2021-TIOL-1435-HC-MAD-CUS
SS Knit Exports Vs UoI
Cus - Order passed by the fourth respondent is sought to be quashed.
Held: Issues raised in the writ on hand is based on certain contractual obligations between the parties - Thus, the issues are to be resolved by way of an adjudication with reference to documents and evidences to be made available - Such an exercise cannot be done in a writ proceedings, more specifically, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Under these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances in the manner known to law - Writ petition(s) stands dismissed: High Court [para 2, 4, 5]
- Petitions dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1433-HC-MAD-ST
Channel Bharat Entertainment Pvt Ltd Vs Chairman CBIC
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Though the provisions of the Scheme require the applicant to remit the amount quantified under the Scheme within 30 days from the date of receipt of Form-3 (in this case, it is dated 03.01.2020), bearing in mind the difficulties caused by the on-going COVID 19 pandemic, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes had extended the time till 30.06.2020 and there was no extension thereafter - Petitioner has allegedly filed a representation, which contains two dates, 30.03.2021 and 05.04.2021, before the Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes, for which there is no acknowledgement, even for dispatching the same, praying for a permission to remit the tax under the Scheme. Held : Petitioner has instituted this Writ Petition only on 16.06.2021, nearly a year after the last date stipulated by the Board for payment of tax - In such a situation, this Court is not in a position to intervene in this matter and it is left to the petitioner to pursue its representation, if at all filed, before the Board - Writ Petition stands dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1432-HC-MAD-ST
Malabar Erectors Vs UoI
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner had sought a mandamus directing the first respondent to accept the payment of the quantified amount towards full and final settlement of tax dues and issue a certificate in form 4 - An interim order was passed on 15.06.2021 and thereafter such payment was made on 18/27.06.2021 along with interest. Held: An affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner stating that since the petitioner has not made the remittance within the due date of 30.06.2020, the application ought to be treated as lapsed - Bench sees no reason to keep this writ petition pending any more - The petitioner is permitted to make a representation within a period of one week from today, accompanied by a copy of this order to the Board and the Board is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from receipt thereafter - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 5]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1431-HC-MAD-ST
Tamil Nadu Chemists And Druggists Association Vs UoI
ST - Challenge is to an order-in-original dated 31.03.2016 levying service tax under Finance Act, 1994 under the head 'Membership of Clubs and Association Service', which liability the petitioner disputes - Both parties agree that this issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited) = 2019-TIOL-449-SC-ST-LB which judgment the assessing authority did not have the benefit of, at the time when the impugned order-in-original was passed - Impugned order is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the Assessing authority to be redone afresh bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court - Exercise be carried out within a period of sixteen (16) weeks - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2021-TIOL-364-CESTAT-BANG
General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - Refund - The Commissioner has rejected the refund only on the ground of lack of nexus between the input services and the output services which is exported - It was observed that with regard to certain services, the appellant has not filed the invoices which is not a correct finding because the appellants have filed the invoices and the same has been examined by original authority and the appellant has also filed the invoices before Tribunal also - It has been consistently held by Tribunal in various decisions that after the amendment of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no need for one to one correlation between the input services and the output services and moreover the Board Circular dated 16/03/2012 also clarified that no correlation is required because the intention of Government is to allow refund to the exporters and the Circular/clarification issued on this subject have to be viewed with the objective of allowing the refund - Further, the Department has not questioned the service tax paid on input services at the time when the cenvat credit was taken and as per the decision of Tribunal in case of K Line Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-100-CESTAT-MUM , it has been held that the Department is not permitted to question the same at the time of claiming refund - As far as Rent-a-Cab service is concerned which the Department has disputed on the ground of exclusion, said service has been used for providing output service and hence gets covered under the main clause of definition of 'input service' - The appellant is entitled to refund of cenvat credit: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: BANGALORE CESTAT
2021-TIOL-363-CESTAT-DEL
Borana Pumps Vs CCGST, C & CE
CX - The appellant manufactured products which were not eligible for exemption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., as amended, unless their products met the BIS standards - For the relevant period, appellant had no certification from BIS and no such certificate has been produced till date - It has also not been established that an application for certification was pending before BIS authorities and it has been issued subsequently - The case of Department is that the appellant has not disclosed full facts and before the appellant obtained registration there was no way for Department to know that the appellant was availing benefit of ineligible exemption notification - It is true that the appellant had not disclosed full facts to the Department inasmuch as the appellant had not said that goods were not certified by the BIS - However, this does not mean that the appellant had an intention to evade payment of duty - The duty structure in this case is inverted inasmuch as the inputs carried a duty of 10 or 12% while the final products were liable to duty @ 4% or 6% only - There is nothing which the appellant could have gained by evading 4%/6% and losing 10%/12% of the inputs - The intent to evade payment of duty is missing and has not been established by Revenue - Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-362-CESTAT-MAD
TG Silks Vs CC
Cus - The issue relates to late fee charges imposed for late filing of bills of entry - The cause of action in this appeal has occurred during the transition period of introduction of GSTIN registration - There were much technical difficulties faced by assessee/importer/exporter during that time due to system failure and server connectivity - There were many cases filed before the High Courts - Assessee could not obtain the GSTIN registration and had to apply for the second time - Being a new law, it is inferable that it is not easy for the public to understand how to apply and pay the tax under a new law - Further, under Notification No. 26/2017 itself, it is stated that such late fee can be waived if sufficient reasons are furnished before the proper officer - Thus, it is a condonable lapse - In the circular issued by Board dated 31.8.2017, it is stated that the importer should not be penalized for delay happening due to any system related defect - Since the period involved is during the transition period of GST, the late fee charges imposed is not warranted: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
