2021-TIOL-151-AAR-GST

Security And Intelligence Services India Ltd

GST - Applicant are providers of security services to Indian Institute of Technology, Madras - The Institute is not in agreement with them on paying GST amount being charged on the invoices raised by them for the services rendered by them, and are asking them to give exemptions either under the provision of Serial no. 3 of Notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and/ or Serial No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – Hence the applicant has filed an application on the above seeking a ruling in the matter. Held: Applicant vide their e-mail dated 6th May 2021, has stated that due to incorrect information provided, i.e., that by mistake they had mentioned that the services are provided to IIT Madras in the application, while the services are being provided to IIITDM, Kancheepuram, they would like to withdraw their application on the matter and file a fresh plea - Considering the facts on record, the request of applicant to withdraw this application and to file a fresh plea is permitted – Application is allowed to be withdrawn: AAR

- Application withdrawn: AAR

2021-TIOL-1405-HC-ORISSA-CX

Maxcare Laboratories Ltd Vs Joint CCGST, CE & C

CX - Challenge is to the SCN dated 29th March 2000 issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneshwar-I  - Allegation levelled is suppression of production of perfumed hair oil and red tooth powder and its removal surreptitiously without payment of central excise duty during the year 1994-1995 -  Petitioner replied on 16th December 1995 submitting details of raw material/packing material as well as the tentative input-output ratio - Another reply was filed on 3rd March 2000 - Treating the said reply as unconvincing, impugned SCN dated 29th March 2000 was issued and the petitioner responded to the said SCN on 27th April 2000 - Thereafter the petitioner did not hear anything from the opposite parties and all of a sudden, more than 17 years later on 28th December 2017, they received a notice stating that a personal hearing was fixed on 9th January 2018 to which an adjournment was sought and a fresh date was fixed on 18th January 2018, whereafter the present petition was filed - Petitioner submits that after submission of reply on 27th April 2000, they presumed that further proceedings stood concluded and they were clueless that the adjudication proceeding had been transferred to the Call book - Counsel for the Revenue reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties which is that the subject case file was transferred to 'call book' on 29 September, 2000 following A.G. Audit I.R. No.48/95-96 (para-10) which was converted to A.P. Cat-III and the case was retrieved from call book on 30 June 2016, basing on Board's Circular No.1023/11/2016 dated 8 April, 2016; that in order to comply with the rules of natural justice, a personal hearing was fixed for which the impugned notices were issued to the petitioner; that even now the petitioner can avail of that opportunity of hearing and then challenge the order if it is adverse to them, in accordance with law.

Held:  The stand taken by the Opposite Parties about transfer of the case to the "call book" is totally unconvincing - The relevant circular in this regard is dated 14 December, 1995 which identifies the circumstances under which the pending cases can be transferred to the "Call book" -  In the present case, there is no indication as to which of the above categories stands attracted - From the facts narrated, neither clauses (i), nor (ii) nor (iii) stands attracted - The present case has certainly not reached the stage of appeal and there is no order of the Supreme Court or the High Court or the CEGAT - This is not a case where the audit objections are contested by anyone - Further, nothing is indicated in the counter affidavit about the Board specifically ordering this case to be kept pending by entry in the 'call book' - In effect, the attempt to revive the proceeding after 18 years appears to contrary to the circulars issued generally by the Department for expeditious disposal of the SCNs - No convincing explanation is offered as to why the Department sat over the matter for 18 years - Except saying that they decided on 13 June, 2016 to revive the case in terms of the Board's Circular dated 8 April 2016, there is no convincing answer for the inordinate delay in seeking to revive the proceedings - By not informing the Petitioner that its case is being transferred to the 'call book', and then seeking to revive it after 18 years, the Opposite Parties have acted unreasonably, particularly since the Petitioner could not have reasonably expected that the proceedings against it would be kept alive for these many years without any action being taken - Also, the Petitioner cannot be expected to preserve its records for these many years and to be able to answer a SCN after 18 years - Specific to the issue of transfer of cases to the 'call book' and then reviving it after a long gap, without any reasonable explanation, there are decisions of the High Courts that have quashed such proceedings - Court finds no justification for the Opposite Parties to revive the adjudication proceedings against the Petitioner 18 years after the issuance of the SCN - Accordingly, the impugned SCN and the notices are hereby quashed - Writ petition is allowed: High Court  [para 17 to 19, 23, 24]

- Petition allowed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-354-CESTAT-CHD

Accent Pharma Vs CGST

CX - The assessee is availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 01/10-.CE. - They procured certain inputs and availed credit of duty paid on these inputs - Case of Revenue is that during the relevant period, i.e., May, 2012 to January, 2014, assessee is not entitled to avail credit against inputs issued by the units, who are availing exemption under Notification No. 01/10-C.E. and after introduction of Notification No. 02/14-C.E . (N.T.), the credit was available to assessee - Similarly placed assessee was allowed the credit although against those orders, the appeals have been filed by Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in that circumstance, when the Revenue is having divergent views on the issue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

Rakon India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The appellant is engaged in manufacture and export of goods 'Crystal and Oscillators' and they are 100% EOU - The appellant debited an amount of Rs. 60,12,607/- which resulted in excess debit of Rs. 12,44,979/- - They filed the refund claim under Section 11B and not under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2017 - After the introduction of GST, the appellant could not transitioned the excess debit into TRAN-I - In that case, the only option for appellant was to file a refund claim under Section 11B read with Section 142(5) - The impugned order has not disputed the eligibility of credit debited in excess - After introduction of GST in July 2017, there is no option provided to the noticee to avail CENVAT credit, as the returns have been suspended with regard to erstwhile regime - Consequently, the noticee filed the refund of amount debited in excess in terms of provision 142(3) of CGST Act which was allowed as credit - The O-I-O restricted the amount of Rs. 12,56,178/- and not rejected the same - Therefore, the impugned order wrongfully invoked the Section 142(3) to reject the refund claim - It is a fact that if CGST Law was not introduced, the appellant would have availed credit in ER-1 Returns and as per Section 174(2)(c) of CGST Act, the appellant cannot be effected of its right, privilege, in availing credit merely in respect of refund rejected on account of limitation being passed after 27.12.2017 - The impugned order denying the refund by invoking Section 142(3) is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT