Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - AO is statutorily obliged to educate assessee regarding possible reliefs available: ITAT

I-T- Since amount advanced to entities is for business purpose, therefore, entire interest paid by assessee is to be allowed as business expenditure : ITAT

I-T - In event of fresh material coming to light, revisional authority cannot bypass principles of natural justice to casually pre-empt assessment order to be erroneous : ITAT

I-T - If no addition is being made on point for which assessment has been reopened, then no other issue can be entertained, even under revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 : ITAT

I-T- Issues on the basis of which Pr. CIT has assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 had been considered and decided in appeal by CIT (A), therefore Pr.C IT can not exercise revisional jurisdiction on same issues : ITAT

I-T- Payments are made to members of assessee's society for purchase of land at arms length price, thus transaction arising out of such payment is covered u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) : ITAT

CX - The interest on refund of pre-deposit is permissible even if the pre-deposit amount was not paid in cash: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-725-CESTAT-DEL

Panacea Biotec Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The issue involved in this appeal is, whether the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the amount of pre-deposit, on being successful in appeal before Tribunal - The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the prayer, observing that the pre-deposit of entire amount of Rs. 49,94,990/- was made through debit of cenvat credit and as such no interest is payable - In other words, he has taken the view that the interest on refund of pre-deposit is permissible only when the pre-deposit amount was paid in cash - Section 35FF provides for interest on the amount refundable to an assessee, pursuant to being successful in appeal does not make any distinction between pre-deposit made by way of cash/ LPA or by way of cenvat credit account - Accordingly, finding of Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous - Impugned order is modified to the extent of denial of interest - Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the interest @ 12% per annum (on the refund amount of Rs. 49,94,990/-) from the date of deposit till the date of refund: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-724-CESTAT-DEL

Pr. CCGST Vs AST Telecom Solar Pvt Ltd

ST - The assessee is providing taxable service under category of "Business Support Service" and "Business Auxiliary Service" - They were mainly providing 'Hybrid Power Solutions' for maintaining telecom towers of telecom service providers by way of ensuring uninterrupted supply of power through integrated solar/diesel systems, in case of power failure as well as operations and maintenance of such towers - During audit, it appeared to Revenue that assessee has wrongly taken cenvat credit on capital goods being items like M.S. Angles, G.I. sheet, Bolts, Shelter Cabins, Structures Cabins, Structure of Iron and Steels, M.S. Huts and fabricated and galvanized structures - Accordingly, SCN was issued invoking extended period of limitation - It was further proposed to impose penalty - Admittedly, assessee does not own the telecom towers - They are only providing services of providing uninterrupted power for ensuring maximum uptime of telecom towers to ensure un-interrupted mobile services - For rendering such output services, assessee has acquired the items under dispute for providing output service - An output service provider under Rule 3 is entitled to take cenvat credit on all such goods without any distinction as to inputs or capital goods for rendering taxable output service - The SCN is mis-conceived for raising the dispute on inputs being not capital goods - Accordingly, no merit found in this appeal by Revenue: CESTAT - Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-723-CESTAT-MAD

Chloride Metals Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant M/s. Chloride Metals Limited imported Lead Ingots and Refined Lead Ingots for manufacture of pure lead and lead alloys - The allegation is that the appellant attempted to obtain undue refund - The refund claim was filed on 9.10.2018 in a situation where appellant paid duty and was not able to clear the goods - Later, the foreign supplier has arranged for a new purchaser and NOC was issued by appellant - By this time the duty paid vide bill of entry presented by appellant was appropriated towards the imported goods - Even though the title of goods were transferred to new purchaser by amended bills of entry, the duty could not be collected from new purchaser as the duty on the goods already stood discharged - The conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant did not reply to the SCN and did not appear for personal hearing would establish the mens rea is not only wrong but highly absurd - Appellant has been put to hardship of making pre-deposit on such huge penalty by wrong appreciation of facts - There is nothing brought out in evidence which attracts the ingredients of section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - The mere fact that the department had already appropriated the duty amount paid by appellant towards imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a SCN alleging attempt to claim undue refund - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT