2021-TIOL-122-AAR-GST

Apar Industries Ltd

GST - Applicant seeks to know as to whether applicability or determination of liability to pay Tax on their goods at 5% GST rate is legally correct and in order in terms of Schedule-I to the Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax(Rate). 

Held: In view of non-submission of the documents such as contract/agreement/tender/ technical specifications by the applicant and without going through the conditions/provisions envisaged in the aforementioned documents, it will not be possible for the Authority to take a decision in the matter - Application rejected: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2021-TIOL-121-AAR-GST

Apar Industries Ltd

GST - Applicant seeks to know as to whether applicability or determination of liability to pay Tax on their goods at 5% GST rate is legally correct and in order in terms of Schedule-I to the Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax(Rate).

Held: In view of non-submission of the documents such as contract/agreement/tender by the applicant and without going through the conditions/provisions envisaged in the aforementioned documents, it will not be possible for the Authority to take a decision in the matter - Application rejected: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2021-TIOL-891-HC-MAD-CUS

Daily Thanthi Vs CC

Cus - Refund - Only if excess duty was paid pursuant to an order of assessment under Section 17, Section 18 or under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962, refund of such duty would subject to compliance of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not the amount paid as a consequence of recovery proceeding arising out of an order passed under Section 28 of the of the Customs Act, 1962 at the appellate stage in terms of Section 131 of the Act - In the present case, it cannot be said that the amount that was paid pending the appeals was pursuant to an order of assessment before clearance of the goods from the customs barriers - The imported goods were not assessed to duty provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cleared later - Imported machines were assessed to duty under Section 17 and cleared on the duty assessed by the proper officer - The amount that was paid by the petitioner was the amount that was affirmed as payable by the CESTAT pending the appeal before the Supreme Court - The amount that was paid "under protest" at the appellate stage was long after the imported goods were cleared and assessed to duty - The petitioner has not sought for refund of amount paid as duty under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 - There is no evidence to suggest that the imported goods were also sold to a third party - Therefore, amounts deposited in terms of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 or Section 35N of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be refunded without insisting on such importer or manufacturer satisfying the requirement of "unjust enrichment" as in the case of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962/Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 -2nd respondent was not justified in subjecting the petitioner to the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: High Court [para 115 to 119]

Cus - Refund - Interest - Petitioner is not entitled to interest at 12% as was prayed by the petitioner but are entitled to interest at the rates prevailing for refund under notifications issued from time to time under Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962 for refund of pre-deposit made under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 as the amount paid by the petitioner on 21.03.2001 was in the nature of pre-deposit under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1961 - Such interest will be payable on a sum of Rs.88,44,510/- for the period commencing after the expiry of three months of date of the Supreme Court's order dated 31.03.2005 in C.A.Nos . 3558 and 3559 of 2000 = 2005-TIOL-108-SC-CUS - 2nd respondent shall therefore calculate the amounts and pay the amounts to the petitioner within a period of three months: High Court [para 120 to 122]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT