I-T- Employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before due date as u/s 36(1)(va), i.e., on or before the due date under employee welfare legislations for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B : ITAT

I-T - Appeal can be dismissed as AR fails to bring on record any substantial evidence in support of allowability of belated claim made through belated application of rectification : ITAT

I-T - As decision taken by AO of Anitas Exports Pvt. Ltd has not attained finality, then such order can't be relied upon in hands of assessee acquirer for disallowing depreciation : ITAT

I-T - Date on which agreement to sell was executed could be considered as date on which a property was transferred, for purpose of computing capital gains: ITAT

I-T - There is no need to make addition u/s 68 for unexplained cash credit when source and nature of transaction is clear from the seized document itself : ITAT

I-T - Brokerage paid can't be disallowed merely because agreement for sale is executed and entire consideration is received in earlier years : ITAT

I-T - No addition for unexplained cash deposit can be made when source of cash deposited in bank account is properly explained : ITAT

I-T - No addition u/s 68 can be made if assessee successfully explains genuineness of transaction carried on by it - YES : ITAT

I-T-No reason to interfere with order of CIT (A) in the absence of any co-operation from assessee: ITAT

ST - Appellant is entitled to interest from the end of three months from date of receipt of application by Department and such interest shall be payable till the date of sanction of refund: CESTAT

ST - Since refund claim was filed by appellant in 2016 and issue of taxability on disputed service was finally resolved in year 2020, thus, Commissioner (A) has correctly held the refund application as premature: CESTAT

CX - Service Tax paid on 'Courier Services' for various purposes would be eligible to Cenvat Credit before and even after amendment to definition of Input Services with effect from 01.04.2011: CESTAT

CX - When final product is not dutiable, there is no reason to allow cenvat credit on inputs used in such final products, therefore, adjudication order is absolutely proper and legal: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1071-CESTAT-DEL

Flex Foods Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is, whether interest for delayed refund has been rightly granted for correct period of delay - Undisputedly appellant has filed their refund claims during the period 09.10.2015 to 23.03.2016 - Tribunal have also verified these dates from evidences available on record - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to interest from the end of three months from the date of receipt of application by Department and such interest shall be payable till the date of sanction of refund - Thus, impugned order is modified - Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the amount of interest within a period of 45 days: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1070-CESTAT-MUM

Oberoi Woods Coop Housing Society Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Dispute relates to rejection of refund claim filed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 - The Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal mainly on ground that refund application was prematurely filed by appellant - It is the fact on record that refund claim was filed by appellant on February 12, 2016 and issue of taxability on disputed service was finally resolved in year 2020 - Thus, no infirmity found in impugned order insofar as Commissioner (A) has held the refund application as premature: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1069-CESTAT-AHM

Nilkamal Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue involved is that whether assessee is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of courier service particularly for period after 2011 amendment in definition of input service - Commissioner (A) has denied cenvat credit particularly on the ground that after 2011 amendment in definition of input service, activity of business has been removed from inclusion clause - In case of HALDYN GLASS LTD. 2017-TIOL-3967-CESTAT-AHM and Modern Petrofils Dty Div 2017-TIOL-3896-CESTAT-AHM , Tribunal has considered the issue after taking into account the 2011 amendment and came to the conclusion that assesses are entitled for cenvat credit on courier services - Following the said decisions of Tribunal, assessee is held entitled for cenvat credit on courier service - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1068-CESTAT-AHM

Royal Castor Products Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted products however they are availing cenvat credit in respect of common inputs used in both category of final products, therefore a SCN was issued wherein a demand @ 8% of value of exempted goods was proposed in terms of Rule 57AD(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004 - Demand of an amount equal to 8% of value of exempted goods was proposed however in adjudication order, adjudicating authority confirmed the demand only limited to cenvat credit attributable to common inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods - Provision of erstwhile Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 clearly stipulates that cenvat credit in respect of input used in manufacture of exempted final product is not admissible - Entire objective of allowing cenvat credit is to avoid cascading effect of duty on final product - When final product is not dutiable, there is no reason to allow cenvat credit on inputs used in such final products - Therefore, adjudication order is absolutely proper and legal, which does not require any interference - The Commissioner has passed a legal and correct order which does not suffer from any infirmity - Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1067-CESTAT-AHM

Electromelts Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein adjudicating authority has denied benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. available on import of Coking Coal and confirmed a demand against them - Tribunal vide final order on going through chemical test report at load port and chemical test report of department found that parameters do not match and once there are contradictions on test reports, hence remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for re-test of sample - On directions of Tribunal, Adjudicating authority also requested the Deputy Commissioner to get the remnant sample re-tested - However, Deputy Commissioner informed that said sample is not available with their office - In absence of availability of remnant sample, Adjudicating authority decided the present matter on the basis of available evidences and old reports and held that original test report of Chemical examiner concluded that sample was other than coking coal, therefore the consignment of 16500 Mts. of imported coal is liable to be re-assessed as 'Coal other than coking coal' - Assessee has submitted vital facts before Adjudicating authority - However, Adjudicating authority nowhere given any finding on this vital facts, which are very important for deciding the issue that whether the imported coal is coking coal or other than coking coal in absence of retesting of sample - Therefore, these aspects need to be reconsidered - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to assessee: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT