2022-TIOL-1114-HC-DEL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Kavita Agarwal

On appeal, the High Court finds it to be settled law vide the judgment in the case of Kabul Chawla, that search assessment proceedings cannot be sustained where no material incriminating the assessee is found in course of search operations.

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1113-HC-DEL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs TV Today Network Ltd

Whether a particular expenditure which has consistently been allowed in past AYs must also be allowed in the current AY in keeping with the rule of consistency - YES: HC

Whether employees' contribution to PF can be disallowed as an expense, where it is deposited before due date of filing ITR - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-925-ITAT-MUM

ACIT Vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Whether merely saying that assessee failed to dispose of its obligation, does prove that the failure of disclosure is on part of the assessee - NO: ITAT

Whether reopening merely on basis of change of opinion is not permitted - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-924-ITAT-MUM

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether when asset realized without approval of DSIR are sold, then sales realization arising there from are to be set off against R&D expenditure which is claimed as deduction u/s 35(2AB) - YES: ITAT

Whether it is only sales realization arising out of assets sold that should be added against the R&D expenditure - YES: ITAT

Whether in respect of sale of products acquires emanating out of R&D work done in approved facility, the sale proceeds need not be reduced from the R & D expenditure - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1115-HC-DEL-VAT

Apple India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Delhi VAT

Whether power of revision u/s 74A of the Delhi VAT Act is in pari materia with Section 263 of the I-T Act and in which case, the power of revision under the Delhi VAT is to be exercised only if original assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-753-CESTAT-DEL

United Pressings Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts - They are also availing facility of Cenvat Credit on payment of duty on monthly basis - During scrutiny of record, Department observed that appellant has manufactured tools/dyes for manufacture of motor vehicle parts for M/s. Force Motors Ltd. - It was observed that appellant has claimed exemption on Central Excise duty in terms of Notfn 67/95-CE - Vide SCN, duty as the value of manufactured tools/dyes which were already sold by appellant to M/s. Force Motors Ltd. was proposed to be recovered from appellant - Admittedly, these tools/dyes were kept by appellant for being consumed by appellant for further production of said motor vehicle parts - Hence, conditions have admittedly been complied with - Benefit of this Notification is available to appellant - Thus, exemption from payment of duty has rightly been availed by appellant based on said notification - This issue has earlier been decided by various Benches of Tribunal wherein it is held that Notfn 67/95-CE nowhere provides that captive use should be on account of manufacture and that the levy of Excise duty is in relation to manufacture and has nothing to do with sales of manufactured goods - No reason found to differ from these findings - Decision of Commissioner (A) is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-752-CESTAT-AHM

Kalpesh Daftary Vs CC

Cus - Appeals are directed against impugned order whereby Commissioner imposed penalties upon appellants under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 for their alleged involvement of forged /fake VKGUY /DEPPB license and imports there under - In impugned matter appellants' request for adjournment of hearing was not considered by Commissioner - Moreover, appellant received the hearing notice dated 11.03.2014 on 19.03.2014 fixing personal hearing on 18.03.2014 i.e. after the date of hearing - Appellant vide letter dated 21.03.2014 immediately informed the Commissioner that they received hearing notice after the date of hearing - However without considering the appellant's request, Commissioner has decided the matter ex-parte - It is also observed that appellants have sought for cross–examination but same was also not considered by Commissioner - It is basic principle of Natural justice that no one can be condemned unheard - Natural Justice is an un codified law purely based on principle of substantial justice and judicial spirit - Principles of Natural Justice are cardinal principles, which must be followed in every judicial and quasi judicial proceeding - Authorities should exercise their powers fairly reasonably & impartially in a just manner - They should not decide a matter in backside of party - There is clear violation of natural justice - Therefore, ex-parte order passed by Adjudicating Authority will not sustain - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after granting sufficient personal hearing: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-751-CESTAT-KOL

Gillander Arbuthnot And Company Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue relates to alleged undervaluation of taxable category "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" on purported ground of non-inclusion of value of goods and material sold by appellant under supply work order in valuing said taxable services - The taxable category "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" could only cover pure service contracts within its fold - Commissioner on one hand treats the separate work orders for sale/supply of goods and provision of "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" as an indivisible EPC yet at the same time rejected the taxability thereof under category, "Works Contract Services" which is clearly unsustainable in light of L&T 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - Since the work order for "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" was for consideration in money, gross amount charged for such services alone could be subjected to service tax under Section 67(1)(i) of Finance Act - Valuation framework as contained in Section 67 of Finance Act does not seek to include within its ambit, any amount charged for sale/supply of goods and higher or lower profit margin with respect to sale of goods cannot be a ground for questioning the value of a taxable service - It is well settled that levy of tax on sale/supply of goods and provision of services are mutually exclusive and it is not in domain of Tribunal to assess whether VAT/CST was correctly discharged or otherwise - Value of goods cannot be subjected to service tax and neither can the value of services be charged to VAT, by following the decisions of Supreme Court in Imagic creative 2008-TIOL-04-SC-VAT and BSNL 2006-TIOL-15-SC-ST-LB - Reason adduced by Commissioner for denying deduction with respect to sale of goods to appellant under Notfn 12/2003 is also unsustainable when appellant has undisputedly not availed any credit of excise duty on goods sold to 'TSL' - The proviso to Notfn 12/2003 only restricts availment of credit in hands of service provider as evident from Clause (b) thereof and therefore, as to whether 'TSL' was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of excise duty on said goods is an altogether separate question having no bearing on instant proceedings - Hence impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT