2021-TIOL-120-HC-UKHAND-IT

Dehradun Chartered Accountants Societ Vs UoI

In writ, the High Court observes that a large number of assessees have difficulty in meeting their Chartered Accountants & to file their ITRs and TARs. Hence the Court permits the petitioner to submit a fresh representation voicing its grievances. The Court directs the CBDT to consider such representation & pass reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

-Writ petition disposed of : UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-106-ITAT-MUM

Amoha Traders Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether addition of accrued interest can be made when no money is received by way of interest or dividend nor the investment amount was returned - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-105-ITAT-MUM

Mudra Securities Vs ITO

Whether additions on account of client-code modification within a reasonable limit cannot be made particularly when the Revenue has failed to discharge its burden of proof - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-104-ITAT-MUM

Nimbus Communications Ltd Vs CIT

Whether it is against the principle of natural justice if the CIT(A) decides the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI

2021-TIOL-103-ITAT-DEL

ACIT Vs Vanesa Cosmetics

Whether disallowance framed by the AO are sustainable where no reasons are assigned for the same & where such disallowances are based on surmises alone - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-102-ITAT-DEL

ACIT Vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd

Whether search assessment can be resorted to where no material incriminating the assessee has been seized in course of Search operations - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-101-ITAT-CHD

Sushma Bansal Vs DCIT

Whether an amount which has already been adjusted with dividend amount distributed by company as per Section 2(22)(3), must be excluded from deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2021-TIOL-121-HC-TRIPURA-GST

Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Tripura

GST - The petitioner-company was transporting some goods when the consignment was intercepted by the Enforcement Wing in Tripura - The goods were seized and duty liability was determined - As the petitioner was unable to produce e-way bill against the vehicle, an equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed - SCN was issued to the petitioner u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act, Section 68(3) of the UTGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act - Proceedings were proposed to be initiated under all these Acts and under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 - The petitioner claimed that that for two vehicles used consecutively, the valid e-way bills were generated, but due to sudden lock down the consignment could not be brought into the State of Tripura within the time - Even they could not generate a new e-bill against a new vehicle where as the petitioner was compelled to cause trans-shipment as the earlier vehicle got completely broken down while stranded for the nationwide lock-down - The petitioner has also stated that they made an attempt to have the amended e-way bill, but as the system was not approached within the valid time i.e. within 24 hrs of the expiry date, the system refused to generate a fresh e-way bill at their instance - As a result, when the vehicle was detained in the Churaibari check post, the vehicle was not carrying the valid e-way bill.

Held - The breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty - But the question that falls for consideration is whether the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the penalty - The breach which falls under Section 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed at Rs 10,000/- - So far the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted under Section 51 - The other incidences as cataloged in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the present case and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty - The penalty would have been Rs.10,000/- - As there is no dispute about the tax, we will not lay our hands on that aspect - The Revenue authority shall be at liberty to verify that fact to ascertain whether tax has been paid or not - In the event of non-payment of tax the appropriate action be taken for realizing the said tax from the petitioner - But in the circumstances, we set aside the order of penalty and direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act within a period of 1 month from today - If not paid, the action as prescribed by the statue be followed for realizing the same: HC

-Writ petition partly allowed : TRIPURA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-01-AAAR-GST

Midcon Polymers Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant have proposed/planned to engage in the business of renting of commercial property on monthly rents and allied business – They have sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions viz. (i) For the purpose of arriving at the value of rental income, whether the applicant can seek deduction of property taxes and other statutory levies; (ii) For the purposes of arriving at total income from rental, whether notional interest on the security deposit should be taken into consideration; (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled for exemption of tax under the general exemption of Rs.20 lakhs - The AAR held that the applicant can't deduct the property taxes and other statutory levies for the purpose of arriving at the value of rental income - The notional interest on the security deposit shall be taken into consideration, for the purposes of arriving at total income from rental, only if it influences the value supply of RIS service i.e. monthly rent - The applicant is entitled for exemption of tax under the general exemption of Rs.20 lakhs, subject to the condition that their annual turnover, which includes monthly rent and notional interest, if it influences the value of supply, does not exceed the threshold limit.

Held - For the purpose of arriving at the value of rental income, the Appellant cannot deduct the amount paid as property tax to the Municipal Authority or any other statutory levies levied under any law for the time being in force, other than the CGST, SGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, subject to the condition that it is charged separately by the Appellant - For the purpose of arriving at the total rental income, the notional interest earned on the security deposit is not to be taken into consideration: AAAR

- Appeal disposed of: AAAR

2021-TIOL-39-AAR-GST

Dipesh Anilkumar Naik

GST - The applicant had obtained some vacant land outside the municipal area of town & on which some business activity was proposed to be carried out - The applicant obtained requisite clearances from the Plan Passing Authority - It was submitted that as per directions of the Plan Passing Authority, the seller of land was to develop primary amenities like sewerage & drainage, water line, electricity line, land levelling, pipe line, street light, telephone line etc - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know if GST is applicable on sale of plot of land for which such primary amenities are to be provided by the applicant. Held - The applicant is the owner of land & develops the same with infrastructure as per requirement of the approved Plan Passing Authority - After this development of the land, the applicant sells developed land as plots - The sale price includes the cost of the land as well as the cost of common amenities, Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling charges, on a proportionate basis - As per clause 5(b) of the Schedule-II of the CGST Act, 2017 , construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer is a "Supply of service" and, hence, is liable to GST - The activity of sale of developed plots would be covered under the clause 'construction of a complex intended for sale to a buyer' - Such activity is covered under 'construction services' and GST is payable on the sale of developed plots: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-38-AAR-GST

Max Non Woven Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Non woven Bags through the intermediate product Non Woven Fabrics manufactured from Fibre grade poly propylene granules by adopting the Spun Bond technology - In this technology polypropylene granules are fed to the hopper and passed through extruder at certain temperature - The melted material after filtering passed through the spinning unit to obtain a continuous single filament. The said filaments are then subject to lying on continuous web and under control pressure thermal bonding. The resultant product is non Woven fabrics which is called Polypropylene Non Woven Fabric - In the pre-GST regime, Polypropylene Non Woven Bags were being classified under heading No. 6305 being product manufactured through Non woven fabric classifiable under Heading 5603 - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven fabric classifiable under Heading 5603 are properly classifiable under Heading 6305 or under Heading 3923 & whether they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) and 01/2017-I.T. (Rate) . Held - The product Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven plastic material manufactured from Fibre grade poly propylene granules merit classification under Heading No. 3923 - For the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, GST is leviable @ 18% - For the period 01.10.2019 to 31.12.2019, GST is leviable @ 12% - For the period from 01.01.2020 to till date, GST is leviable @ 18% - However, exemption under Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) and 01/2017-I.T. (Rate) is not allowed on such products: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-37-AAR-GST

Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd

GST - The applicant is an Association of persons registered under GST & is engaged in processing of milk and milk products - The applicant manufactures Skimmed Milk Powder and Whole Milk powder, classify the same under tariff number 0402, taxable at 5% and supply the same to government schools through Zilla panchayaths under "Ksheera Bhagya yojana" scheme as part of the midday meal scheme to school children - The Applicant, at request of the State Govt of Karnataka, also manufacture & supply chocolate-flavored milk powder under chapter 1806 & paid GST @ 18% - Subsequently, the AG audit raised an objection on the classification of Milk powder mixed with chocolate powder, holding that even after mixing of chocolate powder into Milk powder, the product will still remains as Skimmed milk powder/whole milk powder and the same has to be classified under chapter 0402 and not under chapter 1806 - Hence the applicant approached the AAR seeking to know if Chocolate Milk Powder to be classified under HSN 0402 or under 1806 or under any other Chapter. Held - Chapter 18, which covers cocoa (including cocoa beans) in all forms, cocoa butter, fat and oil preparations containing cocoa. Explanatory Notes of World Customs Organisation to heading 1805 clearly specify that cocoa powder to which milk powder or peptones have been added fall under tariff heading 1806 - Heading 1806 covers Chacolate and other food preparations containing cocoa and World Customs Organisation explanatory notes to the said heading clearly specify that the heading 1806 includes all food preparations containing cocoa - The instant product being a food preparation made out of blending of white milk powder with cocoa - Thus the instant product merits classification under heading 1806: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-36-AAR-GST

Karam Green Bags

GST - The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Non woven Bags through the intermediate product Non Woven Fabrics manufactured from Fibre grade poly propylene granules by adopting the Spun Bond technology - In this technology polypropylene granules are fed to the hopper and passed through extruder at certain temperature - The melted material after filtering passed through the spinning unit to obtain a continuous single filament - The said filaments are then subject to lying on continuous web and under control pressure thermal bonding. The resultant product is non Woven fabrics which is called Polypropylene Non Woven Fabric - In the pre-GST regime, Polypropylene Non Woven Bags were being classified under heading No. 6305 being product manufactured through Non woven fabric classifiable under Heading 5603 - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven fabric classifiable under Heading 5603 are properly classifiable under Heading 6305 or under Heading 3923 & whether they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) and and 01/2017-I.T. (Rate). Held - The product Non Woven Bags manufactured through the intermediate product Non Woven plastic material manufactured from Fibre grade poly propylene granules merit classification under Heading No. 3923 - For the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, GST is leviable @ 18% - For the period 01.10.2019 to 31.12.2019, GST is leviable @ 12% - For the period from 01.01.2020 to till date, GST is leviable @ 18% - However, exemption under Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) and 01/2017-I.T. (Rate) is not allowed on such products: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-35-AAR-GST

Altis Finechem Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant sought Advance Ruling on Classification of goods and determination of tax liability of product under HSN 2919 of goods namely Calcium-3-methyl-2oxo-valerate (Alpha-Ketoanalogue Isoleucine Calcium Salt), Calcium-3-methyl-2oxobutyrate (Alpha-Ketoanalogue Valine Calcium Salt), Calcium-4-methyl-2oxo-valerate (Alpha-Ketoanalogue Leucine Calcium Salt), Calcium-DL-2-hydroxy-4(methylthio) butyrate (Alpha-Ketoanalogue Methionine Calcium Salt) and Calcium -2 oxo-3-phenyl propionate (Alpha-Ketoanalogue phenylalanine Calcium Salt). Held: The applicant is engaged in manufacture/supply of bulk drugs and intermediates - They submitted that they are presently supplying the said goods under HSN 2919 and paying GST @ 18 % - Whereas the applicant contended that their product would classify under CTH No. 30 and liable to pay @ 5% as per Sr. No. 180 of Notfn 01/2017-CT (Rate) - Now, the main issue is to determination of classification and tax liability of their product i.e. bulk drugs and intermediate supply by applicant - The applicant's contention is that their bulk drug is covered under entry No. 180 of Notfn 01/2017-CT (Rate) and eligible for concessional rate of GST - In the said entry of Notfn, word "Bulk Drugs" would have been included, had the intention of Government been to extend the benefit of concessional rate to the bulk drugs/raw material - Therefore 5% GST is not applicable to the bulk drug, in terms of List I to Entry No. 180 of Schedule I to the said Notfn 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Further, the applicant has stated that their product i.e. bulk drugs fall and intermediate under HSN 2919 and accordingly sought the ruling regarding rate of GST of said goods - In view of entry No. 40 of said Notfn, the goods viz. bulk drugs and intermediate are classifiable under HSN 2919 and attract GST @ 18% { 9% CGST + 9% SGST}: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-34-AAR-GST

Balkrishna Industries

GST - Applicant wants to know whether availing exemption under Notfn 79/2017-Cus in respect of additional duty of customs, anti-dumping duty, but opting to pay IGST on import of goods under Advance Authorization, would tantamount to availing the benefits of exemption under said Notfn, as contemplated under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 and in such case as to whether the applicant is allowed to export goods on payment of IGST and claim refund thereof under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017. Held: The applicant is a manufacturer of specialized pneumatic tires for industrial, mining and agricultural applications of having a prestigious 4-Star Export House Status granted by Ministry of Commerce - They exports almost 85% of production to various countries of the world - Further, the applicant is opting to pay IGST on their imports, but avails exemption on other applicable customs duties in terms of Notfn 79/2017-Cus - Thus, the applicant has received the goods on which the tax (IGST) has been paid and, therefore, according to them, they cannot be held to have availed the ‘benefits of Notfn 79/2017-Cus ', as contemplated in Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Further, the exemption on additional duties of Customs and anti-dumping duty are governed by Customs Act, 1962 as well as Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and cannot be denied by GST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder - Consequently, according to them, they can export the goods on payment of IGST and claim refund thereof under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Subsequent to introduction of GST regime, Integrated GST (IGST) was applicable on import of inputs under Advance Authorisation as the said notification was not amended to provide for IGST exemption - Subsequent to exporters' representations, Notfn 79/2017-Customs was issued amending the Notfn 18/2015–Customs to allow exemption from IGST and Compensation Cess on import of goods related to Advance Authorisation (AA) - Further, as per condition (xiii) inserted vide Notfn 79/2017-Customs, the exemption from integrated tax and the goods and services tax compensation cess leviable thereon under sub-section (7) and sub-section (9) of section 3 of said Customs Tariff Act shall be available up to 31st March, 2018 - Vide Notfn 35/2018-Customs , the exemption from integrated tax and the goods and services tax compensation cess leviable thereon is extended up to the 1st October, 2018 - Availing exemption under Notfn 79/2017-Cus in respect of additional duty of Customs under sub-Section (1), (3) and (5) of Section 3, anti-dumping duty under section 9A, but opting to pay IGST on import of goods under Advance Authorization, would tantamount to availing the benefits of exemption under Notfn 79/2017-Cus, as contemplated under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Consequently, the applicant is not eligible to claim refund thereof under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017, as amended: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-33-AAR-GST

Dharmshil Agencies

GST - The applicant has submitted that they have entered into an agreement with Tsudokoma Corporation, Japan to sell their machinery and against the said services, they are receiving commission income from Japan in foreign currency - The applicant sought advance ruling on the question, whether to charge CGST and SGST or IGST looking to nature of transaction. Held: The services provided by applicant i.e. 'intermediary services' appears at sub-section (8)(b) of Section 13 - Also, sub-section (8) clearly mentions that the place of supply in respect of services described under said sub-section shall be the location of supplier of services - Further, the supplier is the applicant and the location of said supplier is in Ahmedabad, Gujarat - Now, since the location of the applicant, who is supplier of services, is in Gujarat and both the supplier of service as well as the place of supply of service is in Gujarat, the supply of services would be considered akin to intra-state supply of services and would be liable to CGST and SGST (as per the provisions of Section 9(1) of CGST Act, 2017) - Therefore, the present procedure/course of GST payment followed by applicant i.e. payment of CGST and SGST on the services provided by them, is correct - Further, the applicant would be liable to pay GST at the rate of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) in terms of provisions of Notfn 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) : AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-32-AAR-GST

Dyna Automation Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant sought Advance Ruling on the question, what is classification for Hybrid Hydraulic Servo System which is prepared by assembling various parts and is used as part in different type of machines and what will be the applicable tax rate on Hybrid Hydraulic Servo System. Held: During personal hearing, the applicant was requested to submit the usages of product viz. "Hybrid Hydraulic Servo System" in the machinery and catalogue of said product, wherein design and scientific parameter of manufacture of product is given - However, they did not mention the usage of said product in different type of machines or class of machines - Further, it is seen that the applicant has submitted that, "Hybrid Hydraulic Servo System" as such Servo System or Drive give right solution for Servo pump control, providing precise pressure and flow control and avoiding the energy waste thus creating added value for customers in terms of energy efficiency and higher mould quality - Hence, it appears that the product does not have any individual functions or it can be stated that the said product cannot perform itself which is the prime condition for classification under Heading 8479 of Custom Tariff Act, 1965 - Therefore, the said product cannot be classified in Chapter heading of 8479 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The product viz. "Hybrid Hydraulic Servo System" merits classification in terms of Note 2 of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and General Note of Parts of Section XVI of Harmonised System of Nomenclature - The GST rate would be leviable on the basis of classification of product, under 01/2017-CT (Rate) : AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-119-HC-AP-CT

Kamadhenu Cotton And Agro Industries Vs CTO

Whether it is fit case for remand where duty demand is raised without considering the assessee's reasons for not furnishing C Forms within the prescribed period - YES: HC

- Case remanded : ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-118-HC-MAD-VAT

SMP Textiles Mills Pvt Ltd Vs State of Tamil Nadu

VAT - Assessee have expressed their difficulty in obtaining 'C' forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in order to avail concessional benefit of tax for purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - issue in regard to entitlement to 'C' Forms for purchase of High Speed Diesel from supplies outside Tamil Nadu, to enable the dealers to seek a concessional rate of tax, is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision in a batch of over fifty (50) Writ Petitions - The petitioner is entitled to the inclusion of 'High Speed Diesel Oil' as a commodity in the registration certificate.

- Appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-42-CESTAT-CHD

Pioneer Pesticides Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST

CX - The assessee is located in State of Jammu & Kashmir and availing the benefit of exemption Notfn 01/10-CE - The case of Revenue is that during relevant period, assessee is not entitled to avail credit against inputs issued by the units, who are availing exemption under said Notfn and after introduction of Notfn 02/14-CE (N.T.) , the notfn 01/10-CE was amended thereafter the credit was available to assessee - Without going into the merits of case, it is found that similarly placed assessee was allowed the credit although against those orders, the appeals have been filed by Revenue before the Commissioner (A), in that circumstance, when the Revenue is having divergent views on the issue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable - Admittedly, in this case, the SCN has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-41-CESTAT-CHD

Spray Engineering Devices Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected by authorities below - Initially, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim holding that assessee has not contested the service tax liability, therefore, the refund claim of service tax paid is not admissible - On appeal, the Commissioner (A) concluded that the assessee has already paid service tax alongwith interest in terms of Section 73 (3) of FA, 1994, the proceedings stand concluded, therefore, the refund of the amount claimed by assessee is not admissible - The fact which is admitted by both the sides is that in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal passed the order and dropping the demand of service tax for extended period of limitation alongwith interest and the said order is final - In that circumstances, the refund claim filed consequent that order is admissible in the eyes of law - Further, the observation made by both the authorities below in impugned order are contrary to the law as they have accepted the order of this Tribunal dated 29.05.2019 - The refund claim is allowed alongwith interest to be paid by department: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-40-CESTAT-DEL

Spice Jet Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee, a scheduled airline operator, is engaged in business of transportation of passengers and goods by air - In order to carry out the scheduled operations in India, 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 - It is further stated that 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, Bills of Entry are filed - These Bills of Entry are assessed to basic customs duty and integrated tax at the applicable rates - The dispute is as to whether the assessee is justified in claiming exemption from payment of integrated tax under Exemption Notfn 50/2017 on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India during the period commencing August, 2017 to March, 2019 - There is no dispute that it is serial no. 2 of Exemption Notfn that is applicable to aircrafts/ parts re-imported into India after repairs - What would, therefore, be payable in terms of serial no. 2 would be the duty of customs on the fair cost of repairs carried out including cost of materials used in repairs, insurance and freight charges, both ways - Though the expression 'duty of customs' has not been defined under Exemption Notification but it can only have that meaning which has been assigned to the meaning of 'duty' under section 2(15) of the Customs Act - It would, therefore, mean the "duty of customs" leviable under Customs Act and any other duty not levied under Customs Act, would not be duty of customs for the purposes of any Notification issued under Customs Act - Integrated tax has also not been defined under Exemption Notification - It has been defined under section 2(12) of Integrated Tax Act to mean the tax levied under Integrated Tax Act - Integrated Tax is levied under section 5 of Integrated Tax Act and not under section 12 of Customs Act and therefore, cannot be called as duty of customs and Section 3 (7) of Tariff Act only provides the manner of collection of integrated tax by customs authorities in case of import of goods - The meaning assigned to duty of customs in Exemption Notification has to be understood - Mention of duty of customs, integrated tax and compensation cess in main body of Exemption Notification implies that the Government was conscious of distinction between the three - What is also important to notice is that after the phrase "duty of customs levied thereon which is specified in 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 - There is a specific reference to integrated tax in column (3) in connection with serial no. 1 (d) and to integrated tax and compensation cess in connection with serial no. 1(e) - There is, therefore, enough intrinsic evidence in Exemption Notification itself to show that integrated tax cannot be understood as duty of customs in Exemption Notification - The inevitable conclusion is that the absence of mention of integrated tax and compensation cess in column (3) under serial no. 2 of the Exemption Notification would mean that only the basic customs duty on the fair cost of repair charges, freight and insurance charges are payable and integrated tax and compensation cess are wholly exempted - The assessee has also through an application dated December 15, 2020 brought to the notice of Tribunal that it is currently undergoing a corporate insolvency resolution process as directed by the National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai by its order dated June 20, 2019 and consequently an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed - The assessee is, therefore, being managed by Resolution Professional - Thus, the order passed by Commissioner (A) is, accordingly, set aside and it is held that the assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of integrated tax under Exemption Notification on re- import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT