2021-TIOL-1323-HC-DEL-GST

Rajeev Chhatwal Vs CGST

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that cash amounting to Rs.15,92,000/- was seized on 23.01.2020, albeit, without adhering to the provisions of law; that, given the provisions of Section 67(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, the respondent was required to issue notice with regard to the seized cash within six months of seizure - Willy-nilly, more than 12 months have passed since the date of seizure, and therefore, the respondent/revenue is duty-bound to return the seized cash along with interest, petitioner contends - Issue notice - Matter listed on 19.07.2021: High Court [para 8, 11]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1322-HC-DEL-GST

RS Dress Design Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - A grievance is raised in the petition as regards the failure on the part of the respondents/revenue to refund IGST and drawback - Insofar as the IGST is concerned, petitioner seeks a refund of Rs. 67,09,855.94 and Rs.19,56,058/- as drawback. Held: Issue notice - Matter listed on 27.07.2021: High Court [para 3, 5]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1321-HC-DEL-GST

Narinder Chugh Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner had also approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ petition whereby a challenge was laid to the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It appears that the petitioner also sought interim relief against any coercive measures being taken against him in the said writ petition - Interim Order dated 12.03.2021 was passed whereby interim relief was declined to the petitioner - Bench notes that the order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in C.W.P. No. 1393/2021 = 2021-TIOL-696-HC-P&H-GST was assailed by the petitioner by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4628/2021, which was dismissed on 26.03.2021 = 2021-TIOL-163-SC-GST - Bench also notes that the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is shown as a resident of Delhi, whereas in the writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner is shown as a resident of Ludhiana - This and other aspects will be examined only after the order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the aforementioned writ petition, is placed on record - Matter is listed on 19.07.2021: High Court [para 4, 6, 7]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1324-HC-KERALA-CUS

Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House Vs CC

Cus - A SCN was issued to the petitioner which was challenged before Madras High Court - However, during interregnum petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence - Same was rejected but petitioner sought the review of order but, the same has also been rejected in the new communication - The Court cannot while exercising power under Article 226 exercise judicial review in examining the veracity and genuinity of impugned documents as they are subject to appeal in view of the provisions of Regulations 2013, now amended 2018 and Section 129 of the Customs Act - Though the court is informed that revenue would be verifying regarding the working of Tribunal but, there is no closure of system in preventing the affected party in filing the appeal particularly when the limitation is not still expired - The petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-323-CESTAT-CHD

JS Steel Traders Vs CC

Cus - Redemption fine and penalties - Appellant sought provisional release of goods which was allowed and at that time, the appellant paid differential duty alongwith interest and 15% of duty as penalty in terms of Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Later on, SCN has been issued to appellant to adjust the duty paid by them under Section 18(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - No final assessment order has been placed which means that provisional release of goods has been treated as final and the duty paid by appellant has been adjusted under Section 18(2) ibid - Without demanding duty under Section 28(1) of the Act, how can it be adjusted under section 18(2) of the Act - Technically, the demand of differential duty is also not sustainable in the circumstances till finalization of assessment; as the appellant has not contested the payment of duty and sought conclusion of matter under Section 28(5) of the Act - Moreover, when the demand of interest has been made under Section 28AA of the Act, naturally or consequentially the provisions of Section 28(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 have been attracted - Therefore, the duty, interest and penalty paid by appellant at the time of clearance of goods shall amounts to be concluded under Section 28(5) ibid - Instead of doing so, the Revenue has gone beyond that, which is not permissible in law - Thus, duty, interest and 15% penalty in terms of Section 28(5) of Customs Act, 1962 paid by appellant is sufficient - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-322-CESTAT-MAD

Trimble Information Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue relates to the denial of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 of unutilized credit on the inputs and input services used for providing output services - With regard to Cleaning Service, in view of the decision in M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1977-CESTAT-DEL, cleaning services are essential for providing output services and therefore, the same would qualify as input service and hence eligible for refund - On the Plant Rental Charges, appellant has claimed that the said service is akin to Gardening Services, but however, it appears that the appellant did not file any details as to the nature of service - However, it is seen that since services of renting of equipments for organizing events are allowed as valid input service, the same logic should apply here and accordingly, in principle, the denial of Cenvat Credit is held bad - However, as the rejection is for non-production of any details, the issue remanded to the file of Adjudicating Authority to verify the details. With regard to freight charges, appellant has claimed that the charges were incurred on a day-to-day basis for carrying inputs used for providing output services and these are the charges paid to the vendor for inward transportation - In any case, Freight Charges are included in inclusive part of definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and hence, the denial by lower authorities is bad. In respect of CENVAT Credit on Installation Charges, the only ground for rejection by lower authorities is non-furnishing of any details - It was argued that this service was used for the modernization and renovation of appellant's existing premises and the nature of services availed were for painting and modernization - However, since no details were furnished, this issue is remanded to the file of Adjudicating Authority - On Pest Control Charges, appellant has claimed that this issue is akin to Cleaning Services, which is very much essential to keep the business premises safe and clean and hence, the denial is clearly uncalled for. With regard to Car parking charges, terrace and car-bike charges, it is found that parking charges is an essential service provided to all the employees and used by them during the course of their employment and hence, this forms an essential service - In view of the decisions in M/s. Mercedes Benz Research & Development India (P) Ltd. 2012-TIOL-1853-CESTAT-BANG and M/s. Nuware Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-882-CESTAT-BANG , denial of CENVAT Credit on said service is therefore held to be bad - With regard to Event Management Charges, it is the case of appellant that the said services were used for promoting the brand name of company and the expenses relating to advertisements or sales promotions are specifically covered within the scope of definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) ibid - In view of decisions in M/s. BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-639-CESTAT-MAD and M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2771-CESTAT-BANG denial of CENVAT Credit is held to be bad. - With regard to the purchase of air conditioning, it is the case of appellant that the services were not used for the construction of a building or civil structure, but they were in the nature of annual maintenance charges - The denial on this count is also held to be bad - With regard to Membership Subscription, it is the case of appellant that being part of a multi-national company, they are required to subscribe to various business magazines and register as a member with various business associations for promoting their business - Membership subscription charges were paid towards obtaining corporate membership subscription of American Chamber of Commerce in India, which are purely incurred for the purpose of appellant's business - Business promotion is very much essential for the survival of every company, the membership only expands the reach thereof and hence, it is a way of marketing the brand, which is an essential service - Accordingly, the charges incurred are eligible for CENVAT Credit as per the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 : CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT