2022-TIOL-994-HC-AHM-IT

Atulbhai Kantilal Mehta Vs Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO

Whether final assessment order passed without adhering to request of personal hearing, is clear violation of faceless assessment scheme - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-993-HC-MAD-IT

Parveen Amin Bhathara Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment notice merits being quashed where issued after passage of 6 years from date of end of relevant AY - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-774-ITAT-AHM

S P Chips Potato Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether where assessee can claim higher rate of depreciation @ 30% in respect of vehicles, where the assessee is unable to establish that it is engaged in the business of letting out vehicles on hire - NO: ITAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-773-ITAT-AHM

Axis Bank Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be upheld where assessee makes full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment & where assessee cannot be charged with concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-772-ITAT-BANG

Iryd Automatrix Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether when assessee has established source of creditors, no addition is warranted u/s 68 on account of unexplained credits - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-636-CESTAT-AHM

Tega Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. r/w Section 11B of CEA, 1944 during period January 2017 to March 2017 - Commissioner (Appeals) have denied the refund on the ground that first the service is not included in approved list and secondly, the service provider and service recipient both are the same entity - As regard the inclusion of service in approved list firstly, the invoice issued by service provider is clearly in respect of Business Support Service - Business Support Service is clearly included in list approved by approval committee - Even if it is assumed that the service falls under marketing service and same is not included in approval list even then for this being a procedure lapse refund cannot be denied - Merely for the reason that the service is not included in approved list, refund cannot be denied - As regard the contention of Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant's service provider and appellant are same entity, there is no dispute that the appellant's service provider is located in Kolkata which is a DTA unit and the appellant's unit is located in SEZ - As per sub-rule (7) of Rule 19 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006, even if appellant is not a separate legal entity, the unit being located in SEZ shall be treated as distinct identity, therefore, denial of refund on this ground also not tenable - Appellant is clearly entitled for refund under Notification No. 12/2013-S.T. - Accordingly, impugned order is not sustainable, hence, the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-635-CESTAT-MAD

Ugam Solutions Sez Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Appellant provide business support services in nature of market research operations and online marketing and content services to clients located outside India - For providing output services, they used various input services - However, as their output services are exported, they were not utilizing CENVAT credit availed on input services - They filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services consumed by them in exporting services - The only ground for denying sanction of refund is that the appellant which is an SEZ unit has filed the refund claims under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules instead of filing the claim in terms of SEZ Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. - After going through the provisions under CCR, 2004, it is found that it does not restrict or bar a SEZ to file refund claim of unutilized credit - The ground stated by authorities below to reject the refund claim does not appear to be legal or proper - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-634-CESTAT-MAD

Jain Biologicals Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The refund claim of appellant has been rejected for non-submission of required documents - Appellant has submitted that they are ready to furnish the documents - Appellant has to be given a further chance to submit the documents - Matter is remanded to adjudicating authority who shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to appellant as well as for submission of documents and consider the refund claim afresh: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-633-CESTAT-DEL

Vaibhav Global Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The moot question to be adjudicated is, whether the appellant was eligible for exemption from duty while clearance of re-imported goods despite that the procedure as incorporated in Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. under which said exemption was claimed was not followed by appellant; whether the condition that goods to be re-exported have to be manufactured goods has been fulfilled by appellant - With respect to first point of adjudication, there is nothing on record to show that exemption as claimed, irrespective in absence of said procedure, there is any element of fraud has been committed by appellant - It cannot be ruled out that non observance of impugned condition was mere lack of knowledge of amendment as was introduced vide Notification No. 68/2017-Cus. that too in June 2017 - Procedural condition of Rule 5 of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 were not at all the substantive condition but was merely a technical condition - Apparently, benefit of exemption from customs duty to a 100% EOU is a substantive benefit - Such substantive benefit cannot be denied for want of compliance of technical procedural conditions - Denial of exemption to appellant is absolutely wrong - The order under challenge is set aside on this score - Coming to the another point of adjudication, appellant while replying to SCN as well as making submission in defence before Adjudicating authority below has specifically mentioned that goods in question after being imported were stored in 100% EOU and after processing such as cleaning and re-packing that the goods were re-exported - It is submitted that this particular activity satisfies the compliance of all condition of Notification No. 52/2003 r/w Notification No. 45/2017 - As impressed upon by appellant, the Circular No. 489/55/99 is perused - There is no denial nor it is the case of Department that the goods in question were not repacked by appellant before exporting goods in question were not repacked by appellant by exporting those goods again - The packing activity amounts to manufacture, it is held that the second condition of the impugned exemption notification that the goods have to be manufactured goods also stands complied with by appellant - Adjudicating authority is held to have committed an error by holding the repackaged goods as non manufactured goods - The order under challenge to that extent is also set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-632-CESTAT-DEL

Jai Baba Castings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is, whether on the basis of third party records, demand of duty and penalty have been rightly made from appellant - On the basis of incriminating documents seized from premises of M/s Pankaj Ispat Ltd. (PIL) and also as per statement of its Director, revenue segregated the entries relating to appellant as per private records of Pankaj Ispat, wherein it appeared that appellant had purchased rejected moulds from M/s PIL and have also sold Ingots, without accounting for the same in their records regarding purchase, sales, production, they have also sold ingots - The statement of Manager of appellant was recorded during investigation, who inter alia stated that he looks after the work relating to sales, accounting during 2010-11 and 2011-12 and also purchased/rejected moulds from PIL - Further stated that the consignment mentioned in their ledger, where the actual transactions and rest of the entries shown in chart were not sold by them and they do not know about such consignment - Similar statement was given by Director of the appellant company - It is further evident from SCN that neither M/s Pankaj Ispat Ltd. nor its director, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal has been made co-noticee - Thus, SCN is bad for non joinder of necessary party - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-631-CESTAT-KOL

Konark Pipes And Synthetics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - The SCN alleges that appellants have evaded duty of Rs. 22,56,445/- -The verification report submitted by Department in respect of 62 invoices as per direction of the Bench vide order dated 15.01.2020, shows that the appellants have discharged the duty of Rs. 20,91,667/- - Therefore, to that extent, Demand does not sustain - Duty of balance amount of Rs. 1,64,778/- appears to have been not paid as per verification report - Duty of Rs. 1,64,778/- remains to be considered paid along with interest under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Same is liable to be paid by appellants - Accordingly, equal amount of penalty is liable to be paid by appellants under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Penalty under Rule 26 cannot be sustained either on appellant or on Managing Director of appellant company: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT