2021-TIOL-1804-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST

NSPR PLR JV Vs Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State Tax (GST)

GST - Appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 31/12/2019 against the order of imposing the tax liability which was communicated on 12/09/2019 - Order dated 17/06/2020 has been passed rejecting the appeal on the ground that petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of 10% as required u/s 107(6)(b) of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that the said order is wrong on facts inasmuch as since the entire tax liability was deducted from the cash ledger, therefore, the deposit of 10% amount while filing the appeal would automatically stand satisfied - Counsel for Revenue confirms that the entire tax liability was deducted on 15/01/2020 as no stay was operating.

Held: Appeal was required to be filed within three months, however, it was filed with a delay on 31/12/2019 - If the entire amount of tax liability has been deducted on 15/01/2020 and the appeal was pending along with an application for condonation of delay, then the appellate authority can always adjudicate the facts whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay and may further extend the period of filing for a period of one month as per section 107 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Tax part having been deducted on 15/01/2020, then it would amount to satisfaction of deposit of tax of 10% to the account of the respondent - Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal only on the ground that 10% amount has not been deposited cannot be too technically viewed - Order dated 17/06/2020 is set aside and the respondents are directed to decide the appeal on merits - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4]

- Petition disposed of: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1803-HC-GUW-GST

Lukman Hussain @ Lokman Hussain Vs State of Assam

GST - Export and import trade with Bangladesh - Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail u/s 439 of CrPC in connection with case under various sections of IPC Act; that the accused has undergone police interrogation for two days and as such his further detention may not be necessary - Counsel for Revenue submits that the basic allegation is forgery of documents for the purpose of illegal transportation of coal, limestone by way of export and import as well as transporting such materials in excess of the GST paid causing huge loss of GST, sales tax etc.; that it is a coal syndicate and the accused and others are doing export and import illegally without paying GST or through fake invoices and the whole matter needs in-depth investigation; that the FIR mentions that illegal transportation and export business of coal is going on in Karimganj district in connivance with coal suppliers, coal exporters and coal export-import associations by various illegal means.

Held: Court is of the opinion that if bail is granted to the accused at the present stage of investigation, the entire investigation is likely to be hampered - bail application is rejected - investigating officer is directed to expedite investigation: High Court

- Application rejected: GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1802-HC-AP-GST

AS Steel Traders VSP Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 is under challenge - An interim prayer is also made for de-blocking the Input Tax Credit and permit the petitioners to utilise the ITC of Rs.2,40,76,129/- blocked in the Electronic Credit Ledger as on 28.01.2020 - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that the petitioner should have availed the remedy mentioned in rule 86A(2) and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

Held : Rule 86A(3) is very specific to the effect the restriction imposed will cease to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction - There being no dispute that the period of one year having elapsed from the date of restriction imposed in the form of blocking the ITC, Bench finds force in the contention of the petitioner - Accordingly, Bench directs the respondents to de-block the  Electronic Credit Ledger  and permit the petitioners to utilise the Input Tax Credit, within a period of seven days: High Court

- Interim order passed: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-551-CESTAT-KOL

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue to be decided is, whether costs reimbursed by appellant to CISF for medical & telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation and free supply of rented vehicles are to be added to assessable value for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis - The appellant is already depositing service tax on reverse charge basis on the cost of deployment, cost of arms and ammunition and cost of clothing items (uniforms) which is not in dispute - The Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in case of Central Industrial Security Force 2019-TIOL-3277-CESTAT-ALL , has already settled the issue in favour of appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure on Dog Squad, stationery expenses, telephone charges, expenditure incurred by service recipient for accommodation provided to CISF are not includible - Further, the Principal Bench in the case of Commandant CISF, CISF Unit 2019-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-DEL has also held that free accommodation provided by service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value - The Commissioner has merely confirmed the demand in impugned adjudication order on the ground that the issue was pending for consideration before Supreme Court in case Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd and Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST on the date of passing impugned order - Since the issue is no longer res integra, as the legal position has already been decided by Supreme Court in both the judgements, Tribunal is bound by said legal position - In so far as the issue of extended period of limitation is concerned, Tribunal do not find any case of fraud or suppression and hence, the notice issued by invoking extended period is not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2021-TIOL-550-CESTAT-CHD

Tata Motors Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The appellant is a manufacture of motor vehicles and accessories thereof - The issue arises is that whether the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on commission paid to the various financers for selling their vehicles or not in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant is paying commission to the financers for selling their vehicles to various prospective buyers on vehicles manufactured by appellant - If these financers do not finance the vehicles manufactured by appellant, the vehicles of appellant are not able to be sold in the open market freely - Therefore, these financers are indirectly providing the services of sales promotion to the appellant - Sales promotion is inclusive part of definition and the same can be availed beyond the place of removal as there is no bar on the same in the definition itself - In view of the decision in case of TVS Motor Company Ltd. 2021-TIOL-771-HC-Mad-CX , on commission paid to various financers for arranging the prospective buyers to the appellant for sale of vehicles, appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit as 'sale promotion' is an "input service" - Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-549-CESTAT-MAD

Unimech Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of tractor parts on job work basis on the materials received from M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (TAFE) and cleared the finished products to TAFE on payment of duty - The issue involved is whether the value of scrap arising during the course of manufacture and retained by appellant has to be included as additional consideration in assessable value for purpose of discharging duty - The very same issue was considered by Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order dated 18.12.2017 and the Tribunal has set aside the demand after following the decision in case of P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. which was affirmed by Supreme Court - Similar issue was decided in case of Cadbury India Ltd. 2006-TIOL-88-SC-CX wherein it was held that for determining the cost of production of captively consumed goods, CAS-4 has to be applied which has been done by appellant - The impugned orders cannot sustain, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-548-CESTAT-MAD

Tenneco Automotive India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The refund claim of appellant has been denied on the ground that the RD challans have not been furnished as evidence for the payment of EDD with respect to 16 Bills-of-Entry and for this reason alone, they were not considered for sanctioning refund - It is also on record that the appellant had submitted an indemnity bond for its lapse and in any case, it is not the Revenue's case that no payments of EDD in so far as the 16 Bills-of-Entry are concerned, were ever made - The C.B.E.C. has issued Circulars/Notifications for guidance of the Officers by prescribing documents that may be considered for granting refund - If the appellant offers indemnity bond with the support of a Chartered Accountant Certificate, then that could also be considered as a valid document while processing refund - The issue in so far as the 16 Bills-of-Entry are concerned, requires a relook by Adjudicating Authority, who shall afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant to offer all such supporting documentary evidences as may be prescribed under various C.B.E.C. Circulars/Notifications, which are also binding on the Adjudicating Authority, and then, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT