2021-TIOL-219-AAR-GST

India Pistons Ltd

GST - Activity of agreeing to part with the leasehold interests held by the applicant in favour of M/s. INOX Air Products Private Limited is 'Supply' as defined under Section 7 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 and GST is liable to be paid on the consideration of Rs. 15 Crores received by them: AAR

GST - It is evident that SIPCOT who owns the land has leased the allocated land to IPL (applicant) for a period of 99 years - IPL by virtue of the lease conditions, do not possess the right to sub-let any part or whole of the property leased to them - However, IPL may transfer the leasehold rights to any other person with the approval of SIPCOT, who may or may not grant such approval - Thus, it is clear that the applicant holds the leasehold rights which he may agree to transfer to any other person but the applicant cannot per se transfer the leasehold rights to such person - The only option that exists for the applicant is to request SIPCOT to approve such an agreement entered into by the applicant with the other person and request SIPCOT to approve and execute the modified deed of lease for the remaining period - Accordingly, in the case at hand, IPL had agreed to transfer the leasehold rights held by them in respect of the land required by INOX to their favour for a consideration and requested SIPCOT to approve the same - SIPCOT has approved the request and stipulated the payment of differential cost of land & processing fees by INOX and thereupon to execute the modified lease deed by both IPL and INOX for their respective leaseholds - From the MOU, which is the agreement entered into between IPL and INOX for the activity of agreeing to part with the leasehold rights held by IPL in favour of INOX, it is seen that IPL assures to undertake certain activities and INOX acknowledges the same which clearly exhibits the relationship between IPL and INOX as a service provider and recipient - The compensation for parting with the interests is definitely a consideration for agreeing to part with the interests held by IPL in the leasehold - The transaction is not a transfer of leasehold as IPL by the clauses of Lease deed executed with SIPCOT is not permitted to sub-lease - The activity of IPL as seen from the Memorandum of Understanding executed between IPL and INOX and the approval letter of SIPCOT, is only a transaction in which IPL agrees to part with the leasehold interests it possesses for the remaining lease period in favour of INOX with the approval of SIPCOT in respect of the land required by INOX - Therefore, the activity is not transfer of leasehold rights by IPL to INOX but is an activity of agreeing to part with the leasehold interests IPL holds on the land to be leased to INOX by SIPCOT - If it were a transfer of leasehold rights, there should be an agreement for such transfer between IPL and INOX - It is stated by IPL that apart from the Memorandum of Understanding, there is no agreement between IPL and INOX - The modified lease deed is also executed by IPL and INOX independently with SIPCOT and INOX is to pay the differential cost of lease rentals and processing charges to SIPCOT, as seen from the approval letter of SIPCOT - The above, clearly establishes that the activity undertaken by IPL in agreeing to part with the interests of the leasehold rights in the land required by INOX for furtherance of their business, against a consideration is an activity of 'agreeing to do an act', is a 'Supply' as defined under Section 7 of the Goods and Services Act 2017, which is a taxable service classifiable under 'Other Miscellaneous Services', with SAC 9997: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-218-AAR-GST

Ashok Leyland Ltd

GST - As per Section 95, Advance Ruling can be sought in respect of the proposed supplies - It is pertinent to note that the applicant themselves have stated that they had not made any supplies and only their entities in the State of Karnataka and Rajasthan have undertaken such supplies - In this situation, without the specifics of the supply, the classification in general cannot be extended inasmuch as the competing CTH can be analysed only based on the specifics and the applicant has not furnished any purchase orders, copy of tenders to establish that they may have to supply such products in the near future or the specifics of the vehicle intended for such proposed supply - To classify a product, the complete nature of the product and features of the product should be known - Without such specific information, this forum has no idea about the nature of the product and how it will fit into this classification - Application requiring the classification of the said goods cannot be admitted for consideration on merits - Application is rejected: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2021-TIOL-1762-HC-MAD-CUS

K Ramadoss Vs CC

Cus - Proper officer who is competent to issue proceedings - Courts are always expected to dispose of the matters on merits and based on the facts and circumstances placed by the respective parties - Mere pendency of a case before the Supreme Court of India cannot be taken as a ground for the purpose of keeping the matters pending before the High Court - By citing the pendency of a case, the litigants may not be permitted to prolong the litigation, which may result in unjust gain to such litigants - The truthfulness of grounds are to be considered by the Courts, so also the necessity of adjournments - Adjournments are always enemy to justice and, therefore, even while granting adjournments, the Courts are expected to be cautious and ensure that the matters taken up once must be heard and disposed of in the manner known to law - This being the principles which is to be followed in the interest of Justice Delivery System, this Court is of the opinion that, by citing a pendency of one case before the High Court or the Supreme Court, adjournments cannot be granted in a routine manner - Admittedly, in the present case, the appellate remedy is available and the petitioners have not chosen to file the appeal - Law regarding the interpretation 'Proper Officer' is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB - Grounds raised in this regard are to be raised before the appellate authority by the petitioners and the appellate authority is bound to consider facts and circumstances as well as the legal grounds, including the ground of principles of natural justice as raised by the petitioners - Preliminary issue regarding the entertainability of a writ petition in the presence of an appellate remedy are elaborately considered by this Court in M/s. Sri Sathya Jewellery = 2021-TIOL-960-HC-MAD-CUS - Following this decision, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and file an appeal by following the procedure as contemplated and by complying with the conditions to prefer the appeal, within a period of 60 days - Matter to be adjudicated on merits as expeditiously as possible - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 6, 8, 9, 10]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1761-HC-MAD-CUS

KBS Manian And Bros Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Order of suspension of license is issued under Rule 19 (1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 - Petitioner submits that initial order of suspension itself was issued belatedly and thus the order impugned is to be set aside - Petitioner further submits that they are continuously enjoying the license during the pendency of the writ petition pursuant to the interim stay granted by this Court.

Held: Suspension can never be construed as a punishment - Suspension is an interim measure only for the purpose of keeping the Customs Broker away from the business transactions to protect the interest of the Customs area - Undoubtedly, prolonged suspension of license is also bad in law - Such prolonged suspension would not serve the purpose for which the power of interim suspension is contemplated under the Regulations - Court is of an opinion that the necessity of suspension and its continuance are to be considered by the Commissioner with reference to the facts and circumstances established - Impugned order was passed on 15.06.2016 and five years have lapsed and further the petitioner is enjoying the broker licence during the pendency of the writ petition - This being the factum, the respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same within a period of six months - Till such time the final orders are passed by the Competent Authority, the order of suspension, dated 15.06.2016, is kept in abeyance - Writ petition allowed: High Court [para 9 to 12]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-534-CESTAT-MAD

Sivamurugan Chit Fund Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The appellant is engaged in chit fund business and they paid Service Tax on foreman charges collected for their chit fund activities for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.05.2013 - They filed its refund claim on the ground that Service Tax was not chargeable on the services rendered by foreman in chit fund business - It is the settled position of law that any judgement of Supreme Court is the law of land - Therefore, when the Supreme Court holds that there was no question of liability to Service Tax, then, any amount collected under the guise of Service Tax becomes a collection of said amount without the authority of law and Revenue can never, therefore, claim any right over such amount; the same will have to be refunded forthwith to the concerned person - Hence, no merit found in orders of lower authorities - There is a clear four-year delay in filing the refund claim - Therefore, appellant is not entitled for any interest for delay caused by it - For working out refund along with consequential benefits, matter is restored to the file of Original Authority, who shall work out the refund: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-533-CESTAT-AHM

Nayara Energy Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of inputs/capital goods, i.e., Welding Electrode, Filler Wire/ Welding Wire, PSC Sleepers/MBC PSC Sleepers/ Rail IU Grade, M.S. Gratings/G.I. Coated Gratings , Electrode and Wire FLR - All the goods have been used in or in relation to manufacture of final product directly or indirectly - MS Gratings were used as an essential accessory for supporting and holding and for approaching or reaching out plants/processing units of refinery in which raw material is processed for manufacture of petroleum products - Looking to the nature of industry, it is a technological necessity without which the processing unit cannot perform - As regard welding material, it is used for repairs and maintenance of the plants and machinery, the repair and maintenance activities are essential for smooth manufacturing operations without which manufacturing activity is not feasible, therefore, the cenvat credit is clearly admissible - Railway line material is used to move inputs/raw material and manufactured goods within the factory premises - The movement of goods through railway track is directly connected to the manufacture of final product, therefore, the credit cannot be denied on these items - There is no dispute that all these items on which the credit was claimed by appellant have been dealt with in various judgements and the credit was allowed - Therefore, appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on said goods - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-532-CESTAT-MAD

Icomm Tele Ltd Vs CC

Cus - It is submitted by appellant that the company faced financial difficulties and an application was filed by one of the financial creditors under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 for recovering debts owned by company - The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) issued order for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in regard to company under section 13 of IBC - Accordingly, a Resolution Plan was floated by Resolution Professional for approval of Committee of Creditors - The same was approved on 29.6.2019 - The Resolution Plan was submitted before NCLT as required under section 30(6) of IBC - It was approved by NCLT vide order dated 17.10.2019 and the Resolution Plan is effective from this date which the NCLT Approval Date - The dispute underlying in the appeal stands settled under Resolution Plan and nothing survives - She prayed that appeal may be heard out of turn to record the approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT and the appeal may be disposed accordingly - Taking note of the fact that the NCLT has approved the resolution plan in insolvency proceedings in regard to the company, appeal does not survive any more: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: CHENNAI CESTAT