2020-TIOL-1873-HC-DEL-IT

In writ, the High Court directs that notice be issued to the parties concerned and that the matter be listed for hearing on 15.12.2020. The Revenue is given four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

2020-TIOL-1872-HC-MAD-IT

On appeal, the High Court finds there to be no error apparent on record in respect of the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal and so finds there to be no grounds warranting its intervention in the matter.

2020-TIOL-1871-HC-MAD-IT

Whether an assessment pertaining to a firm should also be transferred to the same jurisdiction to which the assessment pertaining to the firm's partner has been transferred - YES: HC

2020-TIOL-1870-HC-MAD-IT

On appeal, the High Court dismisses the Revenue's appeal since the tax value involved is lesser than the monetary limit of Rs 1 crore prescribed in Circular No.17/2019.

-Revenue's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1353-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Zicom Electronic Security System Ltd

Whether when ICD together with its interest portion has been written off by the assessee due to its non-recovery and due to the fact of borrower expressing its inability to pay any consequential write off of the remaining figure in ICD would become only business loss incurred by the assessee - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1352-ITAT-MUM

PME Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether assessee is required to furnish material before the AO to substantiate genuineness of the expenditure - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1351-ITAT-MUM

Sanjay Chamanlal Munshi Vs ITO

Whether pre-deposit amounts payable by an assessee as pre-condition for stay on recovery of demand, can be adjusted against refunds payable to the assessee, where the assessee is facing financial stringency & is unable to pay the pre-deposit amounts - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's applications allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1350-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs NJP Trading Company

Whether there is no requirement to examine the creditworthiness of any sum/money advanced or invested u/s. 68, in case there is not transaction in term of cash/money - YES : ITAT

- Revenues appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1349-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Kwality Tubes

Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 6.5% of total bogus purchases and computing the profit for the purpose of section 28 taking in to consideration the bogus bills against which no goods have been received - NO : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1348-ITAT-MUM

ITO Vs Aeroflex Fittings Pvt Ltd

Whether the saving on account of VAT and other incidental charges made by the assessee on the bogus purchases can be brought to tax as additional profit - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1347-ITAT-DEL

Maple IT Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether AO should provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee company to prove utilization of the loan in question from its evidence as well as from the bank statements - YES : ITAT

- Case remanded: DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-1346-ITAT-PUNE

Libra Shiksha Foundation Vs CIT

Heritage Lifestyles Llp Vs UoI

GST - TRAN-1 - A detailed order has been passed by the Bench by its order dated 5th November 2020 in the matter of WP 3705 of 2020 [2020-TIOL-1875-HC-MUM-GST] - Since all other facts are similar to the order passed by the Bench in the WP 3705 of 2020, it would not be necessary to dwell on the facts again - In view of the reasons detailed in order dated 5 th November, 2020 in Writ Petition (St.) No.3705 of 2020 [2020-TIOL-1875-HC-MUM-GST], Bench is inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction as admittedly the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for credit amounting to Rs.10,11,913/- - Respondents are directed to accept the TRAN-1 filed by the Petitioner and to give due credit of the input tax credit of Rs.10,11,913/- in electronic credit ledger/ input tax credit of the Petitioner within two weeks - Bench does not consider it necessary to examine Petitioner's challenge to the vires of Rules 117 and 118 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Petition allowed: High Court [para 5 to 8]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1875-HC-MUM-GST

Heritage Lifestyles And Developers and Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST -  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the inaction on the part of the Respondent authorities in not giving  Input tax credit to the claim of the Petitioner pursuant to the Board Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 3 rd April, 2018, the Petitioner has sought to not only challenge the said inaction but also to challenge the vires of Rule 117 and Rule 118 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 as null and void and ultra vires Section 140 (1), Section 140 (3) and Section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Article 14, 19, 246, 248, 265, 268A, 286 and 302 read with entry 41 and 83 of list 1 of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and as also being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament under Article 269-A of the Constitution of India -  It is submitted that under the pre-GST regime, the Petitioner was paying Service tax on the services and filing returns; that they were availing credit/set off of service tax paid on input service; that under the pre-GST regime, the Petitioner was also paying MVAT on the sale of goods, filing returns and also availing credit/set off of MVAT - It is further submitted that the Petitioner could not file the TRAN–1 by 27.12.2017 due to lack of awareness of the procedures, technical glitches, GST being new and a complex system to operate - The Petitioner has annexed screenshot being Exhibit-H to the Petition to demonstrate technical glitches - Vide letters dated 11.12.2018, 12.12.2018 and 31.03.2019, Petitioner sent reminders to the Respondents with respect to its application made pursuant to the CBIC circular dated 3.04.2018 that since it was unable to file TRAN-1 due to technical glitches, it had submitted TRAN-1 manually for verification and requested Respondent No. 9 to activate TRAN-1 portal to enable Petitioner to file TRAN-1 electronically and to claim credit in electronic credit ledger - that since the Petitioner has not received any clarity from the Respondents with regard to the carry forward of the CENVAT credit in respect of its application, it has been left with no option but to file the present Petition - Respondent revenue  submitted that Petitioner's application for manual GST TRAN-1 dated 7.5.2018 pursuant to the Board Circular No 39/13/2018-GST dated 3 rd April, 2018 was sent for verification to the Additional Commissioner, Nodal Officer IT Grievance Redressal (ITGRC) Mechanism, CCO, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Zone for further action, however, the Petitioner's application was not approved by the ITGRC under the category description "The Tax Payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN-1".

Held:  When there is no dispute to the fact that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible for credit of Rs. 78,62,466/- then to deny the benefit of such Input credit merely on technical grounds cannot be justified - Merely on technical ground an admitted input credit is sought to be denied to the Petitioner - That, according to the Bench would be wholly unfair and a travesty of justice - It is in these facts and circumstances that Bench is compelled to invoke its writ jurisdiction in this case - As admittedly in this case the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for input credit amounting to Rs. 78,62,466/-, the finding of the ITGRC would, in the face of the admission by the Respondents to the amount of credit, would be a mere technicality which cannot come in the way of substantial justice - Bench directs the Respondents to accept the TRAN-1 filed by the Petitioner and to give the due of input tax credit of Rs. 78,62,466/- in the electronic credit ledger/input tax credit of the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of this order - Bench also does not consider it necessary to examine the Petitioner's challenge to the vires of Rules 117 and 118 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms: High Court [para 27 to 30]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1869-HC-DEL-GST

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenges the final order passed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority concluding that the petitioner profiteered Rs.38,64,891/- during the period 15th November, 2017 to 31st March, 2019 - Petitioner contends that the calculation done by the Director General of Anti-profiteering (DGAP) is factually incorrect as he has calculated the profiteered amount twice; that each invoice has been taken twice for computation; that the profiteered amount has been computed, both in the hands of the principal company as well as in the hands of the petitioner - Counsel for Revenue admits that there are some factual mistakes in the impugned order and he has no objection if the impugned order dated 11th May, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to NAPA for fresh adjudication - petitioner has no objection to the same.

Held: With consent of the parties, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to NAPA for fresh adjudication in accordance with law - Matter to be listed before NAPA on 18th November, 2020 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition disposed of : DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-282-AAR-GST

GST - One-time long term lease premium payable/paid by the Jinmangal Corporation to Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) is supply and thus liable to pay tax as per Section 7 - Jinmangal Corporation is required to discharge/pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism in accordance to Section 9(3) on one-time lease premium payable to AUDA in light of notification No. 13/2017 as amended by 05/2019 - Annual lease premium payable/paid by the applicant is supply and tax is payable on the same under reverse charge mechanism: AAR  

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-68-NAA-GST

Director-General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Infinity Retail Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - CROMA - Applicant alleges profiteering by respondent in respect of DSLR Cameras and Power Banks supplied by him - it is further alleged that the respondent did not reduce the selling prices of the DSLR cameras and Power banks when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 and thus the benefit of reduction in the GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices - DGAP in its report has concluded that during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 the amount of net higher sales realisation due to increase in the base prices of the impacted goods, despite reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% viz. the profiteered amount comes to Rs.1,91,21,441/- spread over supplies made across fourteen States - Supplementary report was sought from DGAP on the issues raised by the respondent in their submission dated 03.02.2020 and a report was submitted by DGAP on 27.02.2020 - in response, respondent filed their submission on 22.06.2020.

Held: After considering the submissions made by the respondent and the report of DGAP, Authority finds that the amount of profiteering [of Rs.1,91,21,441/-] arrived at by the DGAP is correct - It is pertinent to note that the pre-rate reduction base prices included all the costs which the Respondent had borne while selling these products and hence, the respondent cannot invent additional costs to be taken into account while computing the profiteered amount - There is also no evidence on record to show that the sales made by the respondent were on discount as all the sales mentioned were normal sales as admitted by the respondent - Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately and since the recipients are not identifiable, deposit the profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Centre/States/UTs as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(c) - amount to be deposited along with interest @18% payable from the date when the amount was realised from customers/recipients till the date of deposit in the CWF - amount to be deposited within three months failing which the Commissioners CGST/SGST concerned to recover the same and submit a compliance report within four months - since during the period of profiteering, the provisions of s.171(3A) were not in operation, no penalty can be imposed for contravening the provisions of s.171 of the Act - present order is passed u/r 133(1) of the Rules by taking note of notification 65/2020-CT: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

2020-TIOL-67-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Nirala Projects Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - DGAP had in its report dated 24.04.2019 submitted that upon investigation based on the complaint, it was found that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the applicant as well as other home buyers who had purchased flat in their project Nirala Greenshire; that the respondent had denied the benefit of ITC to the applicant and other buyers amounting to Rs.2,88,43,422/- during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of s.171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Authority had passed an order dated 18.12.2019 [2019-TIOL-75-NAA-GST] determining the profiteered amount as computed by the DGAP and also held the respondent to have contravened the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act; accordingly, a notice dated 04.02.2020 was issued seeking imposition of penalty in terms of s.171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules, 2017 - respondent has challenged the proposal for imposition of penalty on the primary ground that s.171(3A) was made effective by virtue of notification 01/2020-CT dated 01.01.2020 and, therefore, this penalty provision cannot have retrospective operation.

Held: Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the respondent had violated the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act, the penalty prescribed u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the respondent retrospectively - accordingly, the notice dated 04.02.2020 issued is withdrawn and the proceedings initiated in this regard of penalty are dropped: NAA

- Proceedings dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-66-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Starbucks Coffee

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged profiteering by the respondent [who is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining restaurants under the name of 'Starbucks - A Tata Alliance or Starbucks Coffee - A Tata Alliance' where he sells coffee, tea, iced beverages and food items] inasmuch as it is alleged that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on restaurant service when it was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 without benefit of ITC but had increased the base prices of the food items sold by him and applied 5% GST thereon by either maintaining the pre-rate reduction selling prices or even increasing them in the post-rate reduction period and thus had resorted to profiteering - DGAP had in its latter report dated 26.12.2018 revised the profiteered amount as being Rs.2,42,82,996/- from the initial amount arrived at of Rs.4,51,29,600/- - Authority had vide its interim order no. 18/2019 dated 05.12.2019 directed DGAP u/r 133(4) of the Rules to re-investigate on specific issues as detailed in its order - such report was submitted by the DGAP on 05.02.2020 and wherein the profiteered amount is computed as Rs.1,04,70,664/- and which figure has been arrived at by comparing the average of the base prices of the items sold in each category - DGAP also argued that the allegation of profiteering by way of increasing the base prices of the products to more than offset the impact of denial of Input Tax credit despite a reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 (with denial of input tax credit) stood confirmed against the respondent and hence s.171(1) of the Act stood attracted.

Held: Respondent is trying to mislead by wrongly claiming that he was required to carry out complex mathematical computations for passing on the benefit of tax reduction which he could not do in the absence of the procedure and methodology - such claim is incorrect as the respondent was only required to maintain the pre-rate reduction base price of each product being sold by him and then to add 11.79% [to offset the denial of ITC] of the base price in the base price of the product and then charge reduced rate of GST of 5% in the post rate reduction period, however, the respondent is misappropriating the benefit by utilising it in his business and is enriching himself at the expense of the vulnerable customers - respondent cannot deny the benefit of tax reduction to his customers on the above ground as section 171 of the Act provides clear cut methodology and procedure to compute it; that the contention of the respondent is frivolous and cannot be accepted - DGAP computation of profiteered amount as Rs.1,04,70,664/- agreed with - respondent is directed to reduce the prices of his products as per rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules, 2017 so that the benefit of tax reduction is passed on to the respondents - respondent is directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with the interest to be calculated @18% in terms of rule 133(3)(b) of Rules - since the recipients are not identifiable, the respondent is directed to deposit the above amount of profiteering along with interest in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and the State governments as per provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules in the ratio of 50:50 along with interest @18% - amount to be deposited within three months failing which the same shall be recovered by the Commissioners CGST/SGST concerned - compliance report to be submitted within four months - since s.171(3A) was not in operation during the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2018, penalty under the said section cannot be imposed - present order is being issued in terms of rule 133(1) of the Rules read with notification 65/2020-CT: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

SERVICE TAX

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-1874-HC-MUM-CX

CX - SVLDRS, 2019 - As per the declarations filed by the petitioners disputed tax dues were mentioned as Rs.6,15,017.00, Rs.10,12,375.00 and Rs.2,66,193.00 as determined by the Commissioner in the order in original dated 29.03.2006. However, respondent No.2 i.e. the Designated Committee constituted under the scheme issued form SVLDRS-2 stating that the estimated amount payable by the applicants (declarants) were Rs.66,18,763.00, Rs.21,79,966.00 and Rs.6,91,535.00 i.e. the amounts originally demanded in the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 17.01.1992 - Short point for consideration in all the three writ petitions is what would be the amount of tax dues in respect of the petitioners? Whether it would be the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the order in original which amount has been accepted by the department though the order in original has been set aside by the appellate forum.

Held:

+ Against the total demand of Rs.94,90,264.00 made in the show cause-cum-demand notice, the order in original dated 29.03.2006 had substantially reduced the same to Rs.18,93,585.00, with corresponding reduction of demand vis-a-vis each of the petitioners. Had the petitioners accepted the order dated 29.03.2006 like the respondents had accepted and had the petitioners not preferred appeals before the CESTAT, Rs.18,93,585.00 would have been the determined tax dues of the petitioners. [para 37]

+ Secondly, even after the petitioners had filed appeals and following the appellate order the matter has come back on remand, if the petitioners had not filed declarations under the scheme they would still have been better off with the total demand adjudicated at Rs.18,93,585.00 as against the original demand of Rs.94,90,264.00 in terms of the show cause-cum-demand notice. [para 37]

+ The question which is begging consideration is whether the petitioners could be prejudiced or put in a worse off condition firstly by filing appeal before the CESTAT and secondly by filing declarations under the scheme?

+ In this connection we may refer to the maxim reformatio in peius . It is a Latin phrase meaning a change towards the worse i.e., a change for the worse. As a legal expression, it means that a lower court judgment is amended by a higher court into a worse one for those appealing it. In many jurisdictions, this practice is forbidden ensuring that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. When the above phrase is prefixed by the words 'no' or 'prohibition', which would render the maxim as no reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius, it would denote a principle of procedure as per which using a remedy available in law should not aggravate the situation of the person who avails the remedy. In other words, a person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. No reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius is a part of fair procedure and thus by extension can also be construed as part of natural justice. It is not only a procedural guarantee but is also a principle of equity. [para 40]

+ We are of the view that the initial show cause-cum-demand notice dated 17.01.1992 cannot be said to be in existence after the order in original was passed on 29.03.2006 which order has been accepted by the department. Quantification of dues had been done which was accepted by the department. On acceptance by the department, the demand raised vide the show cause-cum-demand notice stood modified (reduced). [para 44]

+ These amounts would now be the tax dues of the petitioners and this position would not change because of the subsequent order of the CESTAT dated 30.10.2017 setting aside the order in original dated 29.03.2006 for the purpose of deciding afresh the whole issue on merit, limitation etc. apart from quantification. As a technicality the order in original dated 29.03.2006 had to be set aside. Since the figures i.e., demand amounts in the order in original dated 29.03.2006 have been accepted by the respondents, it is those figures which would be material and not the figures mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice. Petitioners cannot be put in a worse off condition or the situation faced by them cannot be aggravated because they had availed the remedy of appeal or had sought relief under the scheme which is a beneficial one. [para 45]

+ Thus having regard to the objective of the scheme, in a case of this nature, a reasonable and pragmatic approach has to be adopted so that a declarant can avail the benefits of the scheme; a declarant who seeks benefit under the scheme cannot be put in a worse off condition than he was before making declaration under the scheme. That would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. [para 46]

+ This Court had already clarified that payments made by the petitioners following issuance of forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 would be subject to outcome of the writ petitions and if the petitioners succeed, they would be entitled to the refund of excess payment made without having to institute separate proceedings. [para 48]

+ Thus having regard to the discussions made above and taking an overall view of the matter, the tax dues in respect of each of the three petitioners shall be treated as Rs.6,15,017.00, Rs.10,12,375.00 and Rs.2,66,193.00 respectively, Rs.18,93,585.00 collectively, and payments made by the petitioners in excess shall be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks - All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.[para 49, 50]

- Petitions allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1588-CESTAT-MAD

Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - The assessee is a manufacturer of steel products - It requires gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and argon on a regular basis for use as inputs in their manufacturing process - For this purpose, assessee entered into an agreement with Inox Air Products Ltd., for establishment of Cryogenic Air Separation Unit on Build, Own & Operate (BOO) basis inside their factory premises and supply of the requisite gases - The contract price included the basic price per unit of Gas; Minimum Take or Pay charge, which is price charged for differential quantity of gases, viz., difference between the minimum contracted quantity and actual quantity taken delivery be the assessee - Besides, M/s INOX paid excise duty on all the charges and assessee availed Cenvat credit on the same - The Revenue opined that the assessee was not eligible for the Cenvat credit availed on MTOP charges and FFC proportionate to the MTOP quantity - An SCN was issued alleging wrong availment of CENVAT credit on FFC and MTOP - On adjudication, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty - On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter for re-adjudication, whereupon the Original Authority re-iterated the duty demand - Hence the present appeal.

Held - It is seen that the jurisdictional High court while deciding the writ petition in Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. UOI had observed that the appellant therein has to be allowed to avail the Cenvat credit of MTOP & FFC charges - Besides, it has to be noted that the assessee paid Central Excise duty on these charges and therefore, the Department cannot deny the credit availed after collecting the Excise duty - Thus the duty demand is unsustainable: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1874-HC-ALL-CUS

Cus - Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs viz. issuance of  writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties directing them to allow to petitioner to give his statement in presence of his counsel as provided under Section 108 (3) of Customs Act;  commanding the Opposite parties directing them that the petitioner may not be harassed or detained by the opposite parties in D.R.I. Case No. 3/2020 in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu Versus State of West Bengal.

Held: Since only trivial question is involved, the writ petition is disposed of with the following order -  The petitioner may move appropriate application before the authority concerned seeking the benefit of Section 108(3) Customs Act within a period of one week from today, in case he has  already not moved such application. The authority concerned may consider and decide the said application in accordance with law, expeditiously. In case the petitioner is permitted to appear along with his agent i.e., his Lawyer; then, the authority concerned may proceed with the matter accordingly.: High Court

- Petition disposed of : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1587-CESTAT-DEL

Interglobe Aviation Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee-company is a scheduled airline operator, engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by air - In order to carry out the scheduled operations in India, the assessee imported aircrafts and it is stated that when the engines/ auxiliary power units or other parts of the aircrafts began to develop defects, they were exported out of India for repairs to M/s Pratt & Whitney, which is a maintenance and repair organisation specializing in maintenance of parts/ aircrafts - At times, the aircrafts also have to be exported out of India for repairs and maintenance - The repaired parts/ aircrafts are thereafter re-imported into India and at the time of re-import, BoEs are filed, which are assessed to basic Customs duty and integrated tax as applicable - In the relevant period, the assessee claimed exemption of integrated tax under the Exemption Notification on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India - The assessee claimed exemption at the time of re-import from payment of basic customs duty for aircrafts/ parts under a Notification No. 50/2017 - The dispute in the present appeals arose w.r.t. levy of integrated tax on the re-import of aircrafts/ parts - The assessee had claimed exemption from integrated tax under the Exemption Notification for the reason that the importer is required to only pay duty of customs on the fair cost of repairs and the cost of insurance and freight charges, both ways - However, the Department opined that the assessee was not entitled for full exemption from integrated tax, since the phrase "duty of customs " at serial no. 2 of the Exemption Notification, includes both the basic customs duty as also integrated tax - Hence the Revenue opined that the assessee was required to pay integrated tax apart from basic Customs duty on the fair cost of repairs and the cost of insurance and freight charges, both ways - Hence O-i-O was passed disallowing exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of 349 BoEs and integrated tax was levied on the fair cost of repairs and the cost of insurance and freight charges, both ways - Such findings were upheld by the Commr.(A).

Held - What also needs to be kept in mind is that mention of duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess in the main body of the Exemption Notification implies that the Government was conscious of the distinction between the three - What is also important to notice is that after the phrase "duty of customs levied thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule", there is a comma before "and the integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon" - This also clearly shows that duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess are three different entities. Above all, all the three, namely, duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess have been used in the main body of the same Exemption Notification: CESTAT (Para 39)

- Assessee's appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT