I-T-Liability u/s 179 cannot be fastened onto company director who had very limited role in management & where no evidence proves gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty: HC

I-T - In case of acquisition of land by Government by way of compulsory acquisition, Department cannot be heard to say that there is suppression of value and consequently question of invoking Sec 50C does not arise: HC

I-T - Re-assessment cannot be resorted to in respect of company which ceases to exist due to its amalgamation, more so where Department had been duly informed about such amalgamation : HC

I-T - AO cannot retain seized assets awaiting finalization of future possible liability for indefinite period without deciding application of person concerned who is legitimately in position to explain source of asset so seized: HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Deposit made during investigation was sought for adjustment towards amount payable - No communication received from Committee, hence amount paid again - Refund cannot be denied without giving due opportunity: HC

2023-TIOL-311-HC-KAR-ST

Renaissance Holdings And Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACCT

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - During investigation, the petitioner made a deposit of Rs.1,91,38,545/- - Consequent upon introduction of the Scheme, petitioner has filed the application in the prescribed Form for availing the benefit of amnesty available and also requested for the credit of the amount paid as pre-deposit towards the amount payable under the Scheme - As no response was received even closer to the last date of the Scheme viz. 30.06.2021 and being anxious to avail the benefit of the Scheme, a sum of Rs.1,91,38,545/- was deposited - Consequent to such deposit, the petitioner was extended with the benefit of amnesty and discharge certificate was also issued in the prescribed Form [SVLDR Scheme - 4] - Subsequently, the petitioner requested for refund of the amount paid as pre-deposit but the same was rejected on the ground that because the petitioner has voluntarily paid the amount under the Scheme, it would not be entitled for the refund - Aggrieved by this communication dated 01.06.2021, petitioner is before the High Court. Held: It is obvious on perusal of the impugned communication that the petitioner's claim is not considered in the light of whether the petitioner, if entitled to credit of pre-deposit under the SVLDR Scheme and has deposited a similar amount to avail the benefit of the Scheme, because there was no communication, would be entitled for refund - Court is of the considered view that this question should have been considered with due opportunity to the petitioner which admittedly is not accorded - Therefore, this Court must intervene quashing the impugned order and restoring the petitioner's application for re-consideration by the first respondent within a time frame of eight weeks: High Court [para 4]

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-183-CESTAT-BANG

Hosmroc Exim Vs CC

Cus - Appellants are engaged in import of 'Toughened Glass Top - Part of Gas Stove' for last 2/3 years and last import was in Dec. 2021 - They have been consistently declaring the description of goods as 'Toughened Glass Top - Part of Gas Stove' and classification under Tariff Item 7007 21 90 of CTA, 1975 - In a routine manner, they imported said good in Feb 2022 without any change in description nor different technical specification having any bearing on its classification as declared by them in past and cleared by department without any objection - However, Customs Department all of a sudden proposed to change declared and assessed classification of said 'Toughened Glass Top - Part of Gas Stove' under Heading 7007 ibid attracting BCD @ 10% to Heading 7013 ibid attracting BCD @ 20% and proceeded to place imported goods under seizure alleging mis-classification - No mis-declaration of description of goods is alleged nor any other material disclosed in seizure memo revealing intention to mis-declare classification of goods on the part of appellant - On the other hand, appellant placed on record prevailing practice of classification of similar goods in different Customs House/Commissionerate which is under same Tariff Item 7007 21 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The precise question to be answered is, whether conditions imposed for provisional release particularly the quantum of bank guarantee/cash deposit and other conditions imposed to safeguard the interest of Revenue pending adjudication on face of allegation of mis-classification of 'Toughened Glass Top - Part of Gas Stove' is too harsh and warrants modification - Appellant since incurring heavy warehousing charges for last one year, are willing to deposit differential duty and execute bank guarantee/security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/-; also they have no objection to execute B-1 Bond for estimated value as conditions for provisional release of goods - Same would sufficiently safeguard the interest of revenue and meet the ends of justice - Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and on deposit of differential duty by appellant, Adjudicating authority shall release the goods provisionally forthwith pending adjudication of case: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: BANGALORE CESTAT

2023-TIOL-182-CESTAT-MAD

Pricol Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appellant had been issued with three SCNs to deny credit availed by them based on ISD invoices issued by their Head Office on the grounds that ISD invoices did not contain requisite details as required in terms of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, no input services covered in said ISD invoices were received by appellant unit, that credit transferred amount included a portion of credit transferred back by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I to Pricol ISD Registrant which was subsequently redistributed by ISD registrant to appellant unit and such credit is not permissible to be transferred by ISD to appellant in terms of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004 - All the three issues raised in this appeal are no more res integra - The Tribunal vide Final Order dated 12.09.2012 and also vide Final Order dated 16.03.2018 have already decided that input service credit when distributed by ISD, cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR, 2004, when it was possible for department to verify all input service invoices on the basis of which credit has been accumulated by ISD - Proceedings initiated against M/s. Pricol Limited, Plant-I, Coimbatore, on the issue of retransfer of ISD credit to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD was finalized by this Tribunal vide Pricol Ltd 2019-TIOL-1768-CESTAT-MAD - For the reasons and detailed discussions and as all the issues in this appeal are covered by decisions of Tribunal, the appeal is allowed: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-181-CESTAT-AHM

Gautam Freight Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue involved is as to whether the service provided by appellant within port area is classifiable under Port service or Cargo Handling Service during relevant period - Cenvat Credit was denied by adjudicating authority only on the ground that same was utilized for payment of service tax on Cargo Handing Service in respect of export of Cargo which is excluded from definition of Cargo Handling Service under Finance Act, 1994 - Therefore, when output service is not taxable Cenvat Credit was not admissible - Even though export Cargo Handling Service is not taxable but appellant have admittedly paid service tax and same was accepted by department as no objection was raised regarding payment of service tax - When appellant has paid service tax, input service credit is admissible - From the chart, it appears that appellant have paid more amount of service tax as against input tax credit, therefore, there is revenue neutral situation, however, this worksheet was given first time before Tribunal which needs to be verified - Accordingly, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT