SERVICE TAX

Mudra Communications Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - Appellant is providing “advertising agency” service - they place advertisements as per the request of the clients in various print and electronic media - the print/electronic media in which the advertisements have to be placed are decided by the clients - media raises a bill or invoice on the appellant towards advertisement and gives 15% discount, which discount is either deducted from the gross amount or the invoiced amount could be the net of the discounted amount - appellant raises a bill on the clients for the amount charged by the media plus their commission/discount and in some cases they may pass on part of their commission to their clients - allegation in the SCN is that the appellant had not paid service tax on the full amount of commission earned by them from print and electronic media; that they should have discharged service tax on the entire amount of commission received by them from the print/electronic media regardless of the fact whether part of such amount has been passed on to their clients or not - demand confirmed by lower authorities, hence appeal before CESTAT.

Held: Service Tax has been discharged on the entire amount received by appellant from their client-advertisers for the services rendered by them - amount which they got as discount from the print/electronic media and passed on to their client-advertisers is not chargeable to service tax as the same is not charge for their services - demand on this count is set aside: CESTAT [para 15]

ST - Sale of time-slots purchased by appellant from film producers/serial producers for advertisement in electronic media has been made taxable by Finance Act, 2006 - since the entire demand is for the period prior to March 2006 i.e. before the charging section was introduced, the demand cannot be sustained: CESTAT [para 17]

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2510-CESTAT-DEL

Bajrang Lal Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee had filed a declaration, in the form of VCES-1 under Service Tax VCES, 2013 - In the said declaration the assessee has declared tax dues for period April, 2011 to December 2012 and submitted the details/ calculation of tax liability, copy of form ST-2 along with Income Tax report, Income and Expenditure Accounts and Balance Sheet, Form-16 and AS 26 for the financial year to 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in support thereof - The assessee has also deposited the admitted service 'tax dues' - The Department scrutinised the declaration submitted by assessee and came to conclusion that the assessee has not correctly declared the 'tax dues' in terms of VCES to the extent that they have received commission from M/s Tulip Global Private Limited for which they are not entitled for threshold exemption in terms of Notfn 06/205-ST as amended in as much as they have provided the 'branded service' - The issue at hand is squarely covered by decision of Charanjeet Singh Khanduja 2015-TIOL-1205-CESTAT-DEL wherein it has been held that the benefit of Notfn 05/2006-ST would be admissible to the distributor engaged in promoting/ marketing of the product of Amway as they are not marketing or promoting any taxable service under a brand name - The assessee is entitled for the benefit of said Notfn 5/2006-ST as the exemption Notification is available to the noticee - The 'tax dues' declared by assessee under VCES is appropriate - The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2509-CESTAT-AHM

G M Chauhan Vs CCE

ST - Assessee is buyer of the flats - As per the documents submitted by them, it clearly establish that for purchase of flat the assessee have borne the service tax liability which was paid and collected by service provider i.e. Builder - In this position, assessee is prima facie entitled for the refund.

Held: The refund can be processed on the documents submitted by assessee - At the most assessee's bank account statement can be verified whether the payment as claimed by them were made to the seller - As regard, the payment of service tax, the same can be verified through department channel that the service provider is also a registered assessee of service tax, the sanctioning authority can very well call for report from the Jurisdictional Service Tax Officers of the service provider - It is also observed that the refund was rejected also on the ground that the service provider might have taken the cenvat credit and in such case whether service provider has followed the Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 in respect of exempted services provided by him - This observation of the lower authority is absolutely irrelevant- The matter needs to be reconsidered by the original authority - Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2508-CESTAT-MUM

Commissioner of GST Vs Egypt Air

ST - Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty imposed on the respondents under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 [Act] to 25% - revenue in appeal before CESTAT.

HELD: Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the statutory benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the condition laid down under the said provision, no discrepancy found in the impugned order - consequently, the same is upheld and the revenue's appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly rejected : CESTAT [para5]

- Appeal of Revenue rejected: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2504-CESTAT-HYD

Broadridge Financial Solutions India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - Appellant, a 100% EOU, is engaged in software development and information technology enabled services which they provide to their associated enterprises located outside India - they filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR, 2004] seeking refund of the cenvat credit used in the output services relatable to their export of services - these refund claims were partly allowed and partly rejected by the original authority and subsequently on appeal, partly modified by the first appellate authority

HELD - Appeal No.ST/30910/2018 - Appellant is contesting only two types of services which were denied to them viz; General Insurance Service and Works Contract Service - in respect of the invoice issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurance in question was not for the personal benefit of any individual or Director, it only covers any liability that may arise on them in the course of their official work - therefore, respectfully concurring with the decision of CESTAT, Chandigarh in the case of Ernst and Young Associates [ 2017-TIOL-4394-CESTAT-CHD ], the appellant is entitled for the benefit of cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) and consequently refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 in respect of this invoice - the three invoices of IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. provide medical insurance for the employees and their families - each of the expressions in the exclusion clause 'C' of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 have to be read by themselves and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as leave or Home travel concession is one of the excluded categories - other categories such as beauty treatment or health services or plastic surgery are not linked to the employee being on vacation - therefore, respectfully disagreeing with Member (Judicial) in the case of Sundaram Fasteners Limited [] and Fiem Industries Limited [], it is held that the health insurance services have been clearly excluded from the Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of cenvat credit on the invoices issued by IFFCO-TOKIO towards health insurance - a perusal of the invoice issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. clearly shows that no individual has been made the beneficiary in this invoice - it is a commercial liability insurance meant for the company itself - therefore, this is clearly not excluded under clause 'C' of Rule 2(l) - therefore, the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on the invoice issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited - on going through the invoices issued by New Vision Interiors, it is evident that all these are "Works contracts" and they pertain to several activities such as scaffolding for replacement of facade glass of out gate area, fixing of toughen glass etc. - therefore, they are clearly excluded in the definition of 'input services' under Rule 2(l) - therefore, the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit on these services - in conclusion, with respect to this Appeal, the impugned order needs to be modified to the extent of allowing refund of cenvat credit in respect of the invoices issued by ICICI Lombard GIC Limited for providing professional liability insurance to the Directors and the invoice issued by TATA AIG General Insurance company Limited with reference to Commercial Liability Insurance of the Company - the remaining part of the impugned order is upheld - Appeal No.ST/30911/2018 - the disputed claims of refund which were rejected by the lower authorities are as follows : (i) Works Contract Service : with respect to these services for the aforesaid reasons, the appellant is not entitled to refund of cenvat (ii) Family day celebrations : a copy of the invoice issued by M/s.Kethana Eternal Projects, Hyderabad based on which cenvat credit was claimed, shows that it is an event organised by the company for the employees and their families - it does not appear that it is meant to be an official function and for official purpose, clearly the benefits of these are for individual employees and their families - the services include food, catering and other event management activities - in view of the above, it is found that the benefits of these services have gone to the individual employees and, therefore, same are excluded by Clause 'C' of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of refund of cenvat credit on these invoices - in conclusion, appeal No.ST/30910/2018 is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal No.ST/30911/2018 is rejected : CESTAT [para 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16]

- Appeal No.ST/30910/2018 partly allowed/ Appeal No.ST/30911/2018 rejected: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2519-CESTAT-MUM

JM Financial Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE

ST - Denial of cenvatcredit on tax paid towards input services of tours & travels and hotel expenses to the appellant culminating into confirmation of duty demand of Rs.2.65 lakh along with interest under section 75 and penalty under sections 76 as well as 77 of Finance Act, 1994 is assailed in this appeal.

HELD: Position of law has undergone a sea change after pronouncement of Larger Bench decision by the of Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. [ 2016-TIOL-20-SC-CX-LB ], which has enlarged the meaning of "includes" found mentioned in rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR, 2004] and used it as an "extension" to the definition and not "restriction" – admittedly, this finding and the other subsequent decisions, which had been in place before passing of order by the Commissioner (Appeals), were not taken into consideration while passing his order – on a random sampling concerning one Mr. Vikram Mago found attached to the Appeal memo, the counsel for the appellant was able to demonstrate the right linkage between tour program, its official requirement and invoice copy - this being the factual and legal position, it is proper to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to re-determine the admissibility/in-admissibility of cenvat credit on the basis of the documents already produced by the appellant before it since scrutinization of such voluminous documents at the second appeal late stage would amount to mini trial which is not supposed to be done in an appeal proceeding - requirement of CA certificate, though not a mandatory requirement under the provisions of CCR 2004, could act as an additional corroborative evidence in support of appellant's claim for which no finding on the legality of the Commissioner's order for production of CA certificate is required to be given at this stage - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority: CESTAT [para 6, 7, 8, 9]

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2019-TIOL-2037-HC-P&H-CX

Commissioner Of Goods and Service Tax Vs JCBL Ltd

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of vehicle bodies and claiming exemption from Central Excise duty on manufactured vehicle bodies on the vehicle chasis supplied by independent owners of such chasis, who purchase the same on payment of duty from manufacturer - They availed exemption on motor vehicle bodies fabricated for independent owners of chasis in terms of Sr.No.229 of Notfn dated 1.3.2001 and Sr.No.212 of Notfn dated 1.3.2002 - It is alleged that the assessee did not take credit of duty paid on chasis received from the customers but had taken credit of duty paid on other inputs used in the manufacture of such vehicles - The Tribunal while upholding the demand of Rs.57,16,828/ alongwith interest, the imposition of penalty was set aside - In view of instructions dated 22.8.2019, the instant appeal is not maintainable before this Court, the monetary limit being below Rs.1,00,00,000/-: HC

- Appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2520-CESTAT-BANG

Siddapur Distilleries Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - Appellant had availed CENVAT credit on Input services allegedly used in the manufacture of exempted products but the credit was not at all utilised by them - since the appellant had without utilising the credit reversed the same on being pointed out by the department, no interest or penalty can be imposed in view of the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX - reversal of CENVAT credit which has been taken before its utilisation is as good as not taking credit at all - no interest or penalty can be charged - same are set aside: CESTAT [para 8]

CX - Gratings manufactured by appellant through their job workers and used in their plant mainly as stairs and platforms meant for workers to walk around and climb up and down in the plant do qualify as accessories of the plant itself - therefore, they get covered by the definition of capital goods and accordingly exemption in terms of 67/95-CE is available to them - Impugned order is unsustainable and hence is set aside - appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 9, 10]

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2518-CESTAT-MUM

Hallmark Engineers Vs CCE

CX - Issue is whether for the financial years from 2004-05 to 2007-08, the appellant had exceeded the SSI exemption limit of Rs.1.00 crore and Rs.1.50 crore, as the case may be, applicable for the respective financial years, prescribed under notification no.08/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003, as amended.

HELD: There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant had cleared the intermediate product, namely "casing", to their sister concern, a 100% EOU, against delivery challans-cum-invoices, which are duly recorded in the Books of Accounts of both the Units - also, it is not in dispute that the said casings were used in the manufacture of final products by the 100% EOU, and the finished goods were ultimately exported by the said 100% EOU, and the said facts had not been challenged - As per clause (3A) of the Notification no. 08/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 as amended, in determining the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption, the value of clearances of goods to 100% EOU cannot be taken into consideration - therefore, adding the value of clearance made to 100% EOU in computing the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption of the DTA Unit is contrary to the position of law and, accordingly, unsustainable - also, in their own case for subsequent period, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the adjudicating Addl. Commissioner have decided the issue in their favour - in these circumstances, no merit found in the impugned order, consequently the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para 7, 8]

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2517-CESTAT-MUM

Braco Electricals Vs CCE

CX - In an alleged case of alleged clandestine clearances of excisable goods viz. Cable Glands, Terminalsto M/s The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) under simple delivery challans without payment of Central Excise duty, demand of Rs.49.45 lakhs confirmed along with interest, equivalent amount of penalty imposed, and penalty imposed on the co-appellant - appeal to CESTAT.

HELD: Department has solely considered the hand written private records prepared by ShriSatishBatra to hold that the same are the sales invoices issued by the appellant no.1 - however, it transpires that the private records reflected the particulars of bills raised by the job workers, showing quantum of material received, consumed for manufacture of resultant final product, generation of scrap and the job work charges -further, the submissions of the appellant no.1 that it had maintained the job work register and the daily stock account, reflecting the transaction particulars, were not considered by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as no such findings were recorded by him in the impugned order -in the reply to SCN, the appellant no.1 had submitted the evidences of exports with statutory documents and the remittances received by it towards exportation of goods -however, the adjudged demands were confirmed on the basis of private records, without proper co-relation of the data of actual export and value of alleged clandestine removal of goods -the information furnished by the appellants regarding the waste and scrap sent for job work for recycling and the duty paid goods supplied to BEST were also not properly addressed in the impugned order -the department had not adduced any material evidence to show purchase of excess raw material, manufacture of alleged final product, electricity consumption and other evidences etc. to demonstrate that the appellant had in fact, clandestinely manufactured and cleared the final product out of the factory premises, without payment of central excise duty -thus, in absence of proper substantiation of the allegation of clandestine removal, the charges leveled against the appellants cannot be sustained for confirmation of the adjudged demands - the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Balajee Structural Pvt. Ltd. [ 2016-TIOL-2482-CESTAT-DEL ] and S.K.Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (12) GSTL 42 (Tri.-Del.)] -in view of above, no merits found in the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the adjudged duty demands on the appellants -since there is no sustainable demand, consequential penalties imposed on both the appellants cannot also be sustained - impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2507-CESTAT-MUM

Finolex India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Goods cleared by appellant to their another unit for captive consumption by discharging duty @110% of the cost of production as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Cost of production , as per department, was not correctly arrived at, therefore, differential duty demand issued and confirmed - question before Tribunal is whether penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944[Act] equivalent to the differential duty is imposable on the appellant.

HELD: During the relevant period, by applying CAS-4 method on monthly basis, appellant have paid duty on the stock transferred goods to their sister unit where they availed MODVAT credit -the department applying the CAS-4 method correctly re-determined the value and accordingly, differential duty of Rs.3.16 lakhs became payable -in these circumstances, no suppression of fact or malafide intention on the part of the appellant found in discharging lesser duty involving normal period - therefore, imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Act is not warranted and the same is set aside -appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Act : CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2506-CESTAT-MUM

Kirloskar Company Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & CE

CX - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rail Bogies/Wagons –appellants availed CENVAT credit of Rs.12.79 lakhs on various input services received during the period 2013-2014 on the invoices which were addressed to their head office at Hadapsar, Pune, but credit was availed at their Nasik unit -alleging that the credit is inadmissible, the appellants were issued with SCN on 7.8.2015 – demand confirmed along with interest, penalty – since Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, appellant before CESTAT.

HELD: Sample purchase orders along with relevant invoices indicate that the appellant had instructed the service provider to render the service at their factory at Nasik and also raise bills at their Nasik address - the description of service mentioned in the purchase orders tallies with the services rendered by the service provider as mentioned in the respective invoices addressed to their head office - in these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that these services had been received at their Nasik unit and utilised in the manufacture of their excisable goods - thus, the appellants are eligible to avail the credit on the respective input service invoices as the services were used in or in relation to use of the finished goods at Nasik unit - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para7, 8]

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2505-CESTAT-MUM

Kores India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Issue is whether the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment and as to whether the appellants have shown enough evidence so as to satisfy that the incidence of duty has been borne by them and has not been passed on to the customers?

HELD: On going through the sample invoices, it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower authorities are correct - it is also found that it cannot be inferred from the cost accountant certificates that the burden of incidence of duty has been borne by the appellants and has not been passed on to the customer - per contra it is found that the case law cited by the department [Allied Photographic India Ltd. - 2004-TIOL-27-SC-CX is more appropriate and on the point raised in the present appeal - it is also found that various judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunal have settled the issue of presumption under section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - such a presumption requires to be negated by sufficient evidence by the person who is claiming refund - in the instant case, except for putting forth arguments theoretically, the appellants have not put forth any incontrovertible evidence to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers - as discussed above, neither from the sample invoices nor from certificate by cost accountant, it can be inferred that the incidence of duty has not been passed on - it is also found that the lower authorities have shown due diligence in adhering to the orders of the High Court of Bombay in this regard, have verified the evidence made available to them by appellants and have come to the conclusion rightly that the appellants could not prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers and was borne by them-therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order - in the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed : CESTAT [para 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5]

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2019-TIOL-2038-HC-MAD-CUS

TT Ltd Vs C & CE

Cus - Interest - The petitioner, who is engaged in manufacture of export of cotton knitted garments, periodically claimed drawback of duty paid on goods forming part of export goods of duty paid on final product itself - In connection with a claim of duty drawback, the petitioner had inadvertently taken the CENVAT credit on goods lying on stock which were meant for export and as a result, there was an excess claim and grant of drawback - It is not in dispute that when the petitioner realized that there was an excess claim and grant of drawback to the extent of Rs.4,92,251/-, he had deposited the same on 18.10.2004 and the SCN came to be issued subsequently on 13.12.2004 - The averments in SCN, though states that it has been issued without prejudice to any other action, has not made a claim with regard to the interest - Section 75A(2) contemplates payment of interest from the date of demand of the erroneously paid drawback - Since the petitioner had repaid the drawback even prior to the demand, the respondents will not be empowered to claim any interest - On this ground, the claim for interest is liable to be quashed - There is yet another ground on which the petitioner may be entitled to succeed - Before the impugned order was passed, there was no prior notice on the proposed levy of interest, but for a general reservation of rights to take any other action under the provisions of the Act - The Supreme Court in case of Madhumilan Syntex Private Limited 2002-TIOL-512-SC-CX had held that a demand raised without notice or hearing, would be invalid - Consequently, the impugned order passed by first respondent herein, insofar as it relates to the portion of the order imposing interest at the rate of 10% per annum, stands quashed: HC

- Writ Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2036-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs High Range Spices

Cus - The petitioner is the importer of spices and other goods - He raised an invoice from its foreign seller for import of Black Pepper measuring 14,000 kilograms - The unit price of said quantity of Black Pepper is 6838.00 USD with total FOB USD95900.00 including freight - The goods landed at Tuticorin port and the Bill of Entry was filed for clearing of goods - However, Respondents therein refused to release the goods on the reason that the CIF per kg was Rs.499.70 on the date of filing the Bill of Entry and consequently, the Petitioner is not entitled for free clearance - According to Respondents, only when the CIF per kg is above than Rs.500/-, the Petitioner is entitled for clearance as per the notfn 53/2015-2020 - Said notfn clearly indicates that Black Pepper is entitled for free import, if the cost including freight is above Rs.500/- per kg. - Perusal of commercial invoice filed by petitioner clearly indicates that the transaction between petitioner and their seller for purchasing Black Pepper measuring 14,000 kgs took place on 07.11.2018 and the total value of the said goods was arrived as USD95,900.00 - It is not in dispute that if the said amount involved in subject matter transaction is taken into account, the CIF value as on 07.11.2018 would be Rs.511.70/- - The notfn 93/2018 - Customs (N.T.) also states that w.e.f. 02.11.2018, the exchange rate of USD is 74.70 for imported goods - The said rate is continued till 15.11.2018 as it is evident from notfn 93/18 on which date only the exchange rate of USD has been reduced to 72.95 from 74.70 - Therefore, as on date of invoice namely 07.11.2018, the exchange rate of USD was only 74.70 - If that be the case, the CIF value as admitted by both sides is only Rs.511.70/- on the date of the invoice - For arriving at the CIF value, one has to go by the date of invoice not by going with the date of filing of Bill of Entry - In other words, the value of goods as reflected in invoice alone will speak for considering as to whether the import is entitled to benefit under notfn 53/2015-2020 - Moreover, it is not made clear in the said notification itself that as to whether such value has to be arrived only on the date of filing the Bill of Entry - In the absence of any such clear indication, the normal course of arriving at the value is by taking into consideration of the date of invoice - Therefore, if the value of CIF is taken as Rs.511.70/- as on the date of invoice, certainly the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the notfn 53/2015-2020: HC

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2503-CESTAT-ALL

Disha Tulsiani Vs CC

Cus - The entire dispute revolves around the Will produced by assessee at the very first instance of operation of lockers by Income Tax authorities - The said Will, which bears the signatures of Smt. Dadan Devi as also of the assessee - On going through the same, it is found that the same stands executed by Smt. Dadan Devi, wife of Late Shri Parmanand Tahlani - After giving details of her family, it stands stated in said Will that Smt. Dadan Devi is in ownership and possession of immovable property of her husband and holds in trust three bars of bullion of 1 kg. each as has been left by her husband with the direction that the same be handed over to their grandchildren - Assessee have contended that the gold bars in question were possessed by them as a result of execution of the Will by her grandmother, after her death in the year 2010 - Revenue has tried to find some holes in the said Will to discard the same and to cast the onus on the assessee to prove the licit receipt of the gold bars - The Will executed by grandmother carries her signatures along with signatures of beneficiaries and the executor Shri Ashok Kumar Tahlani - The said Will which was executed in year 2005 was duly Notarized and stand probated also - Revenue has not established that the Will produced before them was a fraud or a fake document - Except referring to the fact that original copy of the Will was not produced and there was no stamp number on the stamp paper, they have not, by concrete evidence, proved that the Will produced before the authorities was a fabricated one - No investigations, no enquiries stand made from the Notary, who Notarized the Will or from the office of the District Magistrate, where the same was probated - Revenue's endeavor to discard the said Will without the production of any evidence to establish the same as a fraudulent document, cannot be appreciated - There was no requirement to amend the specifications of gold bar in old Will inasmuch as no specifications, in any case, were mentioned in original Will - Apart from said gold bars, Revenue has not found any other gold bars from possession of assessee - If the gold bars mentioned in Will of Smt. Dadan Devi were not the one which stand seized and confiscated by officers, then the authorities would have found another set of three gold bars from the assessees' possession - Having held that the gold in question were possessed by assessee as a result of the legacy transferred to them by Smt. Disha Tulsiani's grandmother through her Will, it cannot be held that the goods in question were smuggled items - In such a scenario, the confiscation of same or imposition of penalties upon assessee cannot be held to be sustainable, the same are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT