2021-TIOL-1565-HC-MAD-MISC

C Joseph Vijay Vs State of Tamilnadu

Whether Entry Tax is liable to be paid on vehicle imported from abroad & writ petition filed by assessee seeking to evade payment of Entry Tax merits being punishable with costs imposed - YES: HC

- Writ petitions dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1564-HC-KERALA-CUS

Rasa International Vs CC

Cus - The petitioner has ordered for import of mosquito squatters - However, shipping of those goods was delayed - In between, the date of order and the date of shipment, the DGFT had issued a notification on 26.04.2021 prohibiting import of mosquito squatters - The petitioner had therefore requested for re-export of goods - The respondents opposes the petition and submits that now the order of absolute confiscation has already been passed - The petitioner deserves the consideration of his case by 2nd respondent for one more time as now the petitioner wants to re-export those goods - The matter is remitted for fresh consideration: HC

- Matter remanded: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-423-CESTAT-MAD

Hero Cycles Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant filed application for refund of ACD in terms of Notfn 102/2007-Cus. - Same was partly rejected - Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund on the ground that as per correlation sheet, description in Bill-of-Entry and invoices did not tally; that the last digit in Bill-of-Entry was entered as "3" instead of "8", which was due to inadvertence and the appellant had submitted revised correlation sheet duly certified by Chartered Accountant - Since this requires factual verification based on documents and also taking into consideration the common request for remand, matter is remanded back to the file of Adjudicating Authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-422-CESTAT-BANG

CSG Systems International India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The appellant is registered under service tax for providing taxable services falling under categories of commercial training and coaching, Manpower recruitment agency service and information technology software service and Business Auxilliary service - Appellant filed a refund claim of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax availed on input services used for providing output services in terms of provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - The first O-I-O, remand O-I-O and the impugned order, all have travelled beyond SCN because in SCN, there is no allegation regarding intermediary service which has been upheld by both the authorities by ignoring the earlier direction of remand order passed by Commissioner (A) - As far as merit is concerned, even the appellant has proved by referring to Master Service Agreement that the sales marketing and support services provided to its group companies are export of service because the said services have been provided on principal to principal basis and there is no element of principal-agent relationship - The Commissioner (A) has selectively picked up the clauses in the Master Agreement without analyzing the agreement as a whole which is also bad in law as held by Supreme Court in case of Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. 2008-TIOL-82-SC-ST - Further, the appellant has satisfied all the six conditions of Rule 6A which proves that these services rendered by them are export of service - The impugned order is bad in law as it has travelled beyond the SCN and also on merit, the services rendered by appellant fall in the definition of 'Export of Service' and the appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

Metco Roof Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CGST & CE

CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is eligible to utilize cenvat credit on Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess for payment of Excise duty after the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules w.e.f. 01.03.2015 - The decision by Delhi High Court 2018-TIOL-310-HC-DEL-ST has analysed the issue after the introduction of amendments in Rules 3 (7) (b) of CCR, 2004 by Notfn 12/2015-CE (NT) - The demand raised under SCN for recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit is legal and proper - However, considering that the issue is of interpretational nature, the equal penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 r/w Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 is unwarranted and cannot sustain - Impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside penalty only without disturbing the confirmation of demand in respect of cenvat credit / duty along with interest: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT