2021-TIOL-1365-HC-MAD-VAT

Adhithya Polymers Vs STO

Whether revision order passed merits being upheld where the fact of the assessee having suppressed purchase and sales turnover would not have come to light if such order was not passed - YES: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1363-HC-MAD-VAT

Covestro India Pvt Ltd Vs STO

Whether assessment order passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, merits being sustained - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-342-CESTAT-BANG

General Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs CC, CE & ST

CX - Interest on delayed refunds - The appellant filed a separate application under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 for claiming the interest - Revenue did not take any action on the application and the appellant had to approach Tribunal who directed the original authority to dispose of application and thereafter Revenue again issued a SCN to the appellant proposing to reject demand for interest on the grounds that original authority does not have jurisdiction to review or reopen the adjudication order already passed - The claim of interest by a separate application under Section 11BB does not amount to review or reopen of such completed orders and the appellant has right to claim the interest under Section 11BB ibid - The application filed by appellant was not towards refund of cenvat credit paid by them but towards the grant of interest on delayed sanction of refund amount - The Board vide its Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX has also allowed the payment of interest on delayed refund - Tribunal in the case of Microsoft Global Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-808-CESTAT-Bang has also allowed the claim of interest under identical circumstances - The appellant is entitled for interest on delayed payment of refund: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-341-CESTAT-BANG

Airasia India Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The appellant is receiving the services of back-end operation such as payroll and finance from their related party AGSS which is located outside taxable territory of India - Based on objections of CERA audit party, appellants were issued a SCN proposing to demand service tax along with interest and penalty - The lower authority dropped the demand of interest and penalty by accepting the principle of revenue neutrality - After following due process, the Assistant Commissioner restricted the demand only to the extent of tax already paid by appellant, however dropped the demand for interest and penalty by following the principle of revenue neutrality - The original authority rejected the plea of appellant for refund of service tax paid after 1st July, 2017 by stating that they were free to take cenvat credit subject to procedure and fulfillment of conditions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The extended period of limitation has wrongly been invoked by Revenue because the appellant has not concealed any material fact and has been filing return regularly and paying the service tax under reverse charge mechanism and has been cooperating with the Department by providing various information and documents - Therefore, invocation of extended period of limitation is not sustainable in law - Issue of revenue neutrality has also been clarified by CBEC vide Circular No. 354/148/2009-TRU wherein it has been clarified that the service tax paid by a service recipient on reverse charge basis would also qualify as input service for availment of cenvat credit - By following the ratio of decision in case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. , case of appellant is squarely covered by doctrine of revenue neutrality and by following the same, impugned order is set aside - Regarding the demand of appellant seeking refund paid post 01.07.2017, both the authorities have not considered the claim of appellant on merits and therefore it is not desirable to give a finding on the request of appellant to grant refund: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-340-CESTAT-BANG

Novozymes South Asia Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant has made payment twice on account of technical problem in ICEGATE towards certain bills of entry for which the refund was filed - The refund application was filed with the ICD, Bangalore wherein the Assistant Commissioner has partly allowed the refund but rejected the refund of Rs. 10,49,491/- on the ground that the payment towards two bills of entry fall under the jurisdiction of ACC, Bangalore - Thereafter, appellant requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund), ACC, Bangalore for grant of refund of rejected portion - Same was rejected on the ground that the claim is time-barred - If the original application for refund was filed within time, though, before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation - The appellant has also submitted that the bills of entry with reference to which the amounts have been paid twice were provisionally assessed during the relevant point of time due to pendency of SVB proceedings and those bills of entry were finally assessed by closure of provisional duty Bond by ACC, Bangalore in 2019 and communicated to the appellant on 04.01.2019 and has also submitted the documentary proof of final assessment of said bill of entry and as per Section 27(1B)(c) where any duty is paid provisionally under Section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of assessment of duty after the final assessment - If the Department consider the same as duty even then the period of one year will start from 04.01.2019 and the refund filed by appellant is found to be within time - The Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2015-TIOL-411-CESTAT-BANG has categorically held that if double payment is made due to system error then the Department should refund double payment to the importer - By relying upon the ratio of decision in case of Singh International 2014-TIOL- 2369-CESTAT-MUM and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2015-TIOL-411-CESTAT-BANG , the impugned order rejecting the refund on time-bar is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT