I-T- Mere mention of 'misreporting' by assessee is manifestly arbitrary reason for denying immunity from penalty: HC

I-T - Revenue Department should not withhold refund simply on basis of anticipated tax liability: HC

I-T - Writ challenging SCN is not maintainable where assessee has not filed objections before AO : HC

I-T - AO is required to comply with directions received from DRP within one month from end of month in which such directions were received: HC

CX - As excess duty and differential excess amount received by appellant has been refunded to dealers, it is not a case of unjust enrichment - Appellant is entitled for refund claim: CESTAT

ST - Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Section 11BB ibid from the date he got relief and became entitled to in his first appeal in first round of litigation: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-256-CESTAT-ALL

Honda Siel Cars India Ltd Vs CC

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Motor Cars and their parts and paying duty on transaction value on cars sold to the dealers in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - In terms of Notification No. 58/2008-CE, rate of duty on motor cars reduced from 24% to 20% - Appellant filed a refund claim of excise duty paid on vehicles lying in stock with the dealer as on 8.12.2008 - Consequent to that stock lying as on date with dealers reduced the price and issued credit note and refund the difference along with duty by way of cheques - The only controversy is that whether the subsequent reduction in price by appellant and refund thereof proportionate duty attributable to reduced prices is refundable or not - As issue is squarely covered by decision of Prag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , therefore, as payments were made in accordance with reduced price subsequently paid by appellant, appellant is entitled to claim refund of excess duty paid by them - As it is on record that excess duty and differential excess amount received by appellant has been refunded to dealers by way of cheque, it is not a case of unjust enrichment - Appellant is entitled for refund claim: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-255-CESTAT-BANG

V Peter Vs CC, CE & ST

ST - Interest on refund - This Bench in its order in first round of litigation had taken note of earliest O-I-A, which has also admittedly attained finality with Revenue accepting the same - This Bench had clearly observed that there was a letter filed by appellant stating that service tax was being remitted under protest, which was sufficient to take the appellant's case within the time embargo placed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - There was also a clear finding by this Bench that appellant had not collected service tax and hence, question of unjust enrichment would not be applicable - The relief was granted to appellant vide said O-I-A and hence, it is clear that appellant is entitled for relief from the date of said O-I-A which has become final - Any delay thereof in granting refund would be invariably covered by Section 11BB, automatically and the revenue cannot escape from this liability - By not specifically granting interest under Section 11BB ibid adjudicating authority has clearly ignored both directions of this Bench as well as O-I-A for which Revenue has to answer, since, both the above orders have become final - Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Section 11BB ibid from the date he got relief and became entitled to in his first appeal in first round of litigation - Impugned order to this extent is therefore set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2022-TIOL-254-CESTAT-DEL

Greenlam Industries Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant imported goods by availing exemption under Notification No. 18/2015-Cus. r/w Notification No. 79/2017-Cus. - DRI initiated investigation against several importers on the ground of non-fulfillment of 'pre-import condition', and was extended to appellant also - Appellant to avoid harassment, on insistence by Revenue paid IGST not paid at the time of import, along with interest - The pre-import conditions were challenged before High Court of Gujarat in case of Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. 2019-TIOL-459-HC-AHM-CUS, wherein the provisions of pre import condition were held ultra vires the Foreign Trade Policy - Thus, appellant applied for refund of tax and interest, collected without authority of law - As IGST amount was claimed as ITC and passed on to the customers, refund of the same was not claimed but interest paid on IGST amount was sought as refund which was rejected - Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted that the benefit of exemption from IGST and cess was available to the appellant till 31.03.2018 under Notification No. 79/2017-Cus. - The Court below have erred in holding that exemption is not available to appellant as the assessment/re-assessment of Bill of Entry was finalised in September, 2018 (after 31.03.2018) - Entitlement of exemption from duty on filing the Bill of Entry is with respect to the date of filing of Bill of Entry - Thus, exemption of IGST as well as BCD + cess was available in respect of Bill of Entry, which was filed on 14.03.2018 and 31.03.2018 - The Government vide amending Notification No. 01/2019-Cus. have withdrawn pre-import condition from Notification No. 18/2015-Cus. in public interest - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund alongwith interest as per Rule, within a period of 45 days: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT