2021-TIOL-1611-HC-MAD-VAT

Majestic Recreation Club Vs ACCT

In writ, the High Court observes that the issues raised in the present appeal are similar to those settled in favor of the assessee in a preceding matter. Following the same, the demand notice is quashed.

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Meenakshi Bhavan Vs Assistant Commissioner

In writ, the High Court directs that the Revenue authorities consider the representation filed by the assessee be considered and that appropriate orders be passed on merits, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1609-HC-KOL-CUS

Emami Agrotech Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - The petitioners are aggrieved by SCNs issued by D.R.I. under Section 124 r/w Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - They submitted that subsequent to the judgement of Supreme Court in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB , the D.R.I. has lost its authority to issue any SCN under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - The D.R.I. submitted that this is not a SCN simplicitor under Section 28 and therefore one would have to examine the SCN - There appears to be a prima facie case for staying the SCN following the judgement in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. - Another prayer has been made for releasing of bank guarantees furnished by petitioners for provisional release of goods - It has been submitted that the value of these bank guarantees is totalling to approximately Rupees Forty-two crores and keeping the bank guarantees alive is resulting in blockage of entire amount and impacting the business of petitioners - He has further submitted that the petitioner-company is willing to provide an alternative source of security - The court however find that no alternative security has been shown in petitions: HC

- Petition partly allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Mirc Electronics Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The appellant avails Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and service tax on input services - During audit, it was observed that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on input services namely Rent-a-Cab, Insurance, Membership Fees and Travel Expenses - Such Cenvat Credit was denied by department on the ground that the disputed services are not confirming to the definition of 'input service' provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Both sides agree that the period of dispute involved is prior to April 2011 - Considering the period of dispute, case of appellant falls under definition of "input service", as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - The appellant did not submit documentary evidences either before original or first appellate authority to demonstrate that it is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on some of disputed services - Appellant fairly concedes the facts regarding non-submission of proper documents for verification by lower authorities - Since, the onus lies with the appellant for proper substantiation of fact regarding availment of Cenvat credit on disputed services has not been fulfilled, denial of Cenvat benefit on such services in impugned order cannot be faulted with and accordingly, sustain for judicial scrutiny - The original authority had invoked provisions of Section 11AC of erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w erstwhile Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 for imposition of equal amount of penalty on appellant - Undisputedly, appellant had maintained statutory records, reflecting therein the particulars of availment of Cenvat credit on entire disputed services and that the irregularities were observed by audit wing of department during scrutiny of records - It cannot be said that there is element of suppression in defrauding the Government revenue by appellant - Thus, invocation of penal provisions for imposition of penalty on appellant, without proper corroboration of facts, will not meet the ends of justice - The impugned order is set aside to the extent it has upheld confirmation of demand of Cenvat credit along with interest on the services viz., Insurance, Membership fees and Travel Foreign Ticket - With regard to the other services viz., Rent-a-Cab and Travel Expenses (Foreign), the impugned order sustains and the appellant is liable to pay the adjudged Cenvat demand along with interest - Insofar as confirmation of imposition of penalty is concerned, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Sri Angallamman Knit Fabrics Vs CC

Cus - The department alleges misuse of EPCG licence scheme and use of false and incorrect documents for export of garments as third party exporter - The EPCG licence is issued in 2015 by DGFT and the period for completion of export obligation is six years - SCN has been issued on 18.11.2020 - The contention of appellant that SCN alleging non-fulfilment of export obligation is premature is therefore not without merits - As regard to overvaluation of exported goods in shipping bills, though department alleges that Rithwikk Garments has fabricated the documents and has committed offence under Section 114AA, department has not been able to establish these allegations - The value of goods declared by M/s. Rithvikk Garments in shipping bill has been held to be overvalued merely on the basis of job work invoice raised by appellant - There is no evidence to show that M/s. Rithwikk Garments had intentionally made any false endorsements on the shipping bill - From the statements of both the appellants, it is clear that it is the first time they have endorsed shipping bills with this EPCG licence - The confiscation of export goods cannot sustain and it is hereby set aside - Penalty imposed on both the appellants is unwarranted: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT