Benami Act - Criminal provision in the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 are applicable prospectively only : HC

I-T - Disposal of a Stay Application warrants being based on consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury : HC

I-T- Long term capital loss on purchase and sale of shares, securities etc. not exceeding amount of dividend or income received or receivable of securities units etc. shall be ignored: ITAT

I-T - ITAT is not inclined to show any liberty to such an assessee who does not appear to be interested to fight for her own cause : ITAT

I-T- Non-awareness of filing TDS, a technical breach and can be a 'reasonable cause' for failure to comply with Section 273B: ITAT

CX - Tribunal wrongly held that petitioner was not entitled to interest from the date of the application u/s 11B(1), but only after the expiry of three months from the date of the Order of the tribunal: HC

Cus - In case the petitioner is able to obtain sale proceeds against the subject exports, it will have liberty to approach the authority concerned for release of duty drawback: HC

GST - Cancellation of registration - On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived: HC

Cus - Valuation - Transaction value price paid/payable at time of import/export, where buyer & seller are unrelated & price is sole consideration, is to be accepted: CESTAT

CX - Waste and scrap used at the end of job worker cannot be held to be dutiable in principal manufacturer's hands, duty confirmed against appellant is not justified: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1505-HC-MAD-GST

Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Vs Commissioner Office Of The Principal And Special Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

GST - Petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate on the premise that the Petitioner has failed to file monthly returns - Petitioner further submits that against the said order of cancellation, he was not able to file an application for revocation in time; that in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece = 2022-TIOL-261-HC-MAD-GST , has allowed the petition subject to certain conditions; that the said stand has been consistently thereafter followed by this Court in various decisions; inasmuch as on payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived. Held : In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece = 2022-TIOL-261-HC-MAD-GST and the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court - Writ Petition is ordered on the same terms mentioned in paragraph 229 of the order of Suguna Cutpiece Centre (supra): High Court [para 4, 6]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1511-HC-MAD-VAT

Kurlon Enterprises Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

In writ, the High Court observes that the assessee's objections were not adverted to and were rejected through a single-line in the order. Hence the orders are set aside for re-consideration of the matter.

- Writ petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1508-HC-KAR-SERVICE

UoI Vs Satish Gaudappa Bagewadi

Service Matter - THE applicants were all serving as Inspectors in the Department of Income Tax. That certain others who were similarly appointed and placed came to be transferred to the regions wherein, the private respondents were working and such transfers were effected on the voluntary request of the said employees - On account of which, they were placed below the applicants in the order of seniority as they lost the seniority in view of the transfer being a request transfer and the same being in accordance with the rules, the same was also accepted by the officers. The said seniority list placing them below the applicants was not called in question - The undisputed fact is that despite they being below in the ranking in the seniority list, but when it came to granting promotion, the said officers who were juniors to the applicants on account of having given up their seniority due to the request transfer, their services rendered earlier were counted and it was held that they having completed three years were entitled for promotion despite they being juniors to the applicants, who admittedly had not yet completed the three years and they having a few months left. Held - It is the case of the petitioners/department that they have complied with the order dated 27.11.2019 and in their understanding, consequential benefits cannot include salary attached to a post in which they had not worked. We are unable to countenance this submission - It is trite law that it is not open for the litigant to interpret the judgment and we also do not propose to enter upon the correctness of the said submission as the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay alone - Its is not in dispute that the order has been partially complied with by granting promotion to the respondents from the date on which the promotion was given to the junior and now when contempt petitions are preferred, the instant writ petitions are filed belatedly that too after a passage of nearly 2 ½ years. Hence the petition is rejected on delay and laches: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1507-HC-MUM-CX

Lavino Kapur Cotton Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant fled four refund applications u/r 5 of CCR, 2004 on various dates in 2005, 2006 and 2007 - Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, however, finally the same were allowed by the CESTAT by virtue of its Order dated 10 February 2016 - After this Order was passed, the Assistant Commissioner gave refund of an amount of Rs.59,35,217/- in June 2016, however, the claim for grant of interest u/s 11BB was rejected - As the Commissioner(A) upheld this order, an appeal came to be filed before CESTAT who held that the right to refund in favour of the Appellant accrued in terms of the Order of the Tribunal which was passed on 10 February 2016 and that the right to interest in terms of Section 11BB, in favour of the Appellant would accrue only if the refund has not been made within three months of the filing of the application in terms of “such” an Order; that the Appellant was not entitled to interest merely on filing an application for refund without there being an Order under Section 11B(2) of CEA, 1944 - Accordingly, the matter was remanded - Present appeal is against this order. Held: + Question which arises for consideration is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act or the date on which the Order of refund is made? [para 13] + Tribunal, in its Order impugned wrongly applied the judgement of the Apex Court [ Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UoI - 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX ] for purposes of denying the benefit of interest on delayed refund by holding that it was not entitled to the same from the date of the application under Section 11B(1), but only after the expiry of three months from the date of the Order of the tribunal dated 10 February 2016, if such application(s) were filed in terms of the said Order and were disposed of within three months thereof. [para 18, 19] + Appeals allowed

- Appeals allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1506-HC-DEL-CUS

R K Overseas Vs Senior Intelligence Officer DRI

Cus - Respondent no.1 issued the impugned communication dated 29.07.2021 to the banker of the petitioner i.e.' IndusInd Bank Limited 'which in substance' prevented the bank from making any debit entries in the account maintained with it by the petitioner - Writ petition is directed against the said communication - Petitioner has assailed the impugned communication on the ground that it has been issued without the authority of law - Stand of the official respondents/revenue is that based on the intelligence developed by DRI, Mumbai it surfaced that the petitioner was part of a syndicate which was involved in fraudulent/unlawful availment of duty drawback' by taking recourse to bogus dummy Importer Exporter Codes ["IECs"]. Held : Writ petition is disposed with the following directions: ( i ) The petitioner will be free to operate the impugned bank account as at the moment there is no legal impediment given the fact that the provisional attachment orders which were issued to make course correction have outlived their legal efficacy. However, insofar as the duty drawback against 20 shipping bills is concerned i.e. Rs.49,23,635/- which stands credited in the petitioner's bank account, it will stand remitted to the official respondents/revenue leaving the remaining amount, if any, in the petitioner's bank account; (ii) The respondents/revenue will invest the aforesaid amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit. (iii) The petitioner will respond to the show-cause notice dated 28.07.2022. (iv) adjudicating authority will attempt to conclude the adjudication proceedings' within the next three months; (v) in case the petitioner is able to obtain sale proceeds against the subject exports it will have liberty to approach the concerned authority for release of duty drawback' finally or provisionally' in the event the adjudication qua the petitioner is not over within the timeframe indicated: High Court [para 39]

- Petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1112-CESTAT-MUM

Western Coalfields Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - Issue arises for consideration is taxability under Finance Act, 1994 of certain activities undertaken by them on coal mined by them and before shipment to conform to size agreed upon in contract of sale with their customers - This dispute had plagued all coal mining companies and orders impugned have arisen at different points in time though, at times, overlapping for different areas of operation - It is the main contention on behalf of appellant that issue is covered by decision of Tribunal in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd - A number of decisions thereafter have followed order of Tribunal among which are South Eastern Coalfields Ltd 2018-TIOL-1691-CESTAT-DEL and Northern Coalfields Ltd and another - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1111-CESTAT-DEL

Bansal Marble Traders Vs CC

Cus - The appellant is an importer of stones having Import Export Code. On 1st June, 2017, the appellant filed a bill of entry No.9918589 for clearance of goods declared as "polished marble slab" classified under CTH 68022190 through their authorised representative, CHA M/s. Rajiv Chibber - The goods were imported from China through M/s. TBK Industry Company Ltd. vide bill of lading dated 05.05.2017 covered under invoice No.1716 dated 28.04.2017 - The declared invoice value of the goods is US Dollar 48100 CIF having gross weight of 81020 Kg. The quantity of the goods was 1202.5 Sq. Mtr. having unit price of USD 40 per Sq. Mtr. with assessable value of Rs.31,72,339/- having custom duty of Rs.8,83,823/- thereupon - The Shed Officers, on the basis of doubt, examined the impugned goods initially on 08.06.2017 in presence of appellant's representative subsequently on 13.06.2017 on the request of CHA of the appellant - The consignment was found to contain 1470 Sq. Mtr. (Approximate) granite slabs. The declared polished marble slabs were found only to be 140 Sq. Mtr. (approximate). However, thickness of both types of slab was not exceeding 20 mm. There was a policy condition for granite slab vide Directorate General of Foreign Trade Notification No. 28 & 29/2015 - 2020 dated 17.09.2016 vide which the import of granites slabs was permitted freely provided CIF value is USD 50 or above per Sq. Mtr. Since the value declared was less than the said value and the goods were not declared as granite slabs that the officers considered the goods to be the restricted goods - No valid license was found available with the appellants for import of said restricted goods (granite slabs). Resultantly, the appellant was alleged to have intentionally mis-declared the goods by undervaluing the same with the sole intention to evade the payment of customs duty - The value of goods was reassessed by the proper officer at Rs.52,16,883/- and the reassessed customs duty of Rs.21,14,242/-. Held - This is a case of rejection of declared value post the 100% examination of the consignment imported by the appellant in presence of his authorised representative, his CHA - No doubt in terms of Rule 3 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as the Valuation Rules) read with Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, it is the transaction value of such goods i.e. the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation or, as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the same, which has to be accepted. This understanding of transaction value is subject to rule 12 of the Valuation Rules: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1110-CESTAT-AHM

Nayara Energy Ltd Vs CC

CX - Appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that they had cleared Motor spirits and High Speed Diesel at a higher rate due to enhancement of Central Excise Duty of said goods vide Notfn 22/2014-CE and 24/2014-CE - Same was rejected on the ground that effective date as per sub-section 5 of Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1994 would be the day of issue of Notification, irrespective of the facts that whether it was published and offered for sale by Director of Publicity and Public Relations of CBEC or not - As regard the background of issue, relevant provisions is made under sub-section (5) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1994 - From the said provision it is absolutely clear that any Notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) come into force on the date when it is published and offered for sale on the date of issue - Notfn 22/2014-CE and Notfn 24/2014-CE both did not provide that the date on which these shall come into effect - It is undisputed fact that Notification were not offered for sale by Directorate of Publicity and were put on CBEC website on the next date around 11:45 hours on 13.11.2014 in respect of Notification No. 22/2014 -CE dated 12.12.2014 and on the late evening of 02.12.2014 in respect of Notification No. 24/2012-CE dated 02.12.2014 - Therefore, both the Notification will be effective from its publication and refund on this ground is admissible to appellant - Appellants are entitled to refund of duty paid in excess during relevant period - The only issue now needs determination is, whether appellants could be able to discharge the burden in establishing the fact that incidence of duty had not been passed on to their customer and consequently eligible to refund amount - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1109-CESTAT-KOL

Forgings India Iron And Steel Ltd Vs CCGST & Excise

CX - The issue involved is as to whether credit attributable to inputs contained in waste and scraps which have not been received from job-worker is required to be reversed - The issue having been decided in case of M/s. Rocket Engineering Corpn. Ltd. 2005-TIOL-1313-CESTAT-MUM as also in case of M/s. Emco Ltd. 2008-TIOL-1232-CESTAT-MUM laying down that waste and scrap used at the end of job worker cannot be held to be dutiable in principal manufacturer's hands, duty confirmed against appellant is not justified - Further, Tribunal's decision stand upheld by High Court of Mumbai - There is no contra decision shown - The waste and scrap are not manufactured goods whether they are generated at the premises of principal manufacturer or at the premises of job-worker and accordingly, legislature have consciously not made any provisions for reversal of any credit taken on duty paid inputs in case of clearance of waste and scrap and/or, there non-return from job worker's premises under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 - Confirmation of demand of duty, interest and imposition of penalty upon Appellant is set aside by holding that Appellant was under no obligation to pay duty on waste and scrap used at the job worker's end - Thus, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT