Best Sellers Cochin Pvt Ltd Vs ASTO

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 detention notice issued to him - It is the case of the petitioner that the transportation was of a consignment of watches that had been supplied to him by the seller in Delhi at a discounted rate of Rs.8.99 - Transportation of the goods was accompanied by Ext.P4 tax invoice, where the supplier in Delhi had shown the actual price of the consignment of watches, which was Rs.4,49,550/- and had given a discount of almost the entire amount save to the extent of Rs.8.99, and had paid IGST at the rate of 18% on the actual value of the watches - Consignment was detained by the respondent, on the ground that, although the consignment was covered by a valid invoice, it was not accompanied by a valid e-way bill - It is the case of the petitioner that since the discounted value of the goods was less than Rs.50,000/-, there was no requirement for the consignment to be accompanied by an e-way bill.

Held: There is force in the contention of the petitioner that inasmuch as the effective value of the goods that was transported was only Rs.8.99 as evident from Ext.P4 invoice, and the provisions of the Act and Rules mandate that an e-way bill is required only for consignments whose value exceeds Rs.50,000/-, the detention at the instance of the respondent cannot be said to be justified - Petition allowed by quashing the Ex.P7 detention notice/order and directing the respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner: High Court [para 3]

- Petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1590-HC-DEL-GST

Gaurav Sharma Food Industries Vs UoI

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Petition has been filed challenging the final order dated 16th July, 2020 = 2020-TIOL-41-NAA-GST passed by NAPA whereby it has been held that the petitioner profiteered Rs.7,53,854/- (including GST) during the period 15th November, 2017 to 30th June, 2019 as well as the report dated 31st December, 2019 issued by the DGAP/Respondent No. 3 - Petitioner also prays for a declaration that Section 171 of CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules are arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional for being in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 50, 256 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as for a declaration that Rule 123, 129 and 133(3) of the CGST Rules are ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act itself; that the aforesaid provisions are inapplicable to the post transition period (i.e. after 01st July, 2017) for being contrary to the very purpose with which these provisions were introduced under the CGST Act and rules thereunder; that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner be allowed to deposit the aforesaid amount in installments.

Held: Issue notice - Counter-affidavits be filed within a period of four weeks and Rejoinder-affidavits be filed before the next date of hearing - Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount (i.e. Rs.7,53,854/- and Rs.35,898/-) in six equated monthly installments commencing 30th September, 2020 - However, the interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as penalty proceedings are stayed till further orders – Matter to be listed on 03rd November, 2020: High Court

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1589-HC-MP-GST

Agrawal Oil Mill Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

GST - Petitioner is assailing the tax liability alongwith interest and penalty of different assessment years (2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) as contained in the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), dated 11/8/2020 passed by respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Shivpuri (M.P.).

Held: It is evident that due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to petitioner to produce the remaining relevant documents which had not been recovered during search - The explanation given by petitioner for not producing documents sought by Revenue was that the same are maintained in soft copy in computer while in regard to other documents sought by the Revenue, there was no explanation - This obviously gives an impression that the remaining relevant documents which could not be seized during search are still in possession of petitioner and, therefore, supply of copies or extracts of the seized documents to petitioner can enable the petitioner to carry out interpolations for reducing or depressing tax liability and with corresponding loss to the Revenue - The formation of this opinion is founded upon reasonable apprehension in the mind of the competent authority that supply of copies/extracts of seized documents can lead to adversely affecting the investigation - The discretion available to the competent authority u/s 67(5) of the CGST Act while withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized appears to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority for reasons which prima facie appear to be cogent and convincing - Once it is held that discretion available to the competent authority u/S. 67(5) of the CGST Act had been reasonably exercised while refusing to accede to the request for supply of copies/extracts of seized documents, it cannot be said that the competent authority has travelled beyond it's jurisdictional purviews prescribed by law and, therefore, in the absence of jurisdictional error in the order impugned, no interference is called for, especially in the face of unavailed alternative statutory remedy of appeal - Court does not find any substance in all the three petitions (WP 12679/20, WP 12690/20 & WP 12687/20) which accordingly stand dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself: High Court [para 4.1 to 4.3, 5]

- Petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1576-HC-MAD-VAT

Madurai Power Corporation Ltd Vs ACCT

Whether charges of the assessee having wrongly procured Low Sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil against Form C, merit being sustained where such input is consumed in the assessee's activity of generating electricity - NO: HC

- Assessee's writ petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-1417-CESTAT-DEL

Kaizen Organics Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, C & CE

CX - Allegations for disallowing the cenvat credit is based on the report of the Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu dated 17.12.2011, wherein, the genuineness of the manufacturing activities of several units located in Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu was doubted - In the said report, one of the units is mentioned as Star International, Jammu - In the course of investigation, at the end of the appellant, statement of Shri S.N. Pathak, Manager and Authorised Signatory was recorded, wherein he stated that they have procured Menthol/DMO during the period 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2008 and also stated that they have procured the Menthol Flakes/DMO vide invoices dated 27.10.2007, 27.02.2008 and 4.3.2008 from Star International, Jammu. The appellants also produced copy of GR for transport of the goods from Jammu to their unit at Jaipur, which has been arbitrarily not accepted or believed –Subsequently, based on the plant based checks and also report from other authorities of the State like Commercial Tax Officer, Inspector of Boiler, General Manager of District Industries Centre, Jammu, the Jurisdictional Commissioner issued his report dated 21.05.2010 - In this Report, it was reported that most of the consignments of raw materials were found entered at the toll barrier - The officers of DIC, Jammu have assessed and fixed the capacity of manufacturing units and have been regularly verifying the receipt of the purchase consignments - The Range staff had also been visiting these units for plant based checks, verification of plant & machinery and there has never been any adverse report - Thus, the jurisdictional Commissioner also reported that Abhay Chemicals was very much found in operation along with other 27 units located at Jammu engaged in similar activities of receiving inputs being Crude Mentha Oil and have manufactured Menthol products - Appellants have also led evidence that they have received the inputs along with duty paying documents and have made payments for receipt of inputs by cheque - Further, the appellants have manufactured finished products from the inputs and cleared the same on payment of duty, which is an admitted fact - Further, Revenue has not identified any alternate source of receipt of raw materials clandestinely - Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appeal of Abhay Chemicals along with Neeru Enterprises – 2019-TIOL-3071-CESTAT-CHD has held that Abhay Chemicals as well as other units are genuine units engaged in manufacture. - Thus, the allegation of Revenue are vague and are proved wrong - Accordingly, appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order - The appellants shall be entitled to consequential benefit - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund of disputed cenvat credit in cash along with interest as per Transitory Provisions under CGST Act: CESTAT [para 6 to 9]

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1416-CESTAT-DEL

Aquatech Steelcon Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, CE & C

CX - Appellants have used the MS Plates both as inputs for fabrication of machinery, which is their final product liable to duty and have also used the MS Plates as Steel Platform for fabrication of their finished product being machinery - Thus, the MS Plates used in steel platform are also admittedly used in the factory of production - Rule 2(k) of CCR defines, "inputs as all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final product" - Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on MS Plates - Impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the order-in-original is restored - appeal is allowed with consequential benefits: CESTAT [para 20, 21]

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1591-HC-DEL-CUS

Modak Dyeing And Printing Company Pvt Ltd Vs DCC

Cus - Respondent No.2 - Container Corporation of India in its reply affidavit dated 08th September, 2020 had stated that petitioner's total dues for nine containers even after giving benefit of 102 days per container due to COVID-19 pandemic works out to Rs.2,03,76,240/- till 01st September, 2020 - Director of petitioner, has filed an undertaking by way of an affidavit undertaking to pay the amounts due to the Respondent No. 2 as per the schedule mentioned therein.

Held: To obviate any future controversy, an authorized representative of the petitioner is directed to meet Terminal Manager, ICD- Tughlakabad, on 22nd September, 2020 and finalise the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent for the said nine containers - Till further orders, the petitioner shall make payment in accordance with the paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) of the affidavit dated 14th September, 2020 - Matter to be listed on 28th September, 2020: High Court

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1415-CESTAT-KOL

Anutham Exim Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant is engaged in the import of Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big-lemon and other similar products by classifiying them under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and attracting IGST @12% - Customs Officer at Jaigon Land Customs Station while assessing the said Bills of Entry entertained a view that such goods are classifiable under Tariff Sub Heading 2202 10 and attract IGST @ 28% and Compensation Cess @ 12% - adjudicating authority classified the subject products under the Tariff Sub-Heading 2202 10 scheduling the same as carbonated waters and directed the appellant to pay the differential amount of duty - Commissioner(A) set aside the order holding the subject products to be classifiable under the Tariff Item 2202 9920 as Fruit Juice based drinks - Subsequently, consignments were allowed clearance (under 17 Bills of Entry dated 10-15 June 2020) as well as upon taking the written undertaking binding the appellant to pay differential duty - Assistant Commissioner passed an order of provisional assessment allowing clearance of the future consignments of the subject goods under the Tariff Item 2202 9920 upon execution of indemnity bonds and bank guarantee for 20% of the differential duty; later, by issuance of a corrigendum the bank guarantee was enhanced as equivalent to 100% of the differential duty - in the mattter of Writ filed against this order, the High Court held that the Provisional Assessment order is an appealable order and directed the appellant to file appeal before the first appellate authority - Commissioner(A) disposed of the appeal and aggrieved with this order, the present appeal filed before the CESTAT.

Held: Appellant's products are seasonal and competitive in market - As pointed out, already substantial part of the season has been lost by the appellant due to the inability to comply with the conditions of provisional assessment put forth by the department, particularly the furnishing of 100% Bank Guarantee - Once the assessment of the identical products has already been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant vide the OIA dated 08.06.2020, Bench sees no justification in ordering to furnish 100% Bank Guarantee - This is judicial indiscipline and squarely covered by the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation - 2002-TIOL-484-SC-CX-LB - Further, as a safeguard measure so that there is no loss of revenue to the Exchequer, the Department may carry on provisional assessment of the consignments being imported by the appellant, but at the same time cannot burden the appellant with the condition of 100% bank guarantee - Revenue is directed to allow the import of consignments of the Appellant without insisting on any Bank Guarantee with immediate effect - The respondent Revenue is expected to adhere to this order in letter and spirit, without causing any further loss of business to the Appellant - appellants shall be permitted to release the goods on condition of their executing Indemnity Bond agreeing and undertaking to pay the amount of differential duty as may be imposed on them by the Customs authorities while making the final assessment - Appeal disposed of: CESTAT [para 8, 9, 11]

- Appeal disposed of: KOLKATA CESTAT