Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) where assessee declares undisclosed foreign assets & pays tax @ 30% thereon : ITAT

I-T- Claim with regard to leave encashment has to be allowed on cash basis i.e. actual payment basis and not on accrual basis: ITAT

ST - The Electricity Charges reimbursed to appellant by Service Recipient on actual basis in terms of contract is not includible in gross value of output service: CESTAT

CX - Since the demand was confirmed on basis of Income Tax investigation and no independent evidence was brought on record by Central Excise department, the demand cannot be sustained: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-718-CESTAT-DEL

Association of Chloromethanes Manufacturers Vs UoI

Anti Dumping - The appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by failure of Central Government to levy anti dumping duty on the imports of "Methylene Chloride" the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR the subject Countries, even though the designated authority, in its final findings notified on 20.01.2021, had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years - The relief claimed in this appeal is for issuance of a direction to Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty based on recommendation made by designated authority - In view of the decision in case of M/s. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited , the decision said to have been taken by Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by designated authority for imposing of anti-dumping duty is set aside and the matter is remitted to Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by designated authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-717-CESTAT-MAD

Autotech Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills - The appellant has made request for conversion of shipping bills vide two letters; in the letter dated 25.1.2016, it is explained that drawback has been inadvertently not claimed by them while filing the shipping bills - On realizing the mistake/omission, appellants vide their letters requested the Commissioner to convert Free Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bill so as to sanction the drawback for the same - In the Annexure to the letter, they have requested for conversion of Shipping Bills from the period January 2012 to December 2014 - In subsequent letter, appellant has included the Shipping Bills from year 2000 to 2011 also - In impugned order, one of the reasons for rejecting request is that the documents at the time of exports are not available - However, there is no such allegation raised in SCN which was issued on the basis of these letters - In SCN, the only ground raised is that the request for conversion is time barred - Appellant have furnished copies of Shipping Bills, BRC and ARE-1 which are sufficient to prove that goods manufactured by them using imported inputs were exported - The document would establish the description, quantity of goods exported - The Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) would prove that consideration for the export has been received - The request for conversion/amendment of shipping bill is made under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 - Although no limitation has been prescribed in section 149, appellant cannot be permitted to take undue advantage - The remedy has to be sought for within a reasonable time - The rejection of request for conversion/amendment of Shipping Bills vide letter dated 9.10.2015 is to be set aside - The request for conversion is allowed - The rejection of request for conversion/amendment of Shipping Bills vide letter dated 25.1.2016 is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

NR Agarwal Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The case made out by department is that there is some shortage of raw material and excess of finished goods - SCNs were issued and demand was confirmed only on the basis of investigation carried out by Income Tax department - On physical stock taking by Central Excise department, no difference was found - Since the entire case was made out on the basis of Income Tax investigation and no independent evidence was brought on record by Central Excise department, the demand cannot be sustained - In a common investigation by department, another case was made out against one of the units of appellant, wherein this Tribunal considered the same set of facts relying on the judgments in case of Ravi Foods Pvt. Limited 2010-TIOL-1806-CESTAT-BANG and Saini Industries Limited 2014-TIOL-3218-CESTAT-DEL - In view of the decision in same set of facts in appellant's own case, no merit found in the Revenue's case - Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Pragati CNG Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue involved is that, whether the Electricity Charges reimbursed to appellant by Service Recipient M/s. Gujarat Gas Company Limited for providing the service Namely Business Auxiliary Service is includible in the gross value of output service - This issue involving identically placed service provider and the same service recipient M/s. Gujarat Gas Company Limited under the identical contract has been decided by Tribunal in case of V V Brothers - From the said decision of Tribunal, it can be seen that the electricity charges which is reimbursed on actual basis in terms of contract is not includible in the gross value of service provided by appellant to Gujarat Gas Company Limited - Accordingly, the issue is no longer res Integra - Hence, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT