Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - If AO has considered objection raised in grounds for issuing notice u/s 148 during original assessment proceedings but has not rejected those objections, then AO is deemed to have accepted the objections : HC

I-T - Re-opening of assessment cannot be resorted to where there is no failure on part of assessee to make full & true disclosure of material facts: HC

I-T - Re-opening of assessment is not sustainable where initiated based on material already known to AO during original assessment, leading to re-assessment being based on change of opinion: HC

I-T - Re-opening of assessment cannot be sustained where reasons recorded by AO that taxable income has escaped assessment, are found to be incorrect : HC

I-T - Re-opening of assessment is unsustainable where prior approval u/s 151(2) is not obtained: HC

I-T - Even if observations of Apex Court are of nature of obiter, they will be binding on High Courts : HC

I-T - Charitable trust is eligible for provision for gratuity & leave encashment, which was applied as per objectives of trust: ITAT

I-T - Protective assessment is not warranted in hands of assessee when assessee has been able to discharge onus of showing nature and source of credit entries : ITAT

I-T- Once issue has been attained finality, no fresh adjudication is required:ITAT

2021-TIOL-754-CESTAT-BANG

Allianz Technology SE Vs CCT & CE

ST - The partial rejection of refund by Adjudicating Authority with respect to export turnover was on the ground that the appellant did not file FIRCs pertaining to invoices, which finding has been upheld by First Appellate Authority - Appellant now submits that their banker has subsequently issued necessary certificates evidencing the foreign inward remittances, which are filed before this forum - The Adjudicating Authority shall look into these documents and then pass appropriate order on the exclusion of turnover pertaining to those export invoices and also pass appropriate order on the refund claim of appellant after hearing and considering all such documents that may be furnished in support by appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-753-CESTAT-MUM

Tata Motors Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee is availing CENVAT Credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - During scrutiny of Cenvat documents, it was observed that there is variance in inventory of Cenvat inputs maintained by assessee - The value of net shortages in input inventory for period April, 2010 to October, 2010, worked out to Rs. 1,18,95,547/- and the Cenvat credit in respect of such shortages worked out to Rs. 12,25,242/- - A SCN was issued - The shortages and excesses if any found are theoretical due to huge quantity of inputs handling - It is not a case of Department that the assessee have ever removed any Cenvat inputs without payment of duty from their factory - Therefore, even though there is any shortage or excess, the input was available within the factory premises or consumed in production - This issue has been considered by Tribunal in assessee's own case - Same facts and circumstances existing in present case, even though there is some theoretical variation in inputs was found and on that ground the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied - Following the same, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to assessee on a theoretical variance in the inputs - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-752-CESTAT-AHM

Jindal Texofab Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The dispute is only in respect of admissibility of Modvat Credit in respect of goods in transit - The appellant have obtained the report under RTI given by Range Superintendent to the Commissioner (Adjudication) - From the said report, it is clear that the Range Superintendent has recorded Grey Stock in transit therefore, it is not in dispute that there is a stock which was covered under consignment which were in transit - Now the issue to be decided is that whether in terms of notification allowing the credit on the stock as on 31.03.2003 whether the goods in transit shall be considered as stock as on 31.03.2003 - This Tribunal in earlier round of appeal remanded the matter making a categorical observation that the issue to be decided in light of judgments in case of Elecon Fabrics & Jaldarshan Textile - Even though the goods have not arrived in factory but the appellant have purchased the goods and said goods were in transit, same was considered as stock as on 31.03.2003 and Modvat Credit was allowed - The Adjudicating Authority despite applicability of judgments denied the Modvat Credit which is clearly not acceptable - Accordingly, appellant is entitled for Modvat Credit also in respect of stock which was in transit accordingly the Modvat Credit is allowed: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-751-CESTAT-AHM

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST

Cus - The appellant imported various consignments of crude petroleum oil and these goods were stored in their private bonded warehouse - At the time of final assessment of Bill of Entry, Assessing Officer finalized the assessment after enhancing invoice value to the extent of pro-rata price of such excess received goods - The imported goods were permitted for removal to appellant's Customs Bonded Warehouse at M/s IOCL, Gujarat Refinery, Koyali after filing shipping bills - Thereafter, imported oil were cleared on payment of duty to concerned rewarehousing station - On finalization of assessment, the original bill of entries were forwarded to concerned rewarehousing station and triplicate copies were provided to appellant at Vadinar after due endorsement of final assessment - The appellant challenged the final assessment before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the same and directed to finalize the assessment of said bills of entry after allowing Address Commission on Freight/Demurrage as per Charter Party Agreement, charging NCCD on shore tank receipt quantity instead of bill of lading quantity and after considering transaction value - Consequent to reassessment order, appellant filed refund claims under cover of 9 different letters - Same was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not filed any appeal against 26 orders of final assessment order for finalizing provisional assessment - Among other submissions, appellant has also made reference of Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 whereby the assessment can be amended by Reassessment of Bill of Entry - However, on query from the bench, appellant fairly submits that they have not filed any application under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 - In interest of justice, appellant should be given an opportunity to pursue their case in terms of section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 - Accordingly, appellant is directed to make an application under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 for Re-assessment of Bills of Entry - The Proper officer shall consider the application to be made under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT