I-T - Legislative intent behind provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) is to ensure tax compliance and not to punish tax payer: Supreme Court

I-T - Materials collected during Survey u/s 133A, conducted at assessee's premises simultaneously with Search, can be utilised for block assessment u/s 158BB: Supreme Court

I-T - Term 'Inland Port' which has not been defined in I-T Act, cannot be disputed to exclude expression ICD: Supreme Court

When Income Tax Act has not defined term 'Total Turnover' in statute, same cannot be liberally imported from other Sections such as 80HHC & 80HHE for purpose of Sec 10A: Supreme Court

I-T - It's true that assessee has furnished information on EDC receipts but if AO FAILS to examine same, it cannot be argued during Sec 147 proceedings that assessee has provided information not only FULLY but also TRULY: HC

I-T - Absence of agricultural occupation within two years from sale of land, makes it ineligible for Section 54B benefits: HC

ST - Merely because tax was collected but not paid, ingredient available u/s 78 does not get attracted - appellant had clear intention to pay tax as correct value was declared in ST-3: CESTAT

I-T - Assessee cannot allege violation of principles of natural justice for first time before HC, while not raising such issue before either CIT(A) or Tribunal: HC

ST - Telecommunication Service - Recharge vouchers - Prior to 01.03.2011 the gross value of service shall be value received by Respondent: CESTAT

SERVICE TAX

Punjab National Bank Vs CCE & ST

ST - the assessee is a leading national bank - The assessee insured the deposits made by various parties, and on the insurance charges, the head office paid service tax which was distributed to the assessee - Cenvat credit on the same was denied on grounds that insurance of deposit is not input service & that the assessee did not produce documents enabling availment of credit -

Held - Considering the decision of the Tribunal in DCB Bank ltd., the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit on insurance of deposits - Further, the assessee produced relevant documents showing name, address & registration number of the service provider - However, the same were not considered by the Department - Hence the assessee cannot be denied Cenvat credit: CESTAT (Para 1,2,6,8) - Appeal Allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1394-CESTAT-DEL

Bureau Of Energy Efficiency Vs CST

ST - Assessee is mainly entrusted with work of developing policies and strategies for self-regulation and market principles within the overall framework of Energy Conservation Act, 2001 - As part of their duties, assessee provide certification of electrical appliances and approve the energy efficiency reading of these appliances - For such service, they collect Processing Fee and Labeling Fee from the manufactures of such appliances - Revenue entertained a view that such fee collected by assessee is liable to Service Tax under category of 'Technical Inspection and Certification Services' in terms of Section 65(108) read with Section 65(105)(zzi) of FA, 1994 - On perusal of the Act and Regulations, undoubtedly, assessee did discharge statutory obligations mandated under the law - The fee collected in various forms is also pre-notified and fixed by authority as per law - The Regulation makes it mandatory for such labeling - Even otherwise, the fee collected from such manufacturers who approached the assessee for labeling is for statutory performance as per law - Same cannot be subjected to Service Tax liability as per provision of taxable service - Regarding further disposal of fee collected, Chartered Accountant submitted that, as per law assessee is required to deposit in a designated fund which will be used for organizational expansion of assessee, their expansion and further requirements are mandated by Government Regulations and they are under direct control of Ministry of Power supported by budgetary framwork - In case of winding up of assessee's organization, whole of assets and finance will lie with the Central Government under whose authority they are created - Impugned order is not legally sustainable: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1397-CESTAT-ALL

Jai Pushpa Industries Vs CCE

CX - Duty demand was raised against the assessee for alleged clandestine removal of goods - the issue at hand is whether alleged shortage of raw material is sufficient to establish clandestine removal -

Held - There was no investigation carried out in respect of manufacture of goods or of the parties to whom the goods were allegedly cleared - There is no evidence showing that the goods were manufactured using the raw materials found short - Hence duty demand is unsustainable: CESTAT - Appeal Allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1396-CESTAT-BANG

Srishti Software Applications Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Assessee is contesting only the penalties imposed - The main assessee has been developing software solutions and clearing them as packaged software on which, duty liability was not discharged though liable for duty - It is also undisputed that assessee has discharged the duty liability on being pointed out by officers of DGCEI along with interest - Both the lower authorities have come to conclusion that there was suppression of facts by main assessee and the individual assessee being a responsible person, are liable to be penalized - The said findings of both the lower authorities have not been effectively countered by assessee - Explanation put forth by assessee lacks cogent reasoning - Judgment of apex court in case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009-TIOL-63-SC-CX would apply in its full force in the case in hand - Accordingly, impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference: CESTAT - Appeals rejected: BANGALORE CESTAT

Sahithi Enterprises Vs CC

Cus - the assessee imported old & used digital multifunctional printers & copying machines - Their value was enhanced under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Thereupon, the items were held to be restrcited for import & were confiscated u/s 111(d) for policy violation & misdeclaration - Option of redemption fine was given & penalty was imposed - On appeal, the Commr.(A) reduced the quantum of the fine & penalty -

Held - The used digital multifunctional printers are not liable for confiscation u/s 111(d) as they are not restricted goods - Hence no redemption fine or penalty is imposable - However, the old & used photocopiers are liable for confiscation, being restricted for import - Nonetheless, redemption fine & penalty imposed are reduced: CESTAT (Para 1,4,5) - Appeal Partly Allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT