Shri P Thiaga Rajan, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu

I-T- If there is any typographical error, assessee has to invoke Section 154 of the Act and not the Appellate Jurisdiction to rectify the mistakes committed during assessment proceedings: ITAT

I-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80JJAA if his gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from manufacture of goods in factory: ITAT

I-T- Revenue authorities were justified in upholding an addition when the employee's contribution if made after the due date for furnishing return of income : ITAT

CX - Even though credit was not utilized but since the credit was wrongly availed, interest is unavoidably chargeable: CESTAT J

ST - Service of storage after period of three months is purely optional and independent service which can by no stretch of imagination be called technical testing and analysis service, demand cannot be sustained: CESTAT

Cus - As the date of dispatch of order is not available with department therefore limitation will start running from date when same was received by appellant: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-21-CESTAT-AHM

PSL Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue to be decided is, whether interest and penalty can be imposed when appellant have reversed the cenvat credit prior to utilization - From the reading of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is clear that interest is chargeable in event of either wrongly availed credit or wrongly utilized - Therefore, even though credit was not utilized but since the credit was wrongly availed, interest is unavoidably chargeable - This issue has been settled by Supreme Court in case of Ind-Swift Laboratories 2011-TIOL-21-SC-CX - Therefore, following the said judgment, interest is chargeable - As regard penalty under section 11 AC which is equal to amount of cenvat credit availed, SCN has invoked extended period, ingredients for invoking extended period for demand as well as for imposition of penalty under section 11 AC are same - The demand being under extended period, penalty is inevitable, once demand is sustainable for extended period, penalty under section 11 AC is imposed as mandatory - This issue has been settled by Supreme Court in case of Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB - Therefore, penalty under section 11AC was rightly imposed - The wrong availment of credit was suppressed from department as department was not aware that credit taken by appellant was pertaining to their other unit - In this circumstance, extended period was rightly invoked - Therefore, demand for extended period as well as equal penalty is sustainable - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-20-CESTAT-AHM

BA Research India Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Appeal has been filed by assessee against demand of service tax on storage charges collected by them from their clients - Assessee is providing service of technical testing and analysis service - Storage charges are collected by them only in cases of storage beyond the period of three months which is included in technical testing and analysis services already provided by assessee - The impugned order observes that service of storage and technical testing are not mutually exclusive service - Article 10 of master service agreement clearly prescribed that only at the request of client service of storage beyond period of 3 months provided - The agreement also provides separate and independent charges for purpose of storage - No merit found in argument that charges recovered on account of storage beyond period of 3 months can be considered as part of provision of technical testing and analysis service - Demand therefore cannot be sustained: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-19-CESTAT-MUM

Sanman Trade Impex Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order by which Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without going into merits - Although appellant time and again requested the department for personal hearing, granting of refund but in response to none of these communication department replied that O-I-O has already been passed - Since they have got the copy of adjudicating order only on 06.03.2020 therefore they had time to file appeal before Commissioner upto May, 2020 but since that was Covid time therefore vide Taxation and other Laws Act, 2020 r/w Notfn dated 30.09.2020 the time was got extended till 31.12.2020 and admittedly appeal was filed by appellant on 30.12.2020 - Since the department has failed to prove/place on record anything contrary to claim of appellant, therefore Tribunal accept the version of appellant which is well supported by evidence and seems to be true - As the date of dispatch of order is not available with department therefore limitation will start running from date when same was received by appellant which is 06.03.2020 and after taking into account the Taxation Act, 2020 read with notification, appeal filed on 30.12.2020 was filed well within limitation before Commissioner - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Since the appeal has not been decided on merits by first Appellate Authority therefore same is remanded to Commissioner with a direction to decide the same on merits after following the principle of natural justice and providing sufficient opportunity of hearing: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT