I-T - Where assessee corrects errors in its computation of provision for interest, immediately upon being pointed out by the Revenue, then no mens rea is attributable so as to warrant imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) : HC

I-T- Notice issued u/s 148 prior to 1st April, 2021 seeking to reopen assessment issued more than 6 years after the end of relevant AY should be quashed : HC

I-T - Debts having been written off in books of account of assessee-company in year under consideration and also credited as income in the preceding year(s), the same are allowable as expenditure u/s 36(1)(vii) of Act: ITAT

I-T- Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 are bad in law when provisions of 1st proviso to section 147 as well as section 149(1)(b) of the Act are not fulfilled : ITAT

I-T - LTCG earned by assessee cannot be held bogus merely on basis of assumption of AO unless cogent material is brought on record : ITAT

I-T - Money spend on superfluous social networking cannot be allowed as business promotion expenses : ITAT

I-T- Even though assessee at fault, CIT (A) must give opportunity to assessee of being heard : ITAT

CX - When zinc scrap, a waste arising out of process of manufacture of finished goods is not the goods manufactured by appellant, same cannot be considered as exempted goods manufactured by them: CESTAT

ST - In absence of any notice under category of healthcare services, no tax liability can be fastened on assessee: CESTAT

CX - In absence of any evidence to hold that appellant and dairies are related in terms of Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the price at which goods were sold is transaction value in terms of Section 4: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1124-CESTAT-MUM

Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - Appellants are engaged in manufacturing of MS Black Pipes and Galvanised from Pipes/Tubes and during its manufacturing process unusable waste/residue in the form of zinc dross, zinc dust and flux skimming are generated which cannot be avoided - The appellant used to sold said waste/residue in open market - As per department, said waste/residue are exempted goods and hence provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are attracted - Accordingly, SCNs were issued to appellant - Both the authorities below while upholding the demand raised, have relied upon the amendment made in Rule 6 ibid w.e.f. 1.3.2015 and came to the conclusion that after aforesaid amendment zinc dross/flux/skimmings cleared by appellant are covered by provisions of Rule 6 ibid - Issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of decision in appellant's own case M/s. APL Apollo Tubes Ltd. (Unit-II) 2019-TIOL-3741-CESTAT-MAD in which Tribunal while dealing with the aforesaid amendment in Rule 6 ibid allowed the Appeal filed by appellant and held that when the zinc scrap, a waste arising out of process of manufacture of finished goods, is not the goods manufactured by appellant, same cannot be considered as exempted goods manufactured by them - Even after considering the amendment made in Rule 6 ibid, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-DEL

Pr.CC Vs Show World

ST - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order whereby they decided the SCN issued to assessee and confirmed a demand of Rs. 28,728/- out of Rs. 60,49,457/- demanded in SCN and dropped the remaining - SCN demanded service tax from assessee under head "event management services" - There is no demand under head "healthcare services" - The Principal Commissioner has, in impugned order, examined the nature of services provided by assessee has come to the conclusion that provision of MMUs by assessee would qualify as "healthcare services" and NOT as "event management services" - Tax liability under healthcare services cannot be fastened on assessee at all because no notice has even been served upon them under this head - Assessee was put to notice asking as to why a demand cannot be made under head "event management services" - No service tax can be levied under the head "event management services" as per the finding of Principal Commissioner in impugned order which is not disputed by Revenue, therefore, the question as to whether an exemption notification under head "healthcare services" is available to assessee or not is a moot question - The exemption notification will be relevant if tax liability can be fastened on assessee in the first place - In absence of any notice under category of healthcare services, no tax liability can be fastened on assessee - Therefore, demand under head event management services made in SCN has been correctly dropped in impugned order - Impugned order is modified to the extent that the demand stands dropped for the reason that no notice was served upon assessee under the category of healthcare services: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1122-CESTAT-AHM

Mother Dairy Vs CCE & ST

Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order ordering confiscation of goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine, confirming customs duty demand with interest thereon and imposing penalties on appellant - Revenue has denied duty Exemption Notification No. 104/94-Cus. in respect of impugned disputed imported goods - As per details of documents submitted by appellant, it is found that in some of cases goods imported by them availing benefits of Notification No. 104/94-Cus. have already been reexported - Once the imported goods have been allowed export by department, demand of custom duty denying benefit of Notification No. 104/94 on export goods is not correct in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months - Therefore, where the goods are already re-exported benefits of said Notification should be granted - However, the facts of export of very same goods, which were imported by appellant have to be established and identity of imported and re-exported goods is required to be examined by lower authorities, therefore matter needs to be reconsidered - The assessments are provisional and same have to be finalized in accordance with provisions of Customs Act and there can be no demand of duty without finalization of assessments as held in Gujarat High Court's judgment in case of Essar Steel Ltd. 2003-TIOL-492-HC-AHM-CUS - Where there is incompatibility between departmental proceedings to enforce contract and parallel proceedings for finalization of provisional assessment under Section 18 of Customs Act, statutory action must prevail - This is to say that proceedings for finalization of provisional assessment must go ahead - The assessee's duty liability will depend upon result of these proceedings - Assessing authority is directed to finalize the provisional assessment of relevant Bills of Entry and then proceed to recover the duty of customs, if found due: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1121-CESTAT-AHM

Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order ordering confiscation of goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine, confirming customs duty demand with interest thereon and imposing penalties on appellant - Revenue has denied duty Exemption Notification No. 104/94-Cus. in respect of impugned disputed imported goods - As per details of documents submitted by appellant, it is found that in some of cases goods imported by them availing benefits of Notification No. 104/94-Cus. have already been reexported - Once the imported goods have been allowed export by department, demand of custom duty denying benefit of Notification No. 104/94 on export goods is not correct in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months - Therefore, where the goods are already re-exported benefits of said Notification should be granted - However, the facts of export of very same goods, which were imported by appellant have to be established and identity of imported and re-exported goods is required to be examined by lower authorities, therefore matter needs to be reconsidered - The assessments are provisional and same have to be finalized in accordance with provisions of Customs Act and there can be no demand of duty without finalization of assessments as held in Gujarat High Court's judgment in case of Essar Steel Ltd. 2003-TIOL-492-HC-AHM-CUS - Where there is incompatibility between departmental proceedings to enforce contract and parallel proceedings for finalization of provisional assessment under Section 18 of Customs Act, statutory action must prevail - This is to say that proceedings for finalization of provisional assessment must go ahead - The assessee's duty liability will depend upon result of these proceedings - Assessing authority is directed to finalize the provisional assessment of relevant Bills of Entry and then proceed to recover the duty of customs, if found due: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT