2021-TIOL-1299-HC-MUM-GST

ATE Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST/IGST  - Petitioner has prayed for a declaration that section 13(8)(b) and section 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are  ultra vires  articles 14, 19, 245, 246, 246A, 269A and 286 of the Constitution of India and also  ultra vires  the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held: In view of the difference in opinion, amongst the Judges constituting the Division Bench, as expressed in the case of Dharmendra M Jani [WP 2031 of 2018][ 2021-TIOL-1297-HC-MUM-GST ], matter is listed on 16th June 2021 along with Writ Petition No. 2031 of 2018: High Court

- Matter listed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1298-HC-MAD-CUS

Paragon Logistics Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner seeks quashing the impugned notice dated 01.07.2016 under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013.

Held: The petitioner appears to have participated in the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice and had acquiesced in it - Initially, the petitioner had filed a preliminary objection dated 23.7.2016 - This was received by the office of the 1st respondent on 28.7.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner filed additional written submission on 26.6.2016 and enclosed few case laws - Without awaiting for the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner has rushed to this court by way of the present writ petition on 5.12.2016 - Since the petitioner has partly acquiesced in the said show cause proceedings by participating in the said proceedings, it was not open for the petitioner to file this writ petition questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent - Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition - The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 60 days - Such order shall be passed without being influenced with the views expressed by this Court regarding the limitation for dismissing this writ petition: High Court [para 14 to 16]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-315-CESTAT-DEL

Rajratan Global Wire Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - Issue relates to the availabilty of cenvat credit regarding Club Membership Service and the Insurance Service - No evidence produced by Department to prove that even these two services were for personal use of appellant - In absence thereof, no logic found in the findings of Commissioner (A) while confirming the recovery of Cenvat credit availed by appellant on these two services - There is no other evidence with respect to the alleged suppression of facts or willful mis-statement on the part of appellant - It is for the Department to prove that the appellant has a malafide intend to evade payment of duty while the facts were suppressed or mis-stated by appellant - Apparently, there is no such evidence on record - Thus, Department was not entitled to invoke extended period for issue SCN - This finding vitiate the SCN, as such - Club Membership Service and Insurance Service both are input services of appellant - Hence, the order under challenge is hereby set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-314-CESTAT-DEL

Volvo Auto India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant is a subsidiary of M/s. Volvo, Sweden who own 99.99% of appellant's shares - The parent company manufactures Completely Built Units (CBU) of motor vehicles which are imported and sold by appellant - The value of goods for the purpose of calculation of Customs duty is the transaction value as per Section 14 of Customs Act provided the buyer and seller are not related persons - It is undisputed that the appellant and parent company are related persons as per Rule 2(2) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - O-I-O was passed holding that the relationship has not affected the invoice value of goods imported and it may be accepted as per Rule3(3)(a) - On appeal, Commissioner (A) set aside the O-I-O and allowed the appeal filed by department - The impugned order neither remanded the matter to original authority with directions to pass a de novo order nor has it modified the O-I-O indicating how the valuation should be done - The impugned order is inconclusive inasmuch as it found several mistakes with the O-I-O but has neither decided those issues so as to modify the O-I-O nor has it remanded the matter to the original authority for re adjudication - Original authority had given findings based on analysis - If the Commissioner (A) found some reason to conclude otherwise, he could have so decided after pointing out how the relationship affected the invoice price and what elements should be added to the invoice price to arrive at the value but he did not - Thus, the order passed by Commissioner (A) cannot be sustained, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT