|
2023-TIOL-15-CESTAT-DEL
All India Football Federation Vs CCGST
ST - The issue to be decided is as to whether the amount paid by IMGR to ZEEL as termination fee as per tripartite agreement entered into between appellant, ZEEL and IMGR can be taxed and if such tax has to be paid by appellant under category of "permitting commercial use or exploitation of any event service" under section 65(105)(zzzzr) of Finance Act, 1994 - It is undisputed that the rights were originally granted to ZEEL at which time they were not taxable - Had ZEEL continued to use the rights for full 10 years no tax would have been payable - Had an agreement been reached whereby the rights were returned by ZEEL to appellant for a consideration that could have been a consideration for termination of original contract - Thereafter, had the appellant sold rights to IMGR or to any other entities, it would have been taxable under section 65(105)(zzzzr) ibid - The tripartite agreement which has been entered into has effectively circumvented this situation by transferring the rights from ZEEL to IMGR directly with concurrence of appellant for a consideration known as termination fee paid by IMGR to ZEEL - Appellant has not rendered any service in this agreement, but has concurred to agreement whereby the rights were transferred from ZEEL to IMGR - Such concurrence by one to transfer of rights from A to B does not amount to rendering any service - The amount paid by IMGR to ZEEL on behalf of appellant cannot be considered as an amount paid to appellant for any service - Demand is not sustainable - Consequently, question of interest and penalty and time bar become irrelevant: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-14-CESTAT-AHM
Santram Metal And Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - SCN was issued to assessee for recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit and same has been adjudicated vide O-I-O wherein duty demand was confirmed, penalty imposed on Shri Shivkumar Kaluram Heda earlier proprietor of M/s Omkar Metal & Alloys and Director of M/s Santram Metal alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Navratanlal Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Singhal Road Carriers - The issue, investigation/ allegation in present case are prima facie common as appearing in case decided by Tribunal vide order dated 20.06.2022 - Since the case involved facts as well as legal issue, entire matter needs to reconsidered taking cognizance of Tribunal's order dated 20.06.2022 - Accordingly, matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing order afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to assessee: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-13-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs Seetha Rama Bhaktanjaneya Food Processing Pvt Ltd
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned Orders wherein First Appellate Authority has sustained orders of adjudicating authority in so far as same relate to denying of duty exemption, demanding of customs duty and interest are concerned but, however, remanding back the issue to the extent of confiscation of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 are concerned - A SCN was issued, which is clearly after a period of more than 12 years and only 15 days' time was granted to reply to said SCN - This itself makes it very clear that Revenue slept over the matter for more than 12 years but, allowed only 15 days' time as against a minimum of 30 days' time, to reply to SCN, which is clearly a violation of principles of natural justice - Further, first appellate authority has only partially remanded while sustaining duty liability and interest thereon and hence, if prayer of Commissioner is to be sustained whereby Commissioner has prayed inter alia for upholding appellate authority's order, for the reason that the order of first appellate authority did not appear to be proper and just and that order of Commissioner (A) merits rejection, then entire order of Commissioner (A) has to be set aside - Further, with regard to order of confiscation, what was imported under advance authorization was only raw materials which were subsequently converted into final products and hence, order of confiscation could only to be restricted to raw materials alone, which perhaps is the reason for first appellate authority to have remanded the matter with direction to re-examine partially, which appears to be correct - No reasons found to interfere with partial remand order of first appellate authority, for which reason, appeals of Revenue are dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
