2022-TIOL-737-CESTAT-DEL
Jatinder Sports Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The issue involved is as to whether the consignments of toys imported by appellant were rightly assessed to duty by extending tariff concession @ 43% under S.No. 427 of Part A of notification dated July 22, 2005 as claimed by appellant and allowed by proper officer or whether they would merit tariff concession @ 8% under S.No. 428 of Part A of aforesaid notification as has been determined by Principal Commissioner - In order to examine the submissions made by appellant that once the order of Commissioner (A) has been accepted by Department, on an issue which is involved in this appeal, it would not be open to Department to take a different view in this appeal, it is necessary to examine one such case in matter of M/s. Ajay Impex - The records indicate that adjudicating authority passed an order dated May 31, 2019 confirming the demand and rejected the contention of appellant therein that higher abatement was correctly obtained - It is against this order dated May 31, 2019 passed that an appeal was filed before Commissioner (A), who by order dated September 29, 2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated May 31, 2019 passed by Joint Commissioner - In this view of matter, substance found in the submission advanced by appellant that once the order dated September 29, 2021 passed by Commissioner (A) was accepted by competent authority on December 27, 2021, the Department cannot be permitted to take a different stand in the present appeal filed by appellant - This view, finds support from the decision of Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. 2004-TIOL-21-SC-IT - Thus, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-736-CESTAT-MUM
Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE
CX - When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of appellant - Appellant filed withdrawal memo from the appeal - Therefore the Bench directed the Registry to issue notice to appellant and adjourned the matter - But even after the passage of more than three months, appellant has not engaged a counsel to represent their case nor has appeared in person - Appellant is not serious in prosecuting their appeal - Hence, Tribunal is not inclined to keep this appeal pending, which has been filed in year 2012 - Appeal is dismissed on the ground of default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-735-CESTAT-AHM
Gujarat State Petronet Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - Appellants are rendering various taxable services like Transmission of gas through pipelines, business support service and Man power supply service - A SCN was issued alleging that the appellants are charging and recovering certain amounts under head of "liquidated damages" for delays in supply contracts or service contracts as per various agreements entered into between them and their vendors - Appellant was asked to submit certain details of documents to determine the exact nature of transaction however, by an affidavit of Shri Ajith Kumar TR, CFO of appellant company, it was submitted that said request for additional data amounts to going beyond SCN and therefore, they are not in a position to submit said information - Meanwhile, it is noticed that CBIC has issued a Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST in which it has stated its stand on issue of taxability of various transactions claimed to be "liquidated damages" - At the time of adjudication by commissioner and hearing before Tribunal, this circular was not available on record and therefore, adjudicating authority could not take benefit of the same - Consequently, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to decide the issue afresh in light of arguments given in said circular: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-734-CESTAT-MUM
Tops Security Ltd Vs CST
ST - As per direction of Bench on 29.06.2022, Registry had on 30.06.2022 sent notice to Resolution Professional - Till date Tribunal do not find any application being filed in matter for continuation of proceedings by successor-in-interest in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Sufficient time has been allowed for successor in interest to file an application for continuation of proceedings - In absence of any such application by operation of Rule 22, these appeals abate: CESTAT
- Appeals abated: MUMBAI CESTAT
