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

I-T - Re-assessment order warrants being set aside where it is not based on independent application of mind and is based entirely on report of Investigation Wing : HC

I-T - High Court cannot stay recovery of duty demand, where assessee did not take any measures when cause of action first arose & even when it was served SCN u/s 226(3) : HC

I-T - Assessment order passed u/s 148A merits being set aside where it was passed without granting a personal hearing: HC

I-T - Exemption u/s 11(1)(a) cannot be denied where assessee is registered as charitable organisation holding valid registration u/s 12A of I-T Act : ITAT

I-T- Once business is held to have been closed, assessee cannot claim depreciation u/s. 32(1) which could only be allowed if business had been running or was in existence: ITAT

I-T- To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, Section 153(5) of the Act gives shorter time-frame of 3 months from date of receipt of order of CIT (A) saving interest of Revenue : ITAT

I-T- If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion: ITAT

VAT - Interest on tax amount refundable to the assessee, is to be calculated from date on which assessee filed refund claim in prescribed format : HC

Service Matter - Department commenced legal proceedings against own employee solely to deny promotion & so displayed conduct of unbecoming manner; CAT order lambasting Department for withholding promotion due to pendency of legal proceedings is upheld: HC

CX - Since the original documents are not with Tribunal, therefore, matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to reassess the issue in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-42-HC-DEL-VAT

Kay Ess Electronics And Electricals Vs CTT

Whether interest on tax amount refundable to the assessee, is to be calculated from the date on which the assessee filed the refund claim in the prescribed format - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-41-HC-P&H-SERVICE

CIT Vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Service Matter - The present petition was filed was filed against an order of the CAT, wherein it had been held that the Department could not have withheld the promotion of the respondent, solely due to pendency of Departmental proceedings against the respondent - The present petition was filed on 03.05.2017, apparently only on the strength of the fact that a departmental order had been passed in the meantime on 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8) against the employee withholding the three increments of pay with cumulative effect.

Held - Apparently, the petitioners have succeeded in their endeavor to deny the respondent-employee the benefits of promotion, as firstly they chose to file the review to prolong the proceedings for almost a period of one year - Thereafter, after the review was dismissed they chose not to file the writ petition for a period of almost six months and only filed the same on 03.05.2017 - An argument as such was raised before the Coordinate Bench on which notice motion was issued that a punishment order had been imposed on 15.02.2017 - It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has taken voluntary retirement - Thus the Department as such proceeded in a manner which is unbecoming of a Department and rather the whole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right of consideration for promotion - However, the respondent-employee is not present - Thus, we do not wish to further comment upon the fact as to how he has been prejudiced by his own officers - Even otherwise, it is apparent that the order of the Tribunal was an innocuous order and the present writ petition has now been rendered infructuous due to the intervening circumstances - Hence the present petition is dismissed: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-25-CESTAT-MAD

Timberland Vs CGST & CE

Cus - The appellants imported Plantation Teak Logs from Malaysia but inadvertently did not claim BCD exemption available for import of goods under Headings 4401 to 4410 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from Malaysia, under Serial number 574 of Notification No. 53/2011-Cus. - It is the case of appellant that by mistake Serial number was mentioned as 577 and accordingly system did not allow exemption - Thereafter, they filed a letter requesting for recalling of Bill of Entry and for amending the same under Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962, but however, same was not acceded to by concerned authorities - First appellate authority has clearly recorded that appellant did not submit Country of Origin Certificate as prescribed, either during assessment stage or appellate stage - Against this, appellant would contend that Bill of Entry itself contains country of Origin as Malaysia, same is also supported by filing of "supporting document details" which mentions the details like IRN Nos. which only required a simple verification by concerned authorities - But, however, without going into or looking into Bill of Entry, first appellate authority has given a wrong finding as to non-filing of Country of Origin Certificate - Impugned order has to be set aside but however, with a direction to first appellate authority to pass a speaking order after considering the Bill of Entry and other supporting documents if any that may be filed by appellant - Consequently, matter remanded to appellate authority to pass a de novo speaking order in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-24-CESTAT-MUM

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - SCN pertaining to use of 'input services' in common for manufacturing as well as trading involving a demand of Rs. 33,47,30,142/- for period January 2008 to March 2011 had, on former occasion, been limited to Rs. 4,24,52,646/- in adjudication order - The appeal which was allowed by way of remand then was that of assessee and not of Revenue, which has now been revised upward to Rs. 24,89,73,043/-; it is settled law that in remand proceedings arising from appeal of assessee, they cannot be burdened with liability that is more than that remanded in first place - Confirmation of demand, many times over, upon challenge to first demand is contrary to law - Insofar as disposal of that notice as well as three other SCNs for subsequent periods are concerned, adjudicating authority has referred several times to the order that had been been extinguished by operation of order of Tribunal on former occasion - Many of findings therein appear to have vended their way into impugned order by mechanical reproduction which is tantamount to conclusions that are not founded on submissions made during de novo proceedings - Adjudicating authorities are expected to discharge their obligation not only in accordance with law but also by compliance with principles of natural justice both of which are not evident in impugned order - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and, as a last chance, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for rendering a decision consistent with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as directed in remand by Tribunal on former occasion without being influenced, in any manner, by any of predecessor adjudication orders: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-23-CESTAT-AHM

Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is in appeal against demand of excise duty on freight charges collected by appellant while supplying the goods to their customers on FOR basis - Both the original adjudicating authority and first appellate authority have held that factory gate is place of removal - However, original adjudicating authority has treated the amount of freight collected from buyers as an additional consideration and demanded central excise duty on the same - The first appellate authority relied on Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 to hold that freight charges are includible in assessable value - First appellate authority has remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority - Impugned order does not interpret Rule 5 ibid correctly - Both the lower authorities have not disputed that the factory gate is the place of removal and therefore, cost of transportation if collected in addition to price of goods and shown separately in invoice, needs to be excluded from assessable value - Since the original documents are not with Tribunal, therefore, matter remanded to original adjudicating authority to reassess the issue in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 : CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-22-CESTAT-AHM

Gujarat Engineering Research Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue involved is that whether demand of service tax raised against appellant is not maintainable on the ground of time-bar - Demand of service tax pertains to period March/July 2007, 2003 to May 2007 and SCN was issued on 11.01.2009 - Therefore, entire demand is under extended period of limitation - This Tribunal in appellant's own case held that the demand is time-barred and appeal was allowed on limitation - Issue and facts of said case and case in hand are identical therefore, demand raised in present case for extended period is not maintainable on the ground of limitation itself - Hence, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT