I-T - If goods manufactured by assessee is 'article' classifiable in Eleventh Schedule (entry 25), considering Sec 80-IB(2)(iii), assessee shall not be entitled to benefit u/s 80-IB: SC

Cus - Delay of 178 days caused in preferring appeal before Tribunal is ordered to be condoned as no reason is recorded for rejecting explanation tendered by petitioner for delay: HC

GST - Job work of manufacturing chocolates - Tax rate on Service Accounting Code 998816 is 5%: AAR

2022-TIOL-98-SC-SERVICE

Aniruthan Vs UoI

A petition was filed to challenge the validity of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017 which had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. It was claimed that the judgment in Rojer Matthew would not be of benefit to the respondents 4 & 5 herein inasmuch as those interim orders were only applicable to appointments made when the writ petitions that were disposed of in Rojer Mathew were pending. However, it was held that interim orders passed in Rojer Matthew would apply to all appointments made prior to 2020 Rules, as in all such cases, the Supreme Court mandated that the governing statute and Rules framed thereunder would be applicable until the 2020 Rules came into effect.

On Writ, the Supreme Court dismisses SLP where the appointment of two Vice Presidents of ITAT was challenged, where the Petitioner's grievance was that the procedure for selection was contrary to SC ruling in Rojer Mathew case and observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the two Vice Presidents meet the eligibility requirements for holding the office to which they have been appointed in Jan'20. Abstaining from entering into the correctness of the reasoning of the HC in view of the finding that a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto was misconceived, the Supreme Court remarked that the Petitioner would be at liberty to intervene in the proceedings which are pending before this Court in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association.

- In favour of Respondent: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-128-AAR-GST

Gandour India Food Processing Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is doing job work of manufacturing chocolates (food product falling under Chapter 19 of Customs Tariff Act) with inputs provided by the "job work receiver" - Applicant submits that as per Notification 78/2020, dt. 15-10-2020, registered dealer with turnover more than 5 crores is required to mention 6-digit code from 01-04-2021 - Applicant further submits that their product falls under 9988 16  but it is nowhere clarified what the tax rate applicable to this 6-digit code would be, hence the present application seeking an advance ruling.

Held:  Supply by the applicant is that of 'supply of Service' - In the case at hand, the job work done by the applicant is a portion of manufacturing process of the customer of the applicant and, therefore, the activity of the applicant is covered under SAC 9988 - The applicable rate of service tax is given vide Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) , dt. 28.06.2017 - A combined reading of the above notification and 78/2020-CT , explanation and Scheme of classification of Services, the SAC of the services offered by applicant is "998816" i.e., "Other food product manufacturing services" and the rate of tax is 2.5 % CGST and 2.5% SGST: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-1430-HC-DEL-CUS

CC Vs Ravindra Heraeus Pvt Ltd

Cus - This is an application filed on behalf of respondent, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal - Court had directed the Tribunal to decide matters on merits, having regard to the fact that challenge to jurisdiction of adjudicating authority, based on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Mangli Impex Limited 2016-TIOL-877-HC-DEL-CUS has been stayed by Supreme Court - Delay in filing appeal is condoned - Impugned order passed by Tribunal is set aside - Tribunal is directed to decide the matter, one way or other, on merits - Thus, in effect, directions contained in judgment shall apply mutatis mutandis to this matter as well, as question of law framed in appeal, is identical - Decision on merits will be subject to outcome of decision in Mangli Impex Limited pending adjudication in Supreme Court: HC

- Appeal disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1429-HC-AHM-CUS

Priya Blue Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner has mainly prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by Tribunal whereby Tribunal rejected the application filed by petitioner to condone the delay of 178 days in preferring the appeal arising out of order passed by Commissioner (A) challenged before Tribunal - Considering the passage of time spent by petitioner before this court since 2019, especially in set of facts obtained in this case, court is inclined to entertain this petition, though that the appeal under Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable - It appears on perusal of order passed by Tribunal that no reason is recorded for rejecting explanation tendered by petitioner for delay of 178 days in filing Appeal - It is well settled legal position that in order to do substantial justice, delay should not come in way of litigant - In that view of matter, delay of 178 days caused in preferring appeal before Tribunal is ordered to be condoned and said appeal is restored to file of Tribunal - Court have not expressed any opinion on merits of matter and both the sides are at liberty to raise all contentions before Tribunal in pending appeal: HC

- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT