although appellant sought more time to reconcile alleged inconsistency between its declarations & the ST-3 returns.

Held - Where a mistake in the appellant's returns is pointed out, based on which such application was proposed to be rejected, the department ought to have considered the request of the appellant for more time for reconciliation - Thereby, the department should have gievn the appellant an opportunity to explain the inconsistency so pointed out - Appellant's application be considered afresh: High Court (Para 2,3,4,5,6)

Case Remanded