2021-TIOL-230-SC-ST
CST Vs Global Coal And Mining Pvt Ltd
ST - Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s KPCL for washing of coal transported from mines to the washing facilities situated in the mining area - First issue involved is whether the activity of beneficiation of coal carried out by the Assessee would fall under BAS - Tribunal observed that the Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the binding decisions of the Tribunal in Aryan Energy, Aryan Coal and Spectrum Coal ; that the said activity is taxable only under mining services from 1.6.2007 and not BAS - As regards the second issue namely, whether the reimbursements received from the customers towards transportation charges, railway freight can be included in the taxable value, Tribunal relied on SC observation in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited - 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST and held that the value of material which is supplied free by the service recipient cannot be treated as "gross amount charged" as the same is not a "consideration" - Inasmuch as the order of Principal Commissioner was set aside by Tribunal - Revenue is in appeal against the said order.
Held: After condoning delay, appeal is admitted: Supreme Court
- Appeal admitted: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-229-SC-CUS
UoI Vs MD Overseas Ltd
Cus - High Court had held that the Public notice No. 35/2015-2020 dated 26th September, 2019 mandating that Advance authorisation shall not be issued where item of export is 'Gold Medallions and Coins' or 'Any jewellery/articles manufactured by fully mechanised process' is beyond the power, jurisdiction and authority of DGFT; that the power exercised by DGFT under paragraph 1.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 is illegal and, therefore, the same was quashed and set aside - Revenue is in appeal against the said order.
Held: No reason to interfere in the matter - Special Leave Petition is dismissed: Supreme Court
- Petition dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-228-SC-CX
CCE & ST Vs Pipavav Shipyard Ltd
CX - Gujarat High Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal and allowed the CENVAT credit in respect of HR Plates, MS Flats, MS Coils, Wire Ropes, Rail, Welding Electrode and the services used for fabrication of these cranes viz. Goliath Crane, Jib Crane, Gantry Crane, Electric Overhead Traveling (EOT) Crane; also allowed CENVAT credit of duty paid on Inputs/Capital goods and Service tax paid on taxable services used for fabrication of Dry dock (a concrete structure) - Revenue is in appeal against this order.
Held: Leave granted and matter is listed along with SLP 2586 of 2021.
- Matter listed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-227-SC-CX-LB
CCGST Vs Ultratech Cement Ltd
CX - CESTAT had allowed the assessee to avail CENVAT credit of service tax on outward transportation for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 - Revenue appeal was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court by noting that in view of the finding of facts given by Tribunal by relying upon the Board Circular No. 1065/2018-CX dated 8th June 2018 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd = 2014-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-DEL and in Roofit Industries = 2015-TIOL-87-SC-CX , no question of law arises - Revenue is in appeal against this order.
Held: Leave granted and tagged with Civil Appeal no. 3699 of 2020: Supreme Court
- Appeal admitted: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-1785-HC-MAD-CUS
IL And FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Petition is filed questioning the legal validity of the Communication dated 02.07.2014 issued by the second respondent - Inasmuch as the notification dated 17 th March 2012 mandates that the importer furnishes a security in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt from any Scheduled Bank for a term of thirty six months or more in the name of the President of India for an amount equal to the duty of customs payable on such imports but for this exemption, whereas the letter mentions about the auto renewal facility in the FD/bank guarantee - Revenue counsel submits that the Customs Department is bound by the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding acceptance of Bank Guarantee in DBOD.No . Dir.BC.14/13.03.00/2009-10 dated 01.07.2009/Board Circular dated 30.06.2010; that the Communication dated 02.07.2014 was issued in consonance with the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, even if the petitioner is of an opinion that it is aggrieved from and out of such Circular, they have to seek relief from the Reserve Bank of India and certainly not against the Customs Department; that when the petitioners themselves in their letter accept the Auto Renewal facility provided by the Banks, pursuant to the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, there is no reason to consider the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.
Held: Court is of an opinion that Auto Renewal clause is a facility provided by the Banks and the petitioner was not able to establish that in the event of opting such Auto Renewal clause, their rights are affected - A writ petition may be entertained if the petitioner is able to establish a right and such a right is infringed - By opting an Auto Renewal clause, the rights of the petitioners are not going to be affected with reference to the business transactions or agreements otherwise - Petitioner is at liberty to opt for Auto Renewal clause as they agreed in the letters enabling the authorities to proceed further in respect of the transactions - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
