2021-TIOL-1916-HC-MUM-ST
Interdrill Repairs And Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Section 123(a)(i) of the Scheme inter alia permits eligibility of an assessee whose appeal arising out of an order-in-original is pending as of June 30, 2019 - Admittedly the petitioner's appeal challenging the order in original dated March 16, 2018 was pending on the cut-off date, i.e., on June 30, 2019, as the same was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) at a later date, that is, on July 9, 2019 - The petitioner had inadvertently filed its declaration under SVLDR Rule 3(2)(b), i.e., amount in arrears, instead of SVLDR Rule 3(2)(a), which is under the category where the show cause notice of one or more appeals is pending as on June 30, 2019 - It appears that such mistake was a bonafide mistake of having filed the 'SVLDR form' under a wrong category - In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme, if any other conditions under the scheme are being fulfilled by the petitioner: High Court [para 12]
ST - Appeal was required to be filed within the limitation of 60 days from the receipt of the order-in-original and the indication in Hindi of the requirement to file an appeal within 90 days is erroneous - Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the error - Considering the fact that the order-in-original dated March 16, 2018 was received by the petitioner on March 24, 2018 and the appeal was filed on June 21, 2018, which is on the 88th day, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in rejecting the appeal as time barred: High Court [para 13]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1915-HC-MAD-CUS
Sabeer Ahamed Sayeed Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent to defer the adjudication proceedings before the respondent in Show Cause notice No. 3/2020 ( Commr .) dated 25.02.2020 till the completion of the Criminal Case in CC No. 131 of 2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruchirappalli
Held: Nowhere in the Customs Act, there is any prohibition to defer the adjudication process, while the criminal proceedings is underway under Section 135 of the Customs Act - In the adjudication process to be undertaken by the respondent being quasi-judicial proceedings, the ultimate decision to be taken is as to whether penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act has to be imposed against the petitioner or not - Whereas, in the Criminal proceedings, which has already been launched against the petitioner, after full-fledged trial, the Criminal Court will decide as to the guilt of the petitioner whether he has to be punished or not - Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that merely because adjudication process is being conducted, that will have a prejudice against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings launched against him - Only in service jurisprudence, these kind of interferences would be possible - Therefore, the same principle cannot be expected to be adopted here as the proceedings for adjudication as well as the criminal proceedings both, are contemplated under the same Act and both are in different perspective for different purpose and ultimate conclusion is also different one - Therefore, it cannot be accepted that in the adjudication proceedings, some of the witnesses are going to be utilized by the Department, who are going to be cross examined by the petitioner, would be the same in the criminal Court and that will prejudice the interest of the petitioner in the criminal case - In the considered opinion of Court, ground raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted - Court feels that the challenge now made by the petitioner against the impugned summons dated 19.08.2021 directing the petitioner to appear for hearing on 27.08.2021 cannot be a successful challenge - Writ Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 17 to 20, 22]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1908-HC-DEL-CUS
Hemogenomics Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The petitioner is importer of goods, i.e., Procleix Ultrio Elite Assay Kit - Petitioner submitted that they are in need of goods as the same are to be utilized for prevailing Covid-19 situation in India - Looking at the urgent need of goods, petitioner had initially prayed for an order to be passed by respondent for provisional release of goods - A detailed speaking order has already been passed for provisional release of goods, which has been brought on record in this writ petition - The provisional release of goods can be challenged by petitioner in accordance with law before the appropriate forum - Looking to the fact that no order has been passed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962, concerned respondent authority is directed to pass a speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 upon the Bill of entries which are mentioned and have already been filed by importer: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT 2021-TIOL-615-CESTAT-MUM
Aurangabad Electricals Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Denial of Cenvat benefit in respect of service tax paid on employee compensation insurance service is the subject matter of dispute - The period of dispute involved is from May 2015 to April 2016 - It is not the case of Revenue that the insurance service was meant primarily for personal use by employees - Rather, the insurance policy was taken by appellant in respect of its employees as per the statutory mandates provided under Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The issue regarding entitlement of Cenvat credit in respect of employee compensation insurance service is no more res integra - The Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited 2021-TIOL-223-CESTAT-HYD-LB , by relying upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Ganeshan Builders Limited has held that the intention of insurance policy is to protect the employees who work at the site and not primarily for personal use or consumption of employee and thus, the premium paid by employer on such service should be considered as input service - In view of the settled position of law, no merits found in impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-614-CESTAT-AHM
Kevin Process Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit on the strength of Debit Note issued by importer in respect of import of machines and CVD paid there on was passed on to the appellant by way of Debit note - The Cenvat credit was denied by both the Lower Authorities interpreting the rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - As per rule 9 not only invoice or bill of entry but any other document is also the valid document for availing credit - The appellant has submitted the bill of entry of importer M/s CMC Machinery whereby the CVD was paid and proportionate CVD has been passed on through debit note - Debit note contains all the details as required to be mentioned in Cenvatable documents - Moreover, appellant also submitted a certificate from M/s CMC which bears the IEC Code number of the importer - With this fact a debit note can be considered as valid documents for availing Cenvat credit - This issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of Mahanagar Gas Limited - The debit note is the document on the basis of which the Cenvat Credit is admissible - There is no dispute about receipt of goods - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent it disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,93,067/-Corresponding penalty if any and interest thereon are also set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-613-CESTAT-HYD
Virajit Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The appellant is providing services under various categories - They paid an amount in code bearing No. 'D001' instead of actually registered code bearing No. 'D002' - The moment, mistake was pointed out, appellant deposited the amount in account number D002 - Thereafter, he has prayed for the refund of amount as was earlier got deposited in account number D001 - Impugned refund claim was forwarded to jurisdictional range officer calling for a verification report - Both the reports were prior in time than the impugned SCN - SCN in fact should not have been issued - The verification report of department itself, is falsifying the said case and is supporting the appellant's contention that the same liability has been discharged twice by appellant once inadvertently in the inactive account, subsequently, in the active account - In view of said report, no other evidence was required to be produced by appellant - Otherwise also it is a settled law that onus always rests upon the department to prove allegations raised in SCN - It is apparent that Commissioner (A) has ignored the verification done by department itself which proves that there is no such liability towards appellant for the impugned period which require deposit of amount twice - Thus, refund was rightly been filed - The order under challenge is held to be not sustainable, accordingly, is hereby set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-612-CESTAT-MAD
Abi Showatech India Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - The appellants are engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts - They have deputed their employees for the business contingencies arising in their own group companies such as, M/s. LAP Ross Engineering Ltd; payments for which were made by debit notes or book adjustments - They have not raised any invoice as such and did not collect the service tax - Understandably, the relation between appellants and the group companies to which their employees have been deputed is not one of an agency and the client - This issue was discussed at length by High Court of Gujarat in case of Arvind Mills Ltd. 2014-TIOL-441-HC-AHM-ST - As submitted by appellant, this Bench in their own case have decided the issue in their favour by relying upon the said case and in the case of Turbo Energy Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3874-CESTAT-MAD - The issue is no longer res integra and stands unequivocally decided in favour of appellant - Hence the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
