I-T - Since there is abnormal increase in premium charged when compared to previous AY, it needs to be verified how share price is determined by assessee for which case should be remanded back for reconsideration: ITAT

I-T - Charges of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income must be backed by tests as to whether or not it was done with dishonest intent: ITAT

I-T - Case can be remanded for reconsideration based on additional evidences which were not filed before lower authorities during assessment proceedings due to family disputes : ITAT

2022-TIOL-226-CESTAT-MAD

Hera Shipping Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein matter was remanded to adjudicating authority directing to reconsider the non-imposition of penalty under Sections 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - The adjudicating authority has categorically held that the appellant has not done any act of omission or commission which has made the goods liable for confiscation - Further, in SCN, there is no allegation that appellant had done any act facilitating the attempt to smuggle red sanders - The statement of Shri Mahimai David shows that he had collected the documents from exporter and same were submitted to appellant to file the shipping bill - Shri Mahimai David has stated that appellants had no knowledge about the incident - Nothing is brought out in the nature of evidence to establish that the appellant had done or omitted to do any act intentionally - The alleged contraventions come within the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 only - When there is no evidence to establish any overt act or mens rea to facilitate the commission of offence, finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant has facilitated the attempt to smuggle red sanders is without any factual and legal basis and cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-225-CESTAT-MUM

Gelnova Laboratories India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Issue relates to rejection of CENVAT credit on the ground that items are not capital goods as supplier has described it as "steel furniture" and classified it under C.H. 94.03 in the invoice - When classification by supplier is wrong, eligibility to CENVAT credit is to be decided on the basis of actual usage of goods - Following judicial discipline set in the case of Daya Sugar and Shree Cement Ltd ., impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-224-CESTAT-BANG

Sagar Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The appellants have entered into works contract with KTPCL - It has been held by Apex Court and Tribunal that works contract were not chargeable to service tax before 1.6.2007 - The department argues on the point that appellants were rendering service under category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services' and have paid service tax on 33% of gross receipts availing the benefit of Notification No. 19/2003 - Appellants have paid service tax under one heading or the other for a service which was not taxable during the relevant time, would not make the service taxable - It will also not take away the right of appellants to seek refund for a tax which is paid under mistaken notion of law - Appellants have demonstrated that the works undertaken by them were under works contract and due VAT was paid on very same work contracts - It is settled principle of law that if a new levy comes into existence on a specific date, same set of activity cannot be held to be taxable under a different heading prior to the date of coming into existence of the levy - Apex Court has categorically held that works contract cannot be taxed before 1.6.2007 - Following the decision of Apex court, it is held that the appellants were not required to pay service tax and any tax thus paid under a mistaken notion of law is refundable: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT