2020-TIOL-2194-HC-ALL-GST

Metenere Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Present writ petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner GST as well as the Appellate Order dated 15.1.2020, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed - As the Tribunal as provided for under the GST Act has not been constituted and in absence thereof the party cannot be left remediless as such the present petition has been filed - SCN alleged that the petitioner had violated Section 35(1) of the CGST Act 2017 as they were not maintaining the records/accounts related to input tax credit, production, inward and outward supply or goods, output tax payable and paid etc, which are mandatorily to be maintained at their principal place of business/additional place of business; that there was a huge stock of raw materials, work in progress and finished goods in the factory premises and as the party could not produce any mandatory accounts and other records, the officers had all reasons to believe that the said goods have been stored by the party only to clear them without payment of applicable GST - Additional Commissioner passed an order confiscating the entire seized goods, however, the petitioner was given an option of redeeming the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine amounting to Rs.12 crores in terms of the provisions of Section 130 (2) of the Act - In addition a penalty of Rs.19,43,89,804/- was imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 122 (1) (xvi) & (xvii) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 122 (1)(xvi) & (xvii) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 - A further penalty amounting to Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the Managing Director of the Company under Section 122 (3) of the CGST read with Section 122 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh GST ( Rs . 25,000/- each under CGST and UP GST Act, 2017).

Held: [para 15, 25 to 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38 to 41]

+ It is interesting to note that in Paragraph No. 11 of the show cause notice, it is recorded that party was not maintaining records as are required under Section 35 (1) and thus they have violated the mandate of Section 35 (1) of the CGST Act. Curiously, it is recorded "as the party could not produce any mandatory accounts and other records, the officers had all reasons to belief that the said goods have been stored by the party only to clear them without payment of GST as applicable.". Thus, even in terms of the show cause notice, it was presumed that the goods which are stored would be cleared in future without payment of GST, which is applicable.

+ A perusal of the section 35(6) makes it clear that proper officer is empowered to determine the taxes payable and while determining the said tax payable he is bound to determine the same in accordance with the provisions of Sections 73 & 74 of the Act.

+ In the present case, the proper officer was empowered to determine the liability of payment of tax in terms of the powers conferred under Section 35 (6) after resorting to the procedure as established under Section 74 of the Act.

+ Although in terms of the provisions of Section 35 (6), the unaccounted goods are 'deemed to be supplied' however, determination and quantification of the tax on the said 'deemed supply' has to be done in accordance with Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act.

+ A perusal of Section 73 and 74 makes it clear that a show cause notice is bound to be served prior to determination of the tax leviable on the 'deemed supply' whereas in the present case no such notice is available on record and it is common ground that apart from the said proceedings, no other proceedings have been initiated and concluded under Section 73 or 74 of the Act.

+ In the present case, even if it is admitted, for the sake of arguments, that the documents were not maintained at the registered office or the other place of business, there is no finding to the effect that any supply was made with an intent "to evade payment of tax" as is required under Section ( i ) of Section 130 (1).

+ Further, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner did not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax under the Act (as required to attract Section 130 (1)(ii)).

+ There is nothing on record to the effect that any supplies were made without having applied for registration (as required to attract Section 130 (1)(iii));

+ It has not been established that there was any contravention of any provision or any Rules with an "intent to evade payment of tax" (as required to attract Section 130 (1)(iv)).

+ There is no averment of using any conveyance (as required to attract Section 130 (1)(v)).

+ Thus, none of the ingredients which are required for confiscation existed in the present case and thus, the confiscation itself was wholly arbitrary and illegal.

+ In the present case, as the petitioner has not challenged the seizure order, Bench is not going to the said question in the absence of any pleadings or the arguments advanced or document produced in respect of the same.

+ The amount of penalty imposable is provided under Section 122 (xxi), which provides that the quantum of penalty imposable is Rs.10,000/- or an amount equivalent to tax evaded or tax not deducted under Section 51 or short deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not calculated under Section 52 or short collected or collected but not paid to the Government or input tax credit availed of or passed on or distributed irregularly, or the refund claimed fraudulently, whichever is higher.

+ The facts of the present case makes it clear that even if the allegations of the department, as adjudicated and confirmed in an appeal are accepted to be true, the offence committed by the petitioner would fall under the offence specified in Column B for following reasons; firstly, the only allegations are that the petitioner has not maintained the Book of Accounts as are required under the Act and the Rules and secondly the penalty has been imposed holding the Petitioners conduct in violation of Section 122 (1) (xvi) and (xvii) of CGST Act read with Section 122(1) (xvi) & (xvii) of UP GST Act and thirdly, no exercise for quantification of the tax evaded has been done in pursuance to the powers conferred under Section 35 (6) read with Section 73 or 74 of the Act. As such, Bench has no hesitation in holding that in the given facts and circumstances of the case for the violations alleged and established against the Petitioner, the maximum penalty that could be imposed upon the petitioner is Rs.10,000/-.

+ Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.1.2020 and 27.1.2020 is set aside insofar as it relates to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty in excess of Rs.10,000/-, as the confiscation has been set aside, there is no question of payment of redemption fine.

+ To clarify, confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner herein as indicated in the Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 28.5.2019 is set aside and the total penalty imposed upon the petitioner is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

+ As no writ petition has been filed by the Managing Director, Bench is not touching the penalty imposed upon him under paragraph 3 of the order dated 28.5.2019.

- Writ petition partly allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2191-HC-DEL-GST

Parag Garg Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner had sought a declaration that sections 69, 132 of the CGST Act are ultra vires to the Constitution of India; that during the pendency of the present proceedings any future coercive action such as arrest etc. in respect of the alleged amount of Rs.93 crores may be stayed - However, during the hearing, petitioner submits that he does not wish to press any of the aforesaid prayers but prays that he should be given liberty to file an application seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner apprehends arrest in a case in which he has already been arrested and granted bail.

Held: Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for anticipatory bail - The order dated 12th October, 2020 stands vacated - anticipatory bail shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merit: High Court

- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-82-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Hungry Eyes

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - It is alleged that the respondent [restaurant service supplier, a franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India Pvt. Ltd.] had increased the base prices of his products and had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017 [46/2017-CTR] by way of commensurate reduction in prices in terms of s.171 of the Act, 2017.

Held: Allegations have been found to be true by the DGAP and which report the Authority agrees with - Respondent contends that as per the Act/Rules and the methodology and procedure notified by the Authority it did not prescribe the period up to which the profiteered amount is to be calculated; that, therefore, keeping in mind the perishable nature of the items and various other factors the profiteered amount should be restricted up to the period of March 2018 - Rate of GST was reduced w.e.f 15.11.2017 and the respondent had increased the base prices immediately and had not taken any steps to pass on the resultant benefit of tax reduction by way of a commensurate reduction in the prices of his supplies at any point of time till 30.06.2019 - Inasmuch as violation of the provisions of s.171 of the Act has continued unabated in this case and offence continues to date - Respondent has not produced any evidence to prove from which date the benefit was passed on by him, hence there is no reason to accept the contention of the respondent -  As per the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act read with rule 133(1) of the Rules, the profiteered amount is determined as Rs.6,66,700/- as has been computed in Annexure-12 of the DGAP's report dated 29.01.2020 - Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules - Since the recipients of the benefit, as determined, are not identifiable, the respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,66,700/- in two equal parts of Rs.3,33,350/- each in the Central and Maharashtra State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules along with interest payable @18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realised by the respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit - amount to be deposited within three months failing which it shall be recovered by the Commissioners CGST/SGST concerned - compliance report to be submitted within four months: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA  

2020-TIOL-81-NAA-GST

2020-TIOL-291-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is engaged in supply services of Waste Management, Mechanised road sweeping, business support staffing and other services related to Integrated Facility Management - They seek a ruling on the following questions viz. what is the classification for supply of services by the applicant relating to waste collection, segregation, treatment, transportation and disposal services under the service agreements entered with both concessionaires in terms of 11/2017-CTR and whether the said supply is exempted in terms of Entry no.3 of notification 12/2017-CTR.

Held:  Supply of the impugned services is classifiable under SAC 9994 in terms of 11/2017-CTR - Such services are not exempted from GST in terms of entry no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR since it is clear that only the services provided to Central government, State government or union territory or local authority or a governmental authority will be exempted which is not the case in hand as the services are provided by the applicant to the concessionaires in terms of the service agreement entered with the applicant - Inasmuch as it is the applicant and their foreign partner who have promoted and incorporated two special purpose vehicles (SPV or concessionaires) who have won the bids floated by the Chennai City Municipal Corporation for implementing the activity of Collection and Transportation of solid waste, street sweeping waste including street sweeping activities, horticulture waste and collection and storage of domestic hazardous waste - It is well settled that the exemption notification must be interpreted on their own wordings - doctrine of purposive interpretation cannot be adopted in the instant case by treating the services provided by the sub-contractor as being provided to the ultimate client and not to the main contractor: AAR 

- Application disposed of :AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2020-TIOL-2190-HC-ALL-GST

Libra International Ltd Vs ACCT

GST -  Petitioner seeks quashing of the order passed by respondent u/s 129(3) of the Act as well as quashing the order GST DRC 07 dated 18.09.2020 - Petitioner submits that the goods and vehicle of the petitioner were intercepted on the ground that the goods were being transported without E-way bill and thereafter an order for payment of tax of Rs.1,01,844/- and equivalent amount of penalty was passed u/s 129(3) - Appellant claims to have deposited the amount of tax and penalty on 14.02.2018 despite which Form GST DRC 07 has been received by them and left with no other remedy have filed the present writ petition - Counsel for the State respondent submits that the order dated 15.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017 has attained finality and the same cannot be assailed at this stage; that since the petitioner claims to have deposited the entire amount of interest and penalty by means of a demand draft dated 14.2.2020, in view of the provisions contained under subsection (5) of Section 138 of the Act, 2017, all proceedings in respect of the notice under Section 129(3) shall be deemed to be concluded ; that in the event the petitioner has actually deposited the amount towards tax and penalty determined in terms of the order dated 15.2.2018 under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, he may apply for a rectification of the order uploaded in FORM GST DRC07 along with proof of having made the payment pursuant to the demand pertaining to tax and penalty.

Held:  A combined reading of sub-rules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 142 of the Rules, 2017, indicate that a mechanism is provided for uploading summary of certain specified orders, including the order issued under Section 129 in FORM GST DRC07 , specifying therein the amount of tax, interest and penalty payable by the person chargeable with tax - In the event the order aforementioned has been rectified or withdrawn, a summary of the rectification order was of the withdrawal order is uploaded electronically by the proper officer in FORM GST DRC08 - Bench takes note  of the fact that implementation of the GST regime has brought about a major reform in the field of indirect taxation and all key aspects starting from registration till filing of the return, raising of e-way bill, filing of the refund claim, passing of an order creating demand of tax and penalty, rectification of the order, etc. are dependent on a technology driven process with regard to which the necessary procedure is provided under the Rules -  The challenge sought to be raised to the order dated 15.2.2018 passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act, 2017, having been made at a belated stage, Bench is of the view that the relief claimed in this regard in terms of relief clause (I), would be barred by laches; more so, in the light of the fact that the petitioner claims to have deposited the entire amount of tax and penalty determined under the said order, and by virtue of the deeming provision under subsection (5) all proceedings in respect of the notice specified under subsection (3) shall be deemed to be concluded -  As regards the prayer for quashing the summary of the order uploaded electronically in FORM GST DRC07 dated 18.9.2020, as under relief clause (II), Bench observes that in the event the petitioner has actually made payment of the entire amount due towards tax and penalty referred to in the notice issued under subsection (1) of Section 129, he may submit proof thereof before the authority concerned and apply for rectification/withdrawal of the said order -  Writ petition is dismissed: High Court  [para 13 to 17]

- Petition dismissed :ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2179-HC-AHM-GST

Shiv Shakti Textiles Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the action of issuing notice in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the Act on manifold grounds - However, Bench is of the view that it should not interfere at this point of time with the adjudication undertaken pursuant to the notice in Form GST MOV-10 - Ultimately, if final order of confiscation is passed under Section 130, it shall be open for the writ applicant to avail appropriate legal remedy available to him - However, Bench is of the view that the goods and the vehicle should not be allowed to remain under detention for an indefinite period of time - Writ applicant submitted that they would deposit an amount of Rs.89,000/- towards the tax plus penalty plus interest, and upon deposit of such amount, the vehicle and the goods may be ordered to be released – Bench, therefore, directs the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.89,000/- with the respondent No.2 and upon deposit of such amount, the respondent No.2 shall, at the earliest, release the vehicle and the goods: High Court [para 7, 9]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2178-HC-AHM-GST

Surat Mercantile Association Vs UoI

GST - Writ applicants seek to challenge the validity of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 36 of the GST Rules on the ground that, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Held: Notice to be issued to the respondents, returnable on 12.02.2021: High Court

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Dixcy Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs ACCT

In writ, the High Court held that writ petitions need not be entertained where the order being assailed has not been appealed against before the appellate authority, within the specified limitation period.

- Writ petition disposed of :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2186-HC-PATNA-MISC

Bharat Sugar Mills Vs State of Bihar

Whether fiscal statutes need to be interpreted and applied strictly and the benefit of doubt, if at all, would enure in favour of the assessee - YES: HC

Whether it is a fit case for remand, where assessment order is cryptically worded and passed without due application of mind - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petition allowed :PATNA HIGH COURT

Kishorchandra Kalyanji Agri Llp Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner has prayed for directions to respondents to permit clearances of imported peas which have not been cleared on various grounds.

Held: Since in both the cases show-cause notices u/s 124 of the Customs Act have been issued to which petitioners have submitted reply, Bench feels that it would meet the ends of justice if the adjudicating authority adjudicates the matter in accordance with law and passes the order(s) in original expeditiously - Adjudicating authority to pass speaking order(s) of adjudication after hearing the petitioners and upon independent application of mind considering all aspects including the decision of this Court in M/s. Harihar Collections ( 2020-TIOL-1763-HC-MUM-CUS ) - Above exercise be carried out within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 11, 13, 14]

- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2193-HC-DEL-CUS

Designco Vs UoI

Cus - Petition filed inter alia seeking direction to respondent to grant refund in terms of notification 52/2016-Cus; quash o-in-o dt. 28.02.2019 as well as Appellate order dated 24.01.2020; for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus to Respondent No.4/DRI to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice No.60/2014 dated 31.12.2014 .

Held: Authority, that is, Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Noida to adjudicate upon the show cause notice dated 31st December, 2014 in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case and based on the evidence on record as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order - In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating upon the aforesaid show cause notice, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, rules and regulations applicable to the facts of the case - All the other issues regarding refund etc., agitated in this writ petition, are left open to be raised in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 6]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2192-HC-MUM-CUS

Sushil Jain Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take on record the bills of entry for warehousing of the cargo covered by 11 bills of lading for 3265.710 MTS of imported yellow peas and to pass orders thereon for warehousing of the said imported goods - Additional prayer has been made that respondents be restrained from withholding the said bills of entry from warehousing and also from taking steps for selling the imported goods in question.

Held: Bench directs the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioners for warehousing of the consignments in terms of section 46(1) of the Customs Act after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Such decision is to be taken within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Till such decision is taken and communicated, no action shall be taken by the respondents for selling of the goods under section 48 of the Customs Act - both the writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 17, 19, 20]

- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2185-HC-AHM-CUS

Maruti Knit Tex Vs UoI

Cus - Subject matter of challenge in this writ application is to the show cause notices and demand notices issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana dated 14th June 2019.

Held: Bench disposes of this writ application with liberty to the writ applicants to put forward their case in the best possible manner before the adjudicating authority - The adjudicating authority may consider the submissions that may be canvassed before him and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law – Bench is not inclined to entertain this writ application solely on the ground that the show cause notices were issued way back in June 2019 and the adjudication is in progress - writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2184-HC-MAD-CUS

Aristo Shipping Services Vs PR CC

Cus - Petition was filed challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 30.08.2019 and to quash the same since no further proceedings had been carried out in terms of Regulation 17(5) & 17(7) of CBLR – Petitioner submitted that since the 1st respondent had now adjudicated the said SCN vide his order dated 19.11.2020 giving a fresh cause of action to challenge the said order, they may be permitted to withdraw the said petition.

Held: Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn: High Court [para 2]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2183-HC-KERALA-CUS

CC Vs Bedy Associates

Cus - Controversy revolves around the import of Multi-Function Devices (MFDs) for use within the country - Admittedly there was no import licence or authorization issued by the Directorate General, Foreign Trade - Notification dated 01.04.2020 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has effectively prohibited the import of MFDs, but only after the notification was published.

Held: Bench does not find any reason to differ from the findings in the earlier judgment on identical facts and law, as produced at Annexure-3, which findings were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Annexure-4 – Bench also does not find any merit in the two additional contentions raised - In such circumstances, Bench rejects the appeals filed by the Revenue – Bench notices that the goods were released based on Annexure-3 - However, in Annexure-3, there was a specific direction to intimate the DGFT about the import not being supported by an import licence from the DGFT, which could lead to confiscation proceedings being initiated under the Foreign Trade Act - It was also directed that a surety bond be executed for the market value of the goods, minus that imposed on the importer as redemption fee by the Commissioner of Customs and modified by the Tribunal – Bench directs the respondents who have already cleared the goods on the basis of the interim orders to execute such surety bonds within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment failing which the Customs authorities could initiate proceedings for return of goods, the location of which should be in the knowledge of the respondent/importer as per the Extended Producer Responsibility Authorization – Ordered accordingly: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Appeal disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2182-HC-KERALA-CUS

Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House Vs CC

Cus - The appellant was before this Court claiming implementation of the order of the Tribunal (permitting the licence to be operated other than in Trichy), when the Department submitted that they are proposing to file an appeal from the said order - No appeal was filed and in the meanwhile the original proceedings was taken up by the Commissioner.

Held: Tribunal's order, which, though passed in appeal, is only of an interim nature and does not now survive - The appellant would have to take up the matter before the appellate authority as against the final order now passed in the proceedings - Writ appeal would stand closed without any observation on merits only on the technical aspect of an order having passed, which is appealable: High Court

- Appeal disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2181-HC-AHM-CUS

Batra Marketing Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner submits that his immediate concern is to re-export the goods as if he is not able to re-export in time, then he may have to suffer a huge monetary loss – It is pointed out that the adjudicating authority has given an option to re-export the goods on payment of the redemption fine of Rs.5 Lakh in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - At the same time, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the adjudicating authority i.e. the respondent No.5 herein - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla - However, till this date, the appeal has not been taken up for hearing despite repeated request for the same.

Held: As statutory appeal has already been filed by the writ applicant against the final order of confiscation passed by the adjudicating authority, the request to re-export the goods also should be made before the appellate authority – Bench disposes of this writ application with a direction to the respondent No.5 to take up the appeal preferred by the writ applicant at the earliest and decide the same in accordance with law – Petitioner is permitted to prefer an appropriate application before the appellate authority with a prayer to re-export the goods, as prayed for, in this writ application - If, for any good reason, the appellate authority is not able to take up the main appeal for hearing and decide the same, then at least he is expected to hear the application seeking re-export of the goods within eight days from the date the same is filed before the respondent No.5: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2180-HC-AHM-CX

Mahendra Kumar Sancheti Vs CCGST & CE

CX/ Cus – Appeal filed u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 and which is admitted on inter alia the following question of law viz. Whether denial of cross-examination of the witnesses not violative of the principle of natural justice - Till the next date of hearing, there shall not be any coercive action for recovery against the appellant - Notice issued to the respondent, returnable on 19th January 2021: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1698-CESTAT-CHD

Signify Innovations India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - This appeal has been filed by assessee against impugned order wherein various input services has been denied during the period April, 2011 to March, 2014 - The services in question are mainly service of repairs and renovation of factory premises, the manpower service for running health centre and disposal of hazardous waste - Admittedly, the assessee has taken Cenvat credit on repairs and maintenance of factory premises for building which is allowed as Cenvat credit in terms of definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004, therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on services for repair and renovation of factory premises - With regard to entitlement of Cenvat credit of manpower service for running health centre, the said issue has been dealt by Tribunal in detail in the case of M/s Rallis India Limited 2018-TIOL-3795-CESTAT-MUM - Admittedly, assessee is required to maintain health centre in terms of Factories Act, 1948, therefore, they are entitled to avail Cenvat credit on health services in question - As regards to disposal of hazardous waste, it is found that as per SCN, the total Cenvat credit of Rs. 37,23,475/- was proposed to disallow to assessee, but the Commissioner (A) hold that the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on said service but allowed Cenvat credit only to the tune of 37,17,304/- - The reasons are best known to Commissioner (A) for denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 6,171/- for the service of disposal of hazardous waste, as the reasons have not been disclosed by Commissioner (A) in the impugned order, the act of Commissioner (A) cannot be appreciated - Therefore, assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit - No merit found in impugned order or in SCN itself, therefore, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1697-CESTAT-HYD

Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd Vs Pr CCT

ST - The only issue to be decided is whether the assessee is entitled to distribute Cenvat Credit including Education Cess and SHE cess taken on Research & Development services received to their manufacturing units in terms of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004 - The issue is decided by this very Bench for an earlier period in assessee's own case in favour of assessee - In view of clear findings of this very Bench, same are equally applicable in all force to the present case as well and hence the demand cannot sustain - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT