2021-TIOL-708-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs Soumag Eletronics Ltd

Cus - Original authority and the first appellate authority held that the installation certificate as required under Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 have not been produced, it goes without saying that the assessee has not installed the machinery and therefore not entitled for any benefits which would accrue to them - However, the Tribunal held that production of "installation" certificate of the goods imported free of duty under the "Project Import Regulations, 1986" is only directory and not mandatory - Revenue is, therefore, in appeal.

Held: Revenue seeks for arguing the factual aspect with a view to impress upon the scope that no installation had taken place - Per contra, there were evidences by way of invoices raised in the name of the Northern Railway produced by the assessee before the Tribunal and as well as before this Court - Bench is of the considered view that the Tribunal has taken a decision on appreciation of facts placed before it by way of documents and in this appeal filed under Section 130 of the Act, Bench is required to decide the substantial questions of law and not to re-appreciate the factual finding unless it is shown that the finding is utterly perverse - Bench is not inclined to classify the impugned finding as being utterly perverse - Therefore, no grounds have been made by the revenue to interfere with the said finding - Accordingly, the Revenue appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-170-CESTAT-MUM

HG Mehta And Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CC

Cus - On the basis of SCN issued to one M/s S.R. Enterprises, the Principal Commissioner initiated action against appellant-Customs Broker under CBLR, 2018 and suspended their license and fixed the post-decisional hearing - The appellant rushed to the Tribunal filing present appeals instead of attending the post decisional hearing extended to them - It is the plea of appellant that even though they requested for certain documents but since the same were not supplied to them, hence, they did not attend the hearing apprehending injustice in the matter - Non-appearing before Principal Commissioner and advancing their grievance of non-supply of documents requested is a serious lapse on part of appellant as the Principal Commissioner has duly and reasonably exercised her authority conferred under CBLR, 2018 - No valid reason found as to why the Tribunal at this stage should interfere with the suspension order passed by Principal Commissioner when post-decisional hearing was extended to the appellant - No irregularity found in passing the order by Principal Commissioner suspending the license and extending post decisional hearing to the appellant thereafter - Appellant is directed to cooperate by attending the hearing before Principal Commissioner in compliance with the procedure laid down under CBLR, 2018 and forward their argument/defense - Revenue is also directed to supply all relevant documents as requested so far or that would be requested in future and complete the process of hearing as far as practicable within 10 days: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT

Hawkins Cookers Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - Issue relates to the Denial of availment of CENVAT credit on Air and Rail Travel, Club and Association service, Outdoor Catering service and Goods Transport Operator service to the appellant for the period between February, 2016 and June, 2017 along with confirmation of interest and equivalent penalty on the said amount - As regards to Outdoor Catering service, appellant is entitled to avail such credit provided the amount is paid by it and not collected from the individual employees to meet the expenses - When a factory can't functioning without fulfilling statutory requirements, tax paid to meet such requirement is to be accepted as eligible credit otherwise there is no way out to avoid double taxation - As regards to Air and Rail Travel, there is no reason to disbelief the call letters placed in additional submission and accept the same as additional evidence as per Rule 23(2) of CESTAT Procedure Rules so as to meet the requirement of Rule 9(5) of CCR, 2004 - Even otherwise also presumption of an official tour goes in favour of invoice that had been disbelieved by Commissioner (A), in view of short duration of travel by General Manager of appellant's Company alone - However, this is not the stage to scrutinise documents while deciding an appeal to find out conclusive proof of the nature of CENVAT credit availed, for which reassessment at the adjudication level would be the only way out - As regards to Goods Transport Operator service, last but not the least claim of appellant to avail goods transport operator service for a meagre amount of Rs. 624/- needs no consideration as the same had been allowed by Commissioner (A) in his order and the amount placed in the table of appeal memo matches with the figures shown for which this amount of Rs. 624/- against which claim is made is based on typographical error in the order of Commissioner (A) in computing the amount - Appellant's claim on availment of input services on goods transport service is therefore to be read as allowed in full - With regard to Club and Association service, when it has been clearly mentioned in Rule 2(l) the premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises of the manufacturer is covered for availment of CENVAT credit, no reason found to denied such credit to the appellant since it negativates personal use of employees as being spent for maintenance of corporate office - Availment of service of outdoor catering for meeting statutory requirement of canteen service is allowed to the extent of non-realisation of said amount from the employees that would be verified by the adjudicating authority for which a limited remand is made solely for the verification of documents vis-a-vis for verification of documentary evidence to justify travels for business purpose: CESTAT

- Matter partly remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

Cochin International Airport Ltd Vs CCT & CE

ST - The appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under category of "Airport Services" and other taxable services - Following the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the appellant on 10.01.2018 filed a refund claim being excess advance tax lying to their credit in terms of transitional provisions in Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 deposited as service tax in advance under Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - As per decision in case of Fluid Controls Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-979-CESTAT-MUM, time-bar of Section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to advance/deposits, wrong remittance of tax not payable and other payments which are not in the nature of taxes or duties - The other ground for rejection of the claim was that the appellant has not given intimation of advance deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- as required under Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - This issue has been considered by various Benches of Tribunal and has been consistently held to be a procedural formality and merely non-observance of procedure laid down in said Rule cannot be a ground for denial of substantive benefit - The appellant's case is squarely covered by Clause B of proviso to Section 11B(2) which provides for cash refund of balance in account current - The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT