2023-TIOL-53-CESTAT-AHM
Saurin Investments Pvt Ltd Vs CST
ST - This appeal has been filed against inclusion of NSDL & CSDL charges in assessable value for purpose of service tax by appellant - The issue of includability of NSDL/CSDL has been considered by Tribunal in case of M/s. KUNVARJI FINSTOCK PVT. LTD. and in the case of M/s. INNOVATIVE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. - It has been the consistent stand of Tribunal that these charges being statutory charges as per SEBI Rules should not be included for purpose of service tax - In view of fact that in appellant's own case, Tribunal has held in favour of appellant on this very issue, impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-52-CESTAT-AHM
Bisazza India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appeal filed against denial of credit on input services of pre-shipment charges and terminal handling charges in respect of export of goods - Pre-shipment service is received after Let export order by Customs - The second issue involved is, if appellant have right to choose an option to reverse the amount under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when they have not specifically exercised any such option before such transaction - There are plethora of judgments for purpose of export Port is place of removal - The Circular relied on by Revenue to deny credit on services used after Let export order also recognizes the Port of export as place of removal - Appellants continued possession even after Let Export order as is apparent from fact that they managed Inspection and handling of goods - Circular is not applicable - The appeal on this count is allowed - As regards to second issue, there is no authority in law which gives Revenue to exercise such discretion - Discretion of choosing method of compliance with Rule 6 is exclusively with assessee - Impugned order on this count cannot be sustained - Therefore, impugned order remanding the matter to lower authority to quantify the amount to be reversed is modified to the extent that reversal will be done as per choice of method of compliance of appellant in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-51-CESTAT-AHM
Sunshine Overseas Vs CCE & ST
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order vide which the order of rejecting refund as was directed to be deposited under Consumer Welfare Fund has been set aside, entitling the assessee for refund of said amount along with appropriate interest - The moment, demand was set aside by Tribunal, amount deposit with department was not the amount of duty but was revenue deposit to which assessee was entitled for refund - There is no dispute to this fact even by original adjudicating authority - Major amount of refund claim was sanctioned by original adjudicating authority itself - Rejection for balance amount has been readjudicated by Commissioner (A) vide order under challenge who while appreciating C.A. Certificate and audited balance sheets produced by assessee has concluded that there is no evidence to show that burden of differential duty has been passed by respondent to prospective buyers - This Tribunal in case of Akasaka Electronics Ltd. has held that Books of Account, Balance Sheet and C.A. Certificate are the sufficient documents for proof of contents in said certificate - It was specifically held that where assessee has exhibited on basis of Books of Account and C.A. Certificate that incidence of excess duty paid for which refund was sought for, has not been passed on to any other person, there is no reason to still hold that assessee has been unjustly enriched - Such findings are liable to be set aside and assessee is entitled for refund - The Tribunal in another case of DGP Honoday Industries Ltd. has also held that where assessee/respondent through certificate issued by Chartered Accountant and Balance Sheet have shown that the amount in question is receivable from department - The bar of unjust enrichment cannot be applied upon such assessee - No reason found to differ with these findings, specifically for the reason that there is no documentary evidence on record to falsify Chartered Accountant Certificate - The observations of review order are therefore opined to be result of mere presumption and surmises - Accordingly, no infirmity found in findings of order under challenge, same is hereby upheld: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-50-CESTAT-DEL
Pr.CC Vs Highland Liquors Pvt Ltd
Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order vide which the order of rejecting refund as was directed to be deposited under Consumer Welfare Fund has been set aside, entitling the assessee for refund of said amount along with appropriate interest - The moment, demand was set aside by Tribunal, amount deposit with department was not the amount of duty but was revenue deposit to which assessee was entitled for refund - There is no dispute to this fact even by original adjudicating authority - Major amount of refund claim was sanctioned by original adjudicating authority itself - Rejection for balance amount has been readjudicated by Commissioner (A) vide order under challenge who while appreciating C.A. Certificate and audited balance sheets produced by assessee has concluded that there is no evidence to show that burden of differential duty has been passed by respondent to prospective buyers - This Tribunal in case of Akasaka Electronics Ltd. has held that Books of Account, Balance Sheet and C.A. Certificate are the sufficient documents for proof of contents in said certificate - It was specifically held that where assessee has exhibited on basis of Books of Account and C.A. Certificate that incidence of excess duty paid for which refund was sought for, has not been passed on to any other person, there is no reason to still hold that assessee has been unjustly enriched - Such findings are liable to be set aside and assessee is entitled for refund - The Tribunal in another case of DGP Honoday Industries Ltd. has also held that where assessee/respondent through certificate issued by Chartered Accountant and Balance Sheet have shown that the amount in question is receivable from department - The bar of unjust enrichment cannot be applied upon such assessee - No reason found to differ with these findings, specifically for the reason that there is no documentary evidence on record to falsify Chartered Accountant Certificate - The observations of review order are therefore opined to be result of mere presumption and surmises - Accordingly, no infirmity found in findings of order under challenge, same is hereby upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
