2021-TIOL-202-SC-ST
CCE & ST Vs Bilfinder Neo Structo Contruction Ltd
ST - Condonation of delay in appeal filed by Revenue - Solicitor General of India requested to appear to assist the Court and apprise it of the steps which would be taken by the Union government - Matter listed on 15.02.2021.
Held: Solicitor General has fairly responded to the request made by this Court and a detailed note has been placed on the record after deliberations have taken place with senior officials of the Union government, including the Finance Secretary, Union Law Secretary and the Chairpersons of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - During the course of the hearing, various suggestions have been discussed including the need to incorporate technological innovations in the process of monitoring litigation involving the revenue arm of the Union government - In order to facilitate further deliberations by the authorities of the Union government, Bench posts the further hearing on 15 March 2021 - Since sufficient cause has been shown in condoning the delay, delay in filing the appeal is condoned: Supreme Court [para 2, 3]
- Application allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-201-SC-ST
CCE & ST Vs Bilfinder Neo Structo Contruction Ltd
ST - Delay of 536 days in filing the appeal by Revenue - Counsel for Revenue submits that there was some mis-apprehension on the part of the Commissionerate as a result of which the appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court and after the appeal was dismissed, this Court was moved.
Held: Appeals in Revenue matters are being filed with a gross delay - Legal position that the appeal would lie before this Court cannot be a matter of doubt - In the event this Court does not allow the application for condonation of delay, the officers may seek to justify their inaction by contending that they had moved this Court with an application for condonation of delay which was not entertained - Union government must find an answer to this state of affairs by ensuring that matters which are required to be litigated are litigated with all necessary dispatch and matters not worthy of being pursued are set to rest - Solicitor General of India requested to appear to assist the Court and apprise it of the steps which would be taken by the Union government - Matter listed on 15.02.2021: Supreme Court
- Matter listed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-1508-HC-MAD-ST
Mehra Computer Systems Vs Designated Committee
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to accept the remittance of tax as set out under Form SVLDRS-3 - Form 3 has been issued in the case of the petitioner's applications on five dates, i.e., 10.01.2020, 29.01.2020, 26.02.2020, 27.02.2020 and 03.04.2020 - The last date for remittance of the amounts is 30 days from the date of receipt of Form 3 - This period stood extended till 30.06.2021 by R3, bearing in mind the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - The aforesaid date has not been extended thereafter despite manifold requests by assessees, pan India.
Held : In the present case, the Writ Petitions are presented only on 30.04.2021, 10 months after the last date for remittance of the amounts - No plausible reason is set out in the affidavit justifying the delay except to state that the assessees were facing hardships on account of the COVID-19 pandemic - In the light of the long delay sans explanation, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petitions dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2021-TIOL-398-CESTAT-BANG
Automotive Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs CCT & CE
ST - The appellant filed the refund claim for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 being the amount of service tax wrongly paid under Business Auxiliary Service in respect of the reimbursements from principal manufacturers towards the service - The only ground on which the impugned order has rejected the refund claim is that Chartered Accountant certificate alone is not sufficient - The Tribunal in the case of MP Sugar and Chemicals 2007-TIOL-576-CESTAT-BANG held that certificate issued by Chartered Accountant has an evidentiary value and should not be rejected lightly because the said certificate has been issued after the verification of the accounts of appellant - Besides the Chartered Accountant certificate, the appellant has also produced audited statements of accounts as well as the certificate from the manufacturer which should be sufficient to hold that the appellant has not passed the incidence of tax to any other person and hence entitled to claim refund - The original authority is directed to grant the refund within one month: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2021-TIOL-397-CESTAT-DEL
Raipur Power And Steel Ltd Vs CCE, CGST & C
CX - The appellant have availed cenvat credit of service tax on banking and finance service - SCN was issued to the appellant as it appeared to Revenue that the credit of Rs. 25,14,532/- attributable for Pelletizing Plant is not allowable in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 2(l) read with Rule 9(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The setting-up of Pelletizing machine/plant is undisputedly for modernisation of existing manufacturing facility for better efficiency and better quality of finished products, which amounts to modernisation - Further, modernisation is allowable and any service used by appellant/manufacturer for modernisation of their manufacturing facility is allowable input service - The input credit of Rs. 25,14,532/- is allowable credit under Rule 2(l) read with Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The impugned order is held to be erroneous and mis-conceived and accordingly same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-396-CESTAT-AHM
Banco Products Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is admissibility of Cenvat Credit in respect of outward GTA - On the identical facts, in appellant's own case Cenvat Credit has been allowed by Tribunal after relying upon Tribunal's judgment in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd 2007-TIOL-429-CESTAT-AHM and Sanghi Industries Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1709-CESTAT-AHM - Therefore, following the same, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-395-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs Angel Starch And Food Pvt Ltd
Cus - The issue arises is, whether the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) allowing amendment of shipping bill is legal and proper - It is seen that if EGM/shipping bill filed is incorrect or incomplete, a request can be made for amendment of the same - Such request can be allowed on satisfaction by proper officer that the request made is genuine - The appellant has requested for amendment to include MEIS benefit - The department does not have a case that the appellant is not eligible for MEIS benefit claimed by them - The appeal has been filed by department stating flimsy grounds that the department would not be able to retrieve the shipping bill so as to check and verify the amendment made - When the law provides for amendment of shipping bill, the department cannot raise such contentions to deny the legal right of an exporter - The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly discussed the facts and the law applicable to the present case to allow the appeal filed by the appellant - So also, in the Final Order 2017-TIOL-3127-CESTAT-MAD of the Tribunal, similar issue was considered which has been relied by Commissioner (Appeals) to grant the amendment of shipping bill - The order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) requires no interference: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
|
