2021-TIOL-606-HC-MAD-CUS

Golden Tax Vs ACC

Cus - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.02.2020 on the ground that evidences placed before the authorities in regard to its claim of Drawback had not been taken into account - The authority has accepted its submission and an O-I-O has been passed on 08.02.2021, dropping the adjudication proceedings - Impugned order quashed: HC

- Writ petition allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-605-HC-MAD-CUS

Hlg Trading Space Vs Additional Commissioner

Cus - The petitioner sought cross-examination of all persons referred to in reply dated 06.01.2019 and a further direction to the respondent to cause fresh re-test of the imports - This Court, on 16.09.2020 had directed the re-test of goods even pending writ petition - A report dated 06.01.2021 has been filed to the effect that the aluminium foil imported is of thickness of 5.83 and 5.84 microns, adverse to the interests of petitioner - The petitioner would request that it be permitted to file a statutory appeal and that the Indian Standard specifications for Aluminium and Aluminium Alloy Bare Foil for Food Packaging be taken into account by appellate authority in determining the thickness of imported product - The impugned order is dated 01.07.2019 and this writ petition has been filed on 08.08.2019, within the period of statutory limitation - Thus, it is permitted to approach the first Appellate Authority by way of statutory appeal: HC

- Writ petition dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-147-CESTAT-AHM

Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The Revenue sought to demand service tax on non-refundable contribution made by member units towards the expenditure of park for developing and constructing the infrastructure under category of "renting of immovable property service" - The case of department is that rental amount is collected in guise of non-refundable contribution which is nothing but service charge against renting of immovable property service hence liable to service tax - The case in hand and the case decided by Tribunal vide order dated 12.09.2019 is absolutely identical in respect of its fact and law point - Though the entire case of department is that one time refundable amount collected by appellant from its member units is the service charge against provision of 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' but the department has not adduced a single evidence in support of its allegation - Hence, the contribution of department in this regard has no legs to stand - In the judgment of Calcutta Club Limited 2019-TIOL-449-SC-ST-LB, the Supreme Court has held that the service provided by company incorporated under Companies Act to its members is not under tax net - There is no dispute that the appellant is an incorporated company under Companies Act and provided the service to its own members, therefore, the ratio of judgment in Calcutta Club directly applies to the appellant's case also - The demand of service tax is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Meena Krishna Agarwal Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue arises is, whether the flats belonging to appellant which she purchased under Registered Sale deeds out of monies received as gifts from her mother-in-law and father-in-law, can be proceeded against by Excise Department for recovery of Central Excise dues confirmed by O-I-O against two proprietory firms of her late husband Mr. Krishna Agarwal - On scrutiny of documents, it is absolutely clear that the appellant have received gift from her father-in-law and mother-in-law - Accordingly, it is legally earned income by appellant from which the entire payment of cost of flats was made - This fact has also not been disputed by lower authorities - Both the lower authorities have proceeded to hold that the payment made by appellant is not from her own source of income but from her late husband Shri Krishna Agarwal's source - The appellant is sole owner of four flats purchased by making payment from her own source of income - In the deal between the appellant and the builder, the earlier inconclusive deal of Zenith Chemicals Pvt. Limited and Ms. Shivangi Agarwal with builder has no relevance - Therefore, the department's sole basis that initially the payment was made by Zenith Chemicals Pvt. Limited and Ms. Shivangi Agarwal were towards the purchase of said four flats by the appellant is far-fetching and has no bearing on the ownership of four flats by appellant - It is also observed from the assessment order of appellant's mother-in-law and father-in-law and her own assessment order indicates the gift transaction between her mother-in-law and father-in-law and the appellant and has been legally entered thereafter no question can be raised on such transaction - Since the four flats were purchased by appellant from her own source of income, question of inheritance from her late husband Shri Krishna Agarwal does not arise - The High Court precisely directed the department to examine only two points whether the appellant has made payments for purchase of four flats by her own source of income and whether the property was possessed by the appellant as a result of inheritance from her late husband Shri Krishna Agarwal - It is clearly established that appellant have purchased four flats and made payment from her own source of income and it is also fact that appellant has not inherited the property from her late husband Shri Krishna Agarwal - Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, same is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Saraf Fincom Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Issue arises from the claim of interest under Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 on delayed grant of refund of SAD on imported plastic granules sold by them domestically - The Tribunal vide its order in 2019-TIOL-302-CESTAT-BANG allowed the appeal of appellant with consequential relief and by following the said order, the Original Authority granted the refund but did not grant the interest and when the appeal against the refusal to grant the interest was filed before Commissioner, the Commissioner did not decide the appeal on merits and rejected the appeal on time-bar - The reasons given by appellant is quite convincing and moreover there was a delay of only 21 days which was within the condonable power of Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) should have exercise his power by condoning the delay and decided the appeal on merits - Declining to condone the delay of 21 days is not justified and the same is not sustainable in law and hence, the impugned orders set aside - Matter remanded with a direction to decide the same on merit within a period of one month: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT