|
2022-TIOL-1496-HC-AHM-ST
Modern Petrofils Vs CCE & ST
ST - The prayer in this application is to recall impugned order - By said order, Tax Appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that office objections were not removed within stipulated time - It may be stated that delay of 7 days in preferring present application has been condoned by order of even date - It is stated by appellant that they did not have certificated copy, which was required for preferring the appeal and to remove office objections - The request was made for getting certified copy - It was stated that because of period of pandemic also swift action could not be taken - It was submitted that soon after certified copy was received, restoration application was filed - It is trite that technicalities should not come in way in permitting the party to agitate the case on merits before the court of law - Appellant is permitted to contest appeal on merits - Application for restoration is accordingly allowed: HC
- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1103-CESTAT-DEL
Nai Dunia Media Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - The appellant, M/s. Naidunia are publishers and printers of newspapers and are registered with Service Tax Department for providing taxable service of renting of immovable property - Appellant is not liable to service tax on the amount received as facility charges as the same is wholly attributable to electricity expenses, which has been shared proportionately by appellant and its sister concerns - Next issue is regarding taxability of service charges under head "Business Support Service" received from Webdunia - Appellant urges that they have only provided a cess and use or all the news materials already available with them and have not provided any service in the nature of "Business support Service" - Admittedly, editorial facilities have been provided free of charges and for use of their office space, no charge or rent is fixed - Thus, amount received from Webdunia is not classifiable under head "Business Support Service" - Both Webdunia, PPPL and appellant are under the same management - Thus, there is element of mutuality in sharing of facility and available news library - Accordingly, said receipt is not chargeable to tax under head "Business Support Service" - Appellant have maintained proper records of their transactions and receipts - Thus, the issue and demand in dispute is wholly interpretational in nature or by way of change of opinion - Admittedly, appellant is registered with Department and have regularly filed the returns and deposited the admitted tax - Accordingly, SCN is bad for invoking extended period of limitation - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - All penalties imposed are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1102-CESTAT-DEL
Nitin Industries Vs CGST
CX - The issue arises is, whether the refund claim of appellant of the amount of cenvat credit balance as on 30.06.2017, has been rightly rejected by Court below - Admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of credit balance as on 30.06.2017, appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017 - Further, debit by appellant in electronic ledger (DRC-3) amounts to reversal of credit transferred to GST regime - Appellant is entitled to refund under provisions of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, which provides that assessee can file refund claim on or after the appointed day, for refund of any amount of credit of duty paid under existing law (Central Excise/Service Tax), subject to clearing the bar of unjust enrichment - Further, bar of limitation has been waived under Section 142 (3) - As the credit has been accumulated due to clearance of excisable goods, during Excise Law Regime for export, bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund within a period of 60 days along with interest as per Rules: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1101-CESTAT-AHM
CCE & ST Vs Modest Infrastructure Ltd
Cus - the appellant is engaged in the activities of Ship Building and repairing - The Revenue granted licence for Public Bonded Warehouse (PBW for short) in terms of the provisions of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The responded had been importing duty free raw materials like steel plates, ship spares/components, etc and the same were warehoused and stored in the bonded premises - The officer of DRI visited and searched the premises of the Revenue under panchanama dated 04.03.2010 - During the course of search, it was observed that duty free raw materials involving customs duty to the tune of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- were removed to other premises named as Warehouse -2 without permission of the concerned Central Excise Officer and without cover of statutory documents - The said goods were placed under seizure Panchanama - Statements of Directors of respondent company were recorded. After completing the investigation, Show cause notice was issued on 31.08.2010 demanding customs duty of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- and of Rs. 2,29,095/- on ship spare parts under Section 28 of the Customs Act and proposing confiscation of goods under Section 111(j)& (o) and proposing imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114A of Customs Act - In addition the show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty on Directors of M/s Modest Infrastructure Ltd, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - In adjudication process the Commissioner confirmed the customs duty demand of Rs. 2,29,095/- alongwith interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,29,095/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - He ordered unconditional release of the goods valued at Rs. 37,94,31,475/- and dropped the demand of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- He has also not imposed any penalty on the directors - He held that Warehouse -2 situated on the additional land of 17415 sq. mtrs. stands included in the Public Bonded Warehouse of the assessee w.e.f. 06.02.2009 and therefore the raw materials found therein on 04.03.2010 were within the PBW and cannot be said to have been found outside the PBW or removed illegally from the bonded premises of the assessee as has been alleged in the SCN. Held - The assessee is engaged in the activities of Ship Building and repairing - The assessee has been granted licence for Public Bonded Warehouse (PBW for short) in terms of the provisions of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The assessee had been importing duty free raw materials like steel plates, ship spares/components, etc and the same were warehoused and stored in the bonded premises - The officer of DRI visited and searched the premises of the assessee under panchanama dated 04.03.2010 - During the course of search, it was observed that duty free raw materials involving customs duty to the tune of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- were removed to other premises named as Warehouse -2 without permission of the concerned Central Excise Officer and without cover of statutory documents - The said goods were placed under seizure Panchanama - Statements of Directors of respondent company were recorded - After completing the investigation, Show cause notice was issued on 31.08.2010 demanding customs duty of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- and of Rs. 2,29,095/- on ship spare parts under Section 28 of the Customs Act and proposing confiscation of goods under Section 111(j)& (o) and proposing imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114A of Customs Act - In addition the show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty on Directors of M/s Modest Infrastructure Ltd, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In adjudication process the Commissioner confirmed the customs duty demand of Rs. 2,29,095/- alongwith interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,29,095/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - He ordered unconditional release of the goods valued at Rs. 37,94,31,475/- and dropped the demand of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 10,62,68,989/- He has also not imposed any penalty on the directors - He held that Warehouse -2 situated on the additional land of 17415 sq. mtrs. stands included in the Public Bonded Warehouse of the assessee w.e.f. 06.02.2009 and therefore the raw materials found therein on 04.03.2010 were within the PBW and cannot be said to have been found outside the PBW or removed illegally from the bonded premises of the assessee as has been alleged in the SCN. Held - In view of the letters of the jurisdictional officers, it is clear that Warehouse –2 situated on the additional land of 17415 Sq. Mtrs stands included in the PBW of respondent w.e.f. 03.07.2009 under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the duty free imported raw materials found therein on 04.03.2010 during the search by the DRI officers were within the PBW and cannot be said to have been found outside the PBW - Accordingly, demand on these goods are not sustainable: CESTAT Held - The revenue contended that respondent's application dated 06.02.2009 did not have any request for extension of the PBW and no mention of PBW was made in the said application. Thus, the permission by the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers was not for extension of the area approved under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard we find that in the said application M/s Modest has submitted revised ground plan showing entire ship yard with a request for approval and granting necessary permission. It is on record that verification of the said premises carried out by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers on 17.06.2009 and Respondent's request for approval and granting necessary permission was considered and accepted by the Deputy Commissioner on 03.07.2009, and the intimation letter dated 04.03.2010 mentioning that necessary permission is granted for use of additional land and revised Ground plan showing entire Ship Yard was approved by the authority. The said facts clearly leads to conclude that permission was indeed granted for the additional land even though the specific sections were not specifically mentioned therein: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
