2020-TIOL-122-SC-IT-LB

CIT Vs APR Packaging Ltd

In writ, the Supreme Court dismisses the Revenue's Special Leave to Petition.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-833-ITAT-DEL

Gaursons Sportswood Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-832-ITAT-JAIPUR

Government Secondary School Vs ACIT

Whether in absence of any allegation that the AO has violated any of the provisions of Section 234E or Section 200A, the adjustment made by the AO on account of late filing fee u/s 234E cannot be deleted - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: JAIPUR ITAT

2020-TIOL-831-ITAT-BANG

IMS Health Analytics Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether till date of conversion, CCDs are in the nature of debt and interest paid on CCDs cannot be disallowed on the ground that CCDs will later on be converted into equity - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-830-ITAT-VIZAG

DCIT Vs KVR Estates

Whether in the absence of any positive finding by the AO with regard to development of land, it is unjustified to allocate the development cost on entire land and the same gives absurd results - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2020-TIOL-829-ITAT-VIZAG

M Raghurama Raju Vs ITO

Whether requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment - YES: ITAT

Whether notice issued in the name of dead person is illegal and the Department cannot plead ignorance - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2020-TIOL-1198-HC-MAD-GST

PR Mani Electronics Vs UoI

GST - Validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is under challenge on the grounds that it is ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act and infringes Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution - Petitioner further prays that the Respondents should be directed to permit the Petitioner to file Form GST TRAN-1 either electronically or manually to claim the transitional input tax credit of Rs.4,70,008/-

Held: Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the CGST Rules enables a registered person to carry forward the accumulated ITC under erstwhile tax legislations and claim the same under the CGST Act - In effect, it is a transitional provision as is evident both from Section 140 and Rule 117 - It is evident that ITC cannot be availed of without complying with the conditions prescribed in relation thereto - Prior to the amendment to Section 140 of the CGST Act, the power to frame rules fixing a time limit was arguably not traceable to the un-amended Section 140 of the CGST Act, which contained the words "in such manner as may be prescribed", because such words have been construed by the Supreme Court in cases such as Sales Tax Officer Ponkuppam v. K.I. Abraham [(1967) 3 SCR 518] as not conferring the power to prescribe a time limit - Nevertheless, Bench views that it was and continues to be traceable to Section 164, which is widely worded and imposes no fetters on rule making powers except that such rules should be for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the CGST Act - A fortiori , upon amendment of Section 140 by introducing the words "within such time", the power to frame rules fixing time limits to avail Transitional ITC is settled conclusively - In SKH Sheet Metals [2020-TIOL-1031-HC-DEL-GST], the Delhi High Court concluded, in paragraph 26, that the statute had not fixed a time limit for transitioning credit by also referring to the repeated extensions of time - Given the fact that the power to prescribe a time limit is expressly incorporated in Section 140, which deals with Transitional ITC, and Rule 117 fixes such a time limit, Bench is unable to subscribe to this [ SKH Sheet Metals ] view - The fact that such time limit may be extended under circumstances specified in Rule 117, including Rule 117A, does not lead to the sequitur that there is no time limit for transitioning credit - Section 16(4) of the Act is indicative of the legislative intent to impose time limits for availing ITC - Keeping the above statutory backdrop in mind, in the context of Transitional ITC, the case for a time limit is compelling and disregarding the time limit and permitting a party to avail Transitional ITC, in perpetuity, would render the provision unworkable - Bench concurs with the conclusion of the Bombay High Court in Nelco [2020-TIOL-641-HC-MUM-GST] that both ITC and Transitional ITC cannot be availed of except within the stipulated time limit - There can be no quarrel with conceptual position stated in in SKH Sheet Metals by the Delhi High Court that ITC is the heart and soul of GST legislations inasmuch as such legislations are designed to prevent the cascading of taxes; however, it is not a logical corollary thereof that time limits for availing ITC and, in particular, Transitional ITC, are inimical to the object and purpose of the statute - Division Bench of this Court in C. Bright v. The District Collector, [2019 SCC Online Mad 2460] captured the relevant factors to determine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, illustratively, in paragraph 20 - Those factors are - the use of peremptory or negative language, which raises a rebuttable presumption that the provision is mandatory; the object and purpose of the statute and the provision concerned; the stipulation or otherwise of the consequences of non-compliance; whether substantive rights are affected by non-compliance; whether the time limits are in relation to the exercise of rights or availing of concessions; or whether they relate to the performance of statutory duties - In this case, the peremptory word "shall" is used - The relevant rule deals with the time limit for availing Transitional ITC by carrying it forward from the credit balance under tax legislations which have been repealed and replaced by the CGST Act - Thus, the object and purpose of Section 140 clearly warrants the necessity to be finite - ITC has been held to be a concession and not a vested right - In effect, it is a time limit relating to the availing of a concession or benefit - If construed as mandatory, the substantive rights of the assessees would be impacted; equally, if construed as directory, it would adversely impact the Government's revenue interest, including the predictability thereof - On weighing all the relevant factors, which may be not be conclusive in isolation, in the balance, Bench concludes that the time limit is mandatory and not directory: High Court [para 17, 18]

GST - Rule 117 specifies that the return in Form GST TRAN-1 is required to be filed electronically on the common portal - This requirement is not satisfied by handing over the form in person to the Sales Tax Collection Inspector, Tiruvannamalai - Consequently, the Petitioner has completely failed to make out a case to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to file Form GST TRAN -1 and claim the Transitional ITC of Rs.4,70,008/- - if any dispensations are granted by the tax authorities with regard to availing of Transitional ITC, whether by filing Form GST TRAN-1 or otherwise, and to which the Petitioner may be entitled, this order will not preclude the Petitioner from making a claim for Transitional ITC - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 19]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1196-HC-MUM-GST

Jai Sai Ram Mech And Tech India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Applicant seeks recall/revoke/modification or vacating the order dated 26th June, 2020 and seeks refund of the amount deposited by the Applicant as soon as law amending Section 50(1) of CGST Act, 2017 is enacted/notified.

Held: Bench makes it clear that if Section 50(1) of CGST Act, 2017 is amended in future and if according to the Applicant, it is entitled to seek refund of any such amount, the Applicant would be at liberty to make an application for refund which would be decided by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with law - Application disposed of: High Court [para 3]

- Application disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1197-HC-DEL-GST

Integrated Project Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner's TRAN-1 form and to allow the petitioner to avail benefits of Input Tax Credit of Rs.5,85,82,261/- as available with him on 01st July, 2017 or allow the petitioner to adjust the aforesaid amount towards recovery, if any, in due course as assessments for a number of years are under consideration.

Held: Counter-affidavits and rejoinder-affidavit to be filed - To await the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Brand Equity Treaties Limited & Ors., SLP (C) 7425-7428/2020 = 2020-TIOL-115-SC-GST-LB , list on 16th September, 2020 : High Court [para 8]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-193-AAR-GST

Leprosy Mission Trust India

GST - Applicant was granted affiliation by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) in respect of vocational skills pertaining to formal trades viz. diesel mechanic, computer operator and programming assistance (COPA), welder, dress making and motor mechanic - applicant falls under the definition of ‘educational institution' in terms of clause 2(y)(iii) of the notification 12/2017-CTR - Services provided by applicant under vocational training courses recognised by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) is exempted under Entry at Serial no. 66(a) of 12/2017-CTR - applicant is not a Central/State government, Union Territory or local authority and, therefore, the entry no. 64 to the notification is inapplicable: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-192-AAR-GST

Ushabala Chits Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is engaged in conducting chit auctions - applicant is responsible to pay the prize money by due date to the winner of auction, therefore, collection of amount from members is mandatory for payment of prize money to the winner by due date - however, many a times, the subscribers fail to deposit subscriptions by the specified date and in such a scenario, the applicant is borrowing the money from banks on payment of interest and making payment to the members winning the auction - in order to maintain discipline in payment and also to cover the interest cost, the applicant charges interest/penalty, by whatever name called, from the members paying the subscriptions belatedly and the interest is dependent upon the period of delay from specified date to actual date of payment - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following issues - (a) whether the interest/penalty collected for delay in payment of monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST, and, (b) If the said interest/penalty is a supply, what is the classification and rate of tax applicable on the said supply.

Held: The additional amount being charged on delayed payment and termed as interest, late fee or penalty on the delay in paying the subscription amount cannot be bifurcated as such additional payment does not have its own classification and it is taking colour from the original supply i.e. supply of financial and related services - in this case, the financial and related service is the principal supply and all other ancillary supplies shall take colours from the principal supply itself and it shall be classified as principal supply i.e. financial and related services - Having regard to the nature of transaction it cannot be said that the chit company has extended any deposit, loans or advances to its customers hence the additional amount being charged cannot be treated as ‘interest' so as to be held entitled to exemption in terms of Entry no. 27 of 12/2017-CTR - Chit amount will also not come under the purview of actionable claim - additional amount being charged in delay of payment, by whatever name, called should be classified as principal supply and the classification of the same cannot differ from the original supply - hence additional amount charged on delayed payment shall be taxed as per original supply i.e. supply of financial and related services; chargeable @12% GST as per Sl. no. 15 of 8/2017-ITR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-191-AAR-GST

Zigma Global Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant are the service providers of Municipal Solid Waste Management solutions and they offer solutions involving segregation, treatment, recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and thus clearing MSW landfills - Tirupati Smart City Corporation, Tirupati Municipal Corporation has invited tenders for ‘Solid waste management project - remediation of existing MSW dumpsite at Ramapuram through bio-mining process under implementation of the smart city mission in Tirupati' and the applicant was awarded the project - Applicant, therefore, seeks to know the classification of such services provided by them, whether the services are exempted, whether the service recipient is a ‘governmental authority' and whether the governmental authority is liable to deduct TDS.

Held: Services provided by the applicant fall under Sl. no. 32 of Heading 9994 of 11/2017-CTR - Service recipient M/s Tirupati Smart City Corporation is a ‘governmental authority' as per the definition given in notification 12/2017-CTR - Service recipient being a governmental authority, supply made by applicant is exempted in terms of Sl. no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR - since the services are exempted, there is no question of the government authority being held liable to deduct TDS: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR 

2020-TIOL-123-SC-VAT

Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs State Of Rajasthan

Whether the doctrine of Contemporanea Exposito or the principle of promissory estoppel can be applied in circumstances where benefit of capital subsidy under a State Government's investment promotion scheme, is erroneously granted in excess of what is otherwise allowed - NO: SC

Whether where the relevant authority erroneously allowed 75% subsidy instead of the eligible rate of 50% & the same was availed by the beneficiary & where the excess amount stands recovered, the rate of interest warrants reduction - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-1192-HC-KERALA-VAT

Uma Rajeev Vs State Tax Officer

Whether the AO is vested with the jurisdiction to re-open a completed self assessment after expiry of the statutory limitation period for such purpose - NO:HC

- Writ Petition Disposed Of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1032-CESTAT-KOL

Imerys Steelcasting India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The assessee is providing services to M/s Stollberg for rendering their services in respect of marketing, procurement of order, sales, realization and remitting the same proceed, on which they have received commission during the period April, 2008 to October, 2008 and November, 2008 to March, 2009 - SCNs were issued, which culminated in two adjudication orders, wherein the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penalties of equal amounts were imposed under section 76 and 78 and also imposed a penalty under Section 77 of FA, 1994 - The services in the instant case have been delivered outside India and used outside India and since payment for the service has been received in convertible foreign exchange, the same would have to be treated as exported out of India - By following the decision in ATE Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1906-HC-MUM-ST , the services provided by assessee qualify as the export of services and accordingly, the service tax is not payable on the commission earned on such services - Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1031-CESTAT-KOL

Howden Solyvent India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The assessee have received taxable services from the group companies outside India, which are liable to service tax under category of Management Consultancy services under reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) - The rate of service tax was reduced from 12% to 10% on 24th February, 2008 - For the services received by them from outside India during year 2008, the foreign remittance was made on 26th March, 2008 when the rate of service tax was 10% - The Department raised the dispute stating that the assessee should have paid service tax on aforesaid foreign remittance at the rate of 12% as was applicable during the period when service was rendered - Since the assessee was liable to pay service tax after remittance, i.e. cash basis, assessee paid service tax at the prevailing rate of 10% - On being pointed out, assessee immediately paid the differential service tax with interest and intimated to the Department - Since the tax with applicable interest stood discharged well before the issuance of SCN, the very SCN could not be issued in terms of Section 73(3) of the Act and the question of further imposition of equivalent penalty under Section 78 should not have arisen - Moreover, the Commissioner (A) in assessee's own case has already granted relief from imposition of penalty - Assessee has never disputed the differential service tax that became payable on account of change in tax rate - Since they have duly paid the differential tax with interest before issue of SCN, they have only prayed for waiver of penalty - The penalty imposed U/S 78 is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1030-CESTAT-BANG

GMR Projects Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - The issue in this appeal is, on the fact that the Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) built by assessee at New Delhi Airport (Terminal-III), whether the same forms part of the Airport and hence exempt or is separate from the airport and taxable as 'Works Contract Service' - The 'Delhi International Airport Limited' (DIAL) was constituted as a Special Purpose Vehicle–JV, which included assessee GMR and its associate having 74% shareholding and the balance 26% shareholding of Airport Authority of India - The Multi- Level Car Parking constructed by assessee at IGI Airport, New Delhi, is part of the Airport, as is evident from the definition of Airport in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, read with clause (2) of Section 2 of Aircraft Act, 1934 - The 'Aerodrome' has been defined in clause (2) of Section 2 of Aircraft Act, means any definite limited ground or water area intended to be used, either wholly or in part for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes all buildings, shed, vessels and other structures thereon or appertaining thereto - Thus, the Multi-Level Car Parking (is an amenity primarily for passengers), is adjacent to the main terminal building and the same is the part of aerodrome/ airport - In similar circumstances, in the case of Archi-structural Constructions India P. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-204-CESTAT-MAD , this Tribunal held that the Air catering unit constructed in the vicinity of the Airport is also part of the Airport and hence exempt from service tax - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1029-CESTAT-MAD

JSW Steel Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - Valuation - To fit into the ambit of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, excisable goods are not to be sold by the assessee, but are used for consumption by him (viz., captive consumption) or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles - What is forthcoming from the facts is that the impugned goods [MS Billets and CTD bars/rods] which have been cleared for captive use or stock transferred to other units were not used for consumption by or on behalf of the appellant - The impugned goods were used for construction activities in the expansion projects of the appellant and/or sister units concerned - From the facts on record, it is also evident that the appellants had cleared CTD bars/rods to their group concerns situated at Vijayanagar, Tarapur and Vasind for utilization in various expansion projects of those entities - This being so, they cannot come under the fold of "self consumption" as claimed by the appellants, to justify resorting to valuation at 110% of the cost of production as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

Held: Held that assessable value to be adopted in the case of MS Billets and CTD bars/rods cleared to sister concerns and also for self-use within the factory, which have only been utilized in expansion projects (civil or construction works), is required to be done as envisaged under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rule 11 ibid - There is no doubt that some of the clearances made under the claim of "self consumption" were also for captive consumption - However, even in these cases, the impugned goods were only used for Expansion (Civil Works) Projects - Just because the goods have been captively consumed for use within the same factory, it cannot automatically fall within the four walls of Rule 8 ibid - To do so, the excisable goods should be used for "consumption" in the production or manufacture of other articles - no infirmity in the conclusions of the adjudicating authority: CESTAT [para 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 10, 12]

CX - Limitation - Department was fully aware of the methodology followed by the former in respect of clearances made for captive use and also made on stock transfer basis to sister units right from October 2007 - In the circumstances, the allegations of suppression, mis-statement, etc., cannot be made on the appellants and in consequence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked based on such allegations - This being so, the Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2010 is hit for the most part by limitation and that the demand can only survive for the normal period from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice - while upholding the issue on merits, we hold that the demand is restricted to the normal period of one year calculated from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, along with interest at applicable rates - as the necessary ingredients for the imposition of penalties are absent and especially since there is absence of suppression, mis-statement, etc., penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be sustained and will require to be set aside: CESTAT [para 14.2, 14.3, 15, 16]

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1028-CESTAT-AHM

Thakar Traders Vs CCE & ST

CX - 8/2003-CX - Impugned order has mainly confirmed demand on the ground that the Appellant unit is not entitled for the SSI exemption as they have sold machines bearing the trade/ brand name "Bhayani" - Bench finds that in terms of co-ownership agreement entered into with M/s Bhayani Engineering Co. on one part and M/s Om Synthetics and M/s Thakar Traders on second part for use of Trademark "Bhayani" on co-ownership basis - Thus it cannot be said that the said brand name is owned by others and hence the exemption cannot be denied - Bench also notes that in case of M/s Thakar Traders, the other appellant the Appellate Authority has held that SSI exemption cannot be denied on ground of use of trade name "Bhayani" as it is co-owned - Such finding of Appellate Commissioner has not been challenged and hence has attained finality - Appellants are entitled for SSI Exemption on clearance of goods - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 14, 16]

CX - Activity of manufacture as per Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act was completed and Russian Bruter wheel came into existence after the jobworker under took the process of grinding - When the procedure as contemplated under Exemption Notification No. 214/86 - CE dt. 01.03.86 was not followed, the jobworker of the goods becomes liable for duty and the duty cannot be demanded from M/s Thakar Traders - charges of clandestine removal against the Appellant are not sustainable: CESTAT [para 15, 16]

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1027-CESTAT-KOL

Sova Ispat Alloys Mega Projects Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - A SCN was issued alleging availment of irregular Cenvat Credit in contravention of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - The assessee had purchased the goods from registered dealer M/s. Pathesaria Brothers who had purchased the same from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - On perusal of invoice, it is found that the name of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Servo Lube Depot is mentioned in the invoice - When the goods had been indisputably purchased from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by the registered dealer and having supplied the same to the assessee and the assessee had received the goods in their factory and used them in the manufacture of the final products, the question of denial of Cenvat Credit cannot arise - It is not the case of Department that the invoice is not genuine or the Central Excise Duty has not been paid - When the goods have suffered duty and the goods have been received by assessee in their factory from the registered dealer and have not used in the manufacture of final products, the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied - The issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in case of Transpek Industry Ltd. 2009-TIOL-1488-CESTAT-AHM - The facts of the present case are squarely covered by aforesaid decision of Tribunal - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1026-CESTAT-KOL

Xpro India Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Films ('BOPP Films') - The primary raw materials required for manufacture thereof is PP Granules - During manufacture of BOPP Films, waste and scrap is generated - The major quantity of waste generated is captively consumed by company in manufacture of Reprocessed Polypropylene Granules(RPG) which is exempt from excise duty under Notfn 6/2003-CE as amended vide Notfn 04/2006-CE - The issue in dispute is that demand of an amount equivalent to specified percentage (10%/6%/5%) of sale price of exempted RPG under Rule 6(3)(b)/Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004, when the Company has not availed any Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacture of RPG and credit attributable to input services has already been reversed - PP granules are used in manufacture of dutiable goods i.e. BOPP film and waste/scrap - Since both the goods manufactured using PP granules are dutiable in nature, Rule 6 is not applicable in the case of the company - Hence, the question of demanding duty to the extent of 10%/6%/5% of the value exempted RPG will not arise - Since for the small quantity of lubricants used in RPG plant, no credit is availed by company based on internal consumption records, there is no requirement to pay duty on the same under Rule 6 of the Rules by company - The department has failed to take into consideration this interpretation of Rule 6 and the demand is therefore unsustainable - Further, the company has already reversed the credit availed on common input services attributable to the manufacturer of RPG - Hence, there remains no further liability to pay duty under Rule 6 of the Rules - The impugned order cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1195-HC-AHM-COFEPOSA

Nita Chunilal Parmar Vs UoI

COFEPOSA - The appellant herein had been preventively detained under the COFEPOSA - The present application for bail was filed on grounds that the appellant is a 65-year old lady and is also suffering from ailments - An application for bail had also been filed before the Single Judge of the High Court, but the same was rejected on grounds that the appellant had been involved in the serious offence of smmuggling a huge quantity of Gold & so no case was made out for granting temporary bail.

Held - The appellant's counsel stated that the writ petition filed by them has been heard and the judgment reserved - Hence this Bench need not adjudicate the appeal on merits as the main matter is already heard and the judgment has been reserved - If the writ petition is allowed, the detenu would be released - If the petition is rejected, it would be open to the appellant to avail appropriate legal remedy: HC

- Bail application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1025-CESTAT-MAD

Skylark Office Machines Vs CC

Cus - On perusal of said Schedule VI of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016, Bench notes that at Basel No.B1110 used critical care medical equipment for reuse are included - Ventilators are critical care medical equipments, therefore, imported goods which are subject matter of this appeal are covered by Basel No.B1110 and are covered by said Schedule VI and not under Schedule III as contended by the appellant and consequently as per Rule (6) of Rule 12 of the said rules, import of the same is not permitted - Original authority has allowed the appellant to re-export the same, ordered confiscation and imposed redemption fine, therefore, if the appellant does not choose to redeem the goods then the goods shall remain in India and cannot be re-exported - Bench, therefore, modifies the impugned order and sets aside confiscation of goods so as to facilitate re-export of impugned goods - Once the confiscation is set aside, the question of imposition of redemption fine does not arise and so it the case with penalty - Appeal is partially allowed: CESTAT [para 5]

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1189-HC-KERALA-CUS

Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House Vs CC

Cus - The issue at hand stems from the tussle between the CESTAT and the members of the Bar over use of video conferencing - While the Tribunal was willing to hold proceedings through video conferencing, the members of the Bar were not in favor - The Bar Association sought that physical hearing be commenced from July 2020 - The petitioner was apprehensive that there would be no hearing, either through video conferencing or physically.

Held - The Registrar General had reported of the Bar Association's representation before the Tribunal's Bench and the President, CESTAT, seeking commencement of physical hearing - In view of such report, no further course of action in the review petition seeking the clarification of the order whereby petitioner was given liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, is required: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT