I-T - Assessment order without 'opportunity to show cause' merits to be set aside: HC

I-T - Rule of discretion & self imposed restraint qua writ court has to be applied strictly when it comes to fiscal statutes as long as exceptions such as NJP violation are not attracted: HC

I-T - Tribunal, being last authority to examine factual position, its order cannot be challenged on factual dispute: HC

I-T - Department cannot retain seized assets whose worth is more than disputed tax liability of assessee, if any assessment was pending during relevant point of time: HC

I-T- Assessment can't be framed in name of an non-existent entity : ITAT

I-T - Additions framed in search assessment are unsustainable where they are not based on any incriminating material seized in course of search operations : ITAT

I-T -Re-opening of assessment - reasons recorded cannot be substituted at a later point in time by subsequent evidences: ITAT

I-T - During relevant AY, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied on statutory liabilities pertaining to preceding AY : ITAT

I-T - Security deposit taken at time of giving a property on lease, is treatable as capital receipt and will not be taxable : ITAT

I-T - Assessee's claim u/s 12AA cannot be rejected for a mere mistake in spelling of the trust's name : ITAT

I-T - If deduction has been allowed in AY in which claim was first made, AO cannot withdraw relief for subsequent years if there is no change in facts and circumstances of case : ITAT

I-T- AO does not have jurisdiction to reopen assessment if reason to believe escapement of income is based on erroneous facts : ITAT

I-T - Assessee engaged in business of development of website and providing Call Centre Back End Services is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10A : ITAT

I-T - additions framed to assessee's income are sustained where assessee cannot furnish sufficient details to determine the profit arising out of the sale of the built-up space : ITAT

Cus - Revenue failed to establish mala fides of appellant, since nowhere has Revenue alleged that the appellant was aware or had acted deliberately, so penalty is not sustainable : CESTAT

ST - When the service provider obtained registration only for one service, but provided several services, refund cannot be rejected on the ground that the service provider has not obtained registration : CESTAT

2021-TIOL-626-CESTAT-MAD

Mahadev Granites Vs CC

Cus - The allegation in SCN is that the appellant, IEC holder of M/s. Mahadev Granites appears to have acted in a reckless manner in allowing his IEC to be misused by Shri Ramesh and allowing himself to be manipulated by Shri Ramesh by projecting Shri N.P.N. Pugazhenthi as his staff thereby facilitating the illegal export of red sanders out of India and hence appears to be liable for penal action under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - The Surveyor, who is not an interested party, has categorically opined that the container was in fact tampered with and surprisingly, it is not the case of Revenue that it was the appellant who was responsible for the tampering with, as indicated by Shri M. Annamalai - It is not even the case of Revenue that the appellant had acquaintance with so-called mastermind i.e., Shri Ramesh which prompted the appellant to act in a reckless manner - Nor is it the case of Revenue that the appellant had knowingly or intentionally signed any statement or document which was false - So also, Revenue has failed to establish the mala fides of appellant since nowhere has the Revenue alleged that the appellant was aware or had acted deliberately - No justification found to sustain penalty and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-625-CESTAT-MAD

Jet Airways India Ltd Vs CC

Cus - It was requested by appellant that the change of address and also an appointment of Resolution Professional under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 be taken on record - Appellant submits that during the hearing, it was enquired as to whether a moratorium imposed by NCLT has been lifted under Section 14 of Insolvency Code - The moratorium imposed under Section 14 of Insolvency Code has been lifted by NCLT vide its impugned order - Moreover, the crux of issue is that even though the moratorium was imposed, it was on the claims by creditors and it was not applicable to the instant case which does not deal with any demand against the appellant but involves, on the contrary, a claim by appellant themselves - On perusal of order of NCLT, it is found that, either way, the proceedings can be continued - Second request of appellant for change of address can also be incorporated in the cause title - Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications filed by appellant can be allowed - Coming to the merits of the case, on a reading of notification, it is very clear from preamble that whole of additional duty, integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon respectively under sub-sections (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, are wholly exempt as in excess of amount indicated in the corresponding entry in Column 3 of the said Table - Additional duty, integrated tax, compensation cess are exempted and customs duty would be limited to be taxed on the value of the fair cost of repairs carried out including cost of materials used in repairs, insurance and freight charges - The impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-624-CESTAT-AHM

Essel Propack Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant have availed Cenvat credit on the strength of bill of entry which is though in the name of Head Office but as per the appellant the goods were received in the factory of Silvasa Unit - Same was denied on two grounds that the bill of entry bearing the name and address of Head Office and the co-relation of goods covered under bill of entry with the receipt and consumption at appellant's factory was not established - Even though the bill of entry is bearing the name and address of Head office, the only criteria to be satisfied is that the goods under said bill of entry has been received by a unit of appellant company and the same is used by in manufacture - Therefore, on this ground, credit cannot be denied - As regard the receipt and use of goods in appellant's factory, the adjudicating authority as well as commissioner (A) given the finding that the appellant could not satisfy the Audit Officer with documents regarding receipt and use of goods - The documents were produced before adjudicating authority, it was incumbent on them to verify those documents and give an independent finding without referring to the objection raised by Audit Officer which the adjudicating authority has filed to do so - The matter limited to the issue regarding receipt and issue of inputs in manufacture of final products need to be reconsidered on the basis of documents produced by appellant - Since, all the documents are not before Tribunal and verification was not done at the adjudication stage, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - The issue of limitation is also kept open: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-623-CESTAT-MUM

VD Enterprises Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order limiting the penalty to Rs.15,97,932/- - When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of appellant - Even on merits, issue is squarely covered against appellant by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009-TIOL-63-SC-CX - Accordingly, appeal is dismissed both under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and on merits: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-622-CESTAT-MAD

Hyundai Motor India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The controversy is mainly due to amendment that was brought forth in definition of taxable service contained in Section 65(105)(zn) of FA, 1994 w.e.f. 01.07.2010 - The Tribunal in the case of M/s. SRF Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2241-CESTAT-DEL had analysed the very same controversy - Instead of adverting to Sl. No. 2 of the Notification, Revenue has wrongly drawn the attention of High Court to Sl. No. 13 of Notfn 41/2007-S.T. - Sl. No. 13 of said Notfn relates to Customs House Agent services under Section 65(105)(h) of Finance Act, 1994 and not Port Services - The rejection of refund claim is with respect to Service Tax paid on Port Services and not Customs House Agent services - Though the invoice is not issued by port, as per Sl. No. 2 of Notfn, it is not required to establish that the services were rendered by the port or any person authorized by port during the relevant period and this condition was included only in the subsequent Notfn i.e., Notfn 17/2009-S.T. - The issue on merits is held in favour of assessee - The rejection of refund on Port services cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT