Saint Gobian India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - When the petition came up for consideration, revenue submitted that it was not possible for them to prefer appeal in view of provisions of Section 131BA of Customs Act, 1962 - Revenue, however, was apprised of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 131BA that where a appeal is not filed pursuant to orders or instructions, such non-filing of appeal in a given case shall not preclude competent authority from filing any appeal, application and revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law - Sub-section (3) says that non-filing of appeal in a given case will not be treated that authority has acquiesced in decision on disputed issue by non filing appeal - By way of interim relief, impugned judgment and order passed by Tribunal shall remain stayed - Rights and obligations of parties and consequences which may ensue by virtue of stay, shall be subject to final outcome of Special Civil Application - It will be open for either party to request the court for final hearing of petition after passage of reasonable time: HC
- Stay granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Pr CCGST & CE Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
CX - Issue involved is about treatment to be given in law to refund claim of petitioner - Appeal deserves admission on substantial questions of law and that the other questions proposed stand covered in these two i.e. whether Tribunal was right to hold and interpret that mandatory time limit to file refund claim prescribed in clause (e) of Para 3(III) of Notfn 12/2013-ST is not applicable to refund claims covered by Table-II of Form A-4 of said Notfn; whether Tribunal was right to hold and interpret that mandatory condition of Notification that SEZ unit shall submit only one claim of refund for every quarter, can also include refund claim pertaining to invoices of previous quarters as well, i.e. consolidated invoices of period from August 2013 to October 2017, which is a a complete misreading of clause (f) of Para III of Notfn 12/2013- ST: HC
2022-TIOL-950-CESTAT-MAD
State Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - Appellant is contesting only the penalties imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - SCN has been issued pursuant to periodical audit conducted by department - Appellant has accepted the demand with regard to non-payment of service tax under various categories of services - One of the issue was whether the amount that has to be paid under works contract services was to be treated as original works or maintenance work - Other issue was whether the tax has to be paid under manpower supply services or works contract service - There are interpretational issues - There is no iota of evidence adduced by department that appellant has committed any positive act of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax - Further, appellant is an undertaking under State Government of Tamil Nadu and for these reasons, it is a fit case to set aside the penalties imposed under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Impugned order is modified to extent of setting aside the penalties imposed under section 78 of Finance Act only without disturbing the confirmation of demand or interest thereon: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
Sree Rajendra Textiles Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order, whereby rejection of refund of CVD, as made by Assistant Commissioner came to be upheld - After adjudication/assessment, assessee did remit the CVD plus BCD and same was not under protest and as could be seen from pleadings as well as orders of both the lower authorities, said adjudication / assessment had reached finality for same reason - This happened perhaps in year 2008 and since then, there is nothing available on record to suggest that assessee had litigated directly or indirectly and that its litigation was pending before any of authorities including CESTAT - There is also no whisper about intimating Revenue about pendency of any litigation before any fora in this regard - It was nearly after ten years that the judgement of Apex Court in M/s. Enterprises International Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1887-CESTAT-MAD was passed, which the assessee is trying to take advantage of by claiming that its application for refund is within one year from the date of said judgement - This is clearly an afterthought, which cannot be accepted, since the scope of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 is limited to claimant who pursues by means of litigation before higher authorities and hence, any third person cannot derive any benefit out of the same - Clearly, assessee having slept over its right for nearly ten years, cannot take shelter as it has taken, which is not permitted under law - Period of limitation would not start from date of judgement of Apex Court as claimed by assessee, but from the date of finalization of Bills-of-Entry / adjudication, as held by lower authorities - Orders of lower authorities are correct and hence, impugned order does not call for any interference: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-948-CESTAT-DEL
Indian Food Tech Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - SCN was issued invoking extended period of limitation, inter alia alleging that appellant have not paid duty for the period April, 2016 to February, 2017 through account current / cash and same is recoverable under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8 of CER, 2002 - Further, penalty was also proposed under Section 11AC ibid r/w Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules - Limitation under Section 11A(1)(a) ibid was one year, which was substituted for two years w.e.f. 14.05.2016 - Appellant have filed their returns (form ER-1) from time to time and have made proper disclosure of their clearances and mode of payment of duty - Admittedly appellant have not taken cenvat credit on inputs utilised for clearance of finished product under Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. - As GST regime have been implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2017, accumulated cenvat credit with appellant was available for transmission to GST regime as on 30.06.2017 - Duty have been demanded vide SCN dated 01.05.2018 i.e. after implementation of GST regime - Thus, there is only a venial breach of law by utilisation of cenvat credit for payment of duty for goods cleared under concessional rate during period under dispute - Situation is Revenue neutral as on payment of duty again in cash as demanded by impugned order, appellant shall be entitled to refund of equal amount being the duty discharged earlier through cenvat credit - Thus, appellant have not contravened the provisions of law or rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
