ST - Premium paid on deposit insurance to DICGC is not an Input service: CESTAT

2019-TIOL-461-HC-AHM-IT

PR CIT Vs Gujarat State Finance Corporation

Whether provision of bad & doubtful debts claim merits allowance, once such irrecoverable debt is written off in books of account - YES: HC

Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT + Case Story

Whether taxes offered by assessee at erroneous rate, if promptly revised without any opposition on being noticed, shows bonafide and hence attracts no penalty - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-457-HC-MUM-IT

Whether order passed without considering additional evidences which goes to the root of the matter, calls for rectification - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-456-HC-MUM-IT

Whether reopening will be valid, even if there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly & fully all material facts necessary for assessment - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-454-HC-MUM-IT

Whether sales tax exemption granted by the State Government should be treated as capital receipt and hence non-taxable in the hands of recipient - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-453-HC-MUM-IT

Whether it is open to the AO to initiate reopoening proceedings on the basis of materials which were already on record before him during regular assessment, after expiry of four years from the end of relevant A.Y - NO: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Mukund Dattatray Bhide Vs DCIT

2019-TIOL-589-CESTAT-MUM + Case Story

ICICI Bank Ltd Vs CST

ST - Premium paid on deposit insurance to DICGC is not an 'Input service' - Appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the amount of service tax paid to DICGC for insuring the deposits of the customers involving the period post 01.04.2012 - payment of 50% credit u/r 6(3B) of CCR, 2004 should be from the admissible amount of credit on inputs or input services - Rule 6(3B) of CCR, 2004 does not create any eligibility to credit - penalty not imposable as matter involves interpretation of law - Assessee appeal partly allowed - Revenue appeal in the matter of penalty rejected but appeal assailing order dropping of the demand by Commissioner allowed - Appeals disposed of: CESTAT [para 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 54]

- Appeals disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-580-CESTAT-BANG

ST - The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Micron Technology Inc. USA and is in the business of providing software development, research and development services to Micron Technology in the production of memory devices, storage and imaging conductor - Assessee has also entered into an agreement with Micron Semiconductor Asia Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for providing Marketing and Sales support services whereby the assessee promotes and markets the products of Micron Technology USA and Singapore - Assessee filed refund claims as per provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 r/w Notfn 27/2012 - Thereafter, SCNs were issued to assessee for rejection of refund claim on various grounds - Commissioner (A) has only given general principles for granting refund without adverting to the facts of the present case - The impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing - The impugned order which is passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice and without considering the facts and the grounds of appeal is liable to be set aside - After setting aside the impugned order, matter remanded to Commissioner (A) to pass a De novo order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded : BANGALORE CESTAT

2019-TIOL-579-CESTAT-MAD

ST - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of Sleeved Plug Valves, Butterfly Valves and Actuators - They are registered under category of GTA Services and Repair and Maintenance Services - On scrutiny of accounts for month of February 2009, it was pointed out that they had not discharged service tax on GTA Services as well as Repair and Maintenance Services - The assessee then paid for GTA Services and for Repair and Maintenance Services being the service tax on such services - Interest on such amounts were also paid by them - The assessee have discharged service tax on both categories of services on being pointed out by Officers of the Department - When the amounts as determined by Officers, have been discharged by assessee as per Sub-Section 3 of Section 73 ibid, there is no requisite for issuing a SCN at all - The High Court of Karnataka in case of M/s. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-635-HC-KAR-ST has categorically held that no penalty can be imposed when the amount along with interest has been discharged much before issuance of SCN - The penalty cannot sustain - The impugned Order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 only without disturbing the demand or interest thereon: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

Neobytes Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Appellant claimed Cenvat Credit for the services rendered - refund claim was rejected as time-barred - Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for the period of 29.04.2016 to June 2016 as not hit by limitation - rejection was confirmed for the period of 01.04.2016 to 28.04.2016 as hit by limitation - reliance was placed on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore V. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: The appellant filed the refund claim on 28.04.2017 which is very well within the time period as per the order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. -Tribunal in that case held that for the purpose of refund, relevant date for the purpose of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claim may be taken as end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received - impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 5]

- Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT

Hero Moto Corp Ltd Vs CCE & ST

Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - Appellants paid excise duty on the highest value of cars adopted by Renault India Pvt. Ltd (RIPL) to dealers - DGCEI conduted investigation upon appellant - the investigation revealed that there was difference in the assessable value adopted when cars were cleared from its factory premises and sthe final sale price adopted by RIPL to the dealer - demand along with interest on the differential duty was raised- the original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: The appellant, on being pointed out by the Revenue, have undertaken the exercise of verifying whether there is difference in the higher value adopted by them for discharging the central excise duty - After conducting verification, they have immediately discharged the excise duty along with interest - Whenever they had paid excess duty, they have filed refund claim - The scenario that short-payment of duty had occurred was only because the appellants were arriving the assessable value on the basis of the cars cleared to their Delhi dealers - Since the appellants have discharged excess duty and the department has quantified the figure - ingredients necessary for imposing penalty u/s 11AC is not attracted - impugned order set aside and appeal partly allowed: CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

Mahendra Metal Industries Vs CCE

Cus - The assessee have imported Polypropylene Glycol and sold part of consignment to M/s Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. - Revenue has sought to adopt the assessable value which M/s Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd has declared in their bill of entry as against the assessable value declared by assessee - It is not in dispute that the goods imported by M/s Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. are part of the same original consignment and therefore identical in all physical specifications and in terms of country of origin to the goods imported by assessee - Assessee has sought to argue that the imports made by them are at a different commercial level - However, the quantities imported by assessee and by M/s Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. are practically similar and in some cases, the quantity imported by M/s. Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd is higher than the quantity imported by assessee - However, it is seen that the SCN invoked Rule 5 of CVR, 2007 whereas the impugned order invoked Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 (1)(d) of CVR, 2007 - The O-I-O also re-determined the value under any terms of Rule 5 but in terms of Rule 11 of of CVR, 2007 - It is apparent that the O-I-O as well as O-I-A goes beyond the scope of SCN - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication: CESTAT

- Matter remanded : AHMEDABAD CESTAT