I-T - Provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) have excluded receipts and expenses outside India: HC

I-T - Reassessment proceedings initiated solely on basis of 'change of opinion', does not comply with jurisdictional foundation u/s 147: HC

I-T - Disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D cannot be sustained where assessee had sufficient interest free surplus fund to make investment: HC

I-T - Penalty imposed beyond limitation period without specifying any valid reason for delay, is unsustainable : HC

I-T - No addition is permitted in assessment order passed u/s 153C r/w/s 143(3), in absence of any incriminating material unearthed during course of search: ITAT

I-T - Only excess rent paid by charitable society over and above prevailing market rate, can be brought to tax as per provisions of section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(3): ITAT

Cus - The technical reason of lack of access to portal could not be said to be reasonable ground to oust the petitioner from earning benefit of quota earmarked for export on pro-rata basis: HC

GST - Revenue was unjustified in provisionally attaching personal property owned by partner of firm under Section 83 of CGST Act, as she is not a taxable person for being the partner of firm: HC

CX - When assessee is neither manufacturing nor producing plastic scrap, it already exists and they are only separating it manually from rest of scrap, no central excise duty can be charged: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-347-HC-AHM-GST

Utkarsh Ispat LLP Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The only short question that needs to be addressed is as to whether in wake of earlier order of this Court in 2022-TIOL-250-HC-AHM-GST , request of petitioner to replace the properties should be permitted - And this is a request on the part of petitioner to facilitate him to use funds lying in Fixed Deposits and Current Accounts attached by respondent authority - Order of provisional attachment passed under Section 83 of CGST Act by respondent authorities on 25.11.2021 - What can be noticed by this Court is that the amount of tax as shown in form GST-DRC-22 is Rs.31,02,53,631/- where of course, penalty of matching amount and the interest of Rs.6.78 Crores making it total Rs.68.83 Crores - Going by circular of CBIC dated 23.02.2021, immovable property's value should be not less than the tax amount in dispute - This Court, thus, has been very clear that respondent No.3 was unjustified in provisionally attaching personal property owned by partner of firm under Section 83 of CGST Act, as she is not a taxable person for being the partner of firm - This immovable property is also of a value not less than the tax amount in dispute - There is nothing which is come on the record on part of revenue to show that this is not free from any subsisting charge, liens, mortgages or encumbrances - The property tax has been fully paid and it is not involved in any legal dispute - The property offered by petitioner is unencumbered - The property valuation of which, as given by the State, is Rs. 10,48,84,200/- being the market value, whereas, value of very property offered in substitution being other plots, as per Government Approved Valuer is Rs.13,01,92,000/- - No reason found to disregard the valuation given by Government Approved Valuer on a higher side in absence of any other material or the reason for rejecting the same - Therefore, respondents are directed to substitute the same with amount of fixed deposit provisionally attached, except the amount of fixed deposit of Rs.2,24,99,844/- lying in current account - The remaining amount, which has been provisionally attached, shall be immediately released on receiving the copy of this order along with an undertaking on the part of petitioner and partner-cum-owner of property - It shall need to be ensured by petitioner and owner of property that the same shall, in no manner, be marketed or offered to any other authorities in any of proceedings: HC

- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-348-HC-AHM-CUS

Kribhco Agri Business Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioners have prayed to set aside notification dated 8.9.2022, whereby revenue prohibited the export of broken rice - HS CODE 1006 40 00, w.e.f. 9.9.2022 - In the alternative, it is prayed to declare that notification dated 8.9.2022 would not apply to broken rice procured by them prior to date of notification - The petitioner seeks permission to export 3006.110 M.T. of broken rice - Petitioner has called in question the action on part of respondents in not permitting export of consignments of commodity broken rice already procured by petitioner before date of imposition of prohibition - When the notification dated 12.10.2022 was issued and quota of broken rice was offered for export to exporters, notwithstanding the policy of prohibition, petitioner was entitled to seek such benefit - The petitioner was within its right to assert its claim - He could be said to be the first amongst the equals within class of exporters who were to be permitted to utilise said export quota as petitioner had altered its position to put itself to detriment by procuring rice under contract to export - However, admittedly, petitioner could not identify itself with said class and could not group itself with said homogeneous class for only reason that petitioner could not have online access to portal - As a result, he could not apply under said quota - Petitioner fulfilled required conditions that its letter of credit was opened before date of notification - It was only irregularity, and no substantive defect, that the petitioner could not have online access to portal - It was given out that there were 52 applicants to be considered for pro-rata allotment of quantity of broken rice permitted to be exported under Notfn dated 12.10.2022 - The technical reason of lack of access to portal could not be said to be reasonable ground to oust the petitioner from earning benefit of quota earmarked for export on pro-rata basis - Petitioner belonged to same class of exporters who are to be considered for pro-rata allotment within quota offered for export - Denying the petitioner this relief would be against doctrine of legitimate expectation and tenets of fairness enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution - Respondent authorities are directed to treat the petitioner at par with those other exporters whose cases are to be considered on pro-rata basis for purpose of permitting export of broken rice HS CODE 1006 40 00 within the quota of 3,97,267 MT stipulated under Notification dated 12.10.2022: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-201-CESTAT-DEL

CCE & CGST Vs R P Industries

CX - The assessee manufactures lead ingots/lead rods and for this purpose uses lead scrap obtained from market on which no duty is paid and they also did not avail any CENVAT credit on scrap - However, to use the scrap, plastic and other material must be separated and this is done manually and only the lead scrap goes into manufacture and other scrap (of plastic) is sold by assessee - Revenue wants to charge excise duty on this other scrap on the ground that it arises during process of segregation of scrap which process is ancillary to manufacture of goods and therefore, qualifies as manufacture itself - No CENVAT credit was availed at all on input scrap - If duty has to be determined on merits, it needs to be first of all examined if charging section of the Act applies - Section 3 levies duties of excise on "excisable goods produced or manufactured" in India - Assessee is neither manufacturing nor is it producing plastic scrap - The plastic scrap already exists and assessee is only separating it manually from the rest of scrap - Therefore, even if this circular 1029/17/2016-CX is considered, no central excise duty can be charged - Impugned order is correct and calls for no interference, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-200-CESTAT-BANG

Advanced Fiber Solutions Vs CC

Cus - Application filed seeking early hearing of appeal on the ground that goods viz. "Optical PLC Splitter" falling under chapter sub-heading 8517 79 90 as claimed by appellant, proposed to be classified by Department under 8517 62 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Consequently, goods were seized but on request for provisional release, exorbitant amount of bank guarantee which is five times of differential duty, imposed by adjudicating authority - Revenue raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of appeal before this forum - Appellant ought to have filed appeal before Commissioner(A), instead of approaching this Tribunal directly - However, appellant is directed to approach Commissioner(A), if so advised and Commissioner(A) would consider to condone the delay of period consumed before this Tribunal in pursuing the remedy, if appeal before him is filed by appellant within a reasonable period: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: BANGALORE CESTAT

2023-TIOL-199-CESTAT-MAD

Apex Cel Link Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant is engaged in business of promoting and marketing post-paid mobile connections and providing services - It was noticed that appellant, though registered with Department under category of Business Auxiliary Service, had failed to pay Service Tax and also file their returns - Main contention put forward by appellant challenging demand confirmed under Business Auxiliary Service is that the telecommunication service provider had already discharged Service Tax liability on commission, which is part of charges collected for post-paid connections - Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for services rendered by them and therefore, no merit in arguments put forward by appellant challenging their liability to pay Service Tax - Appellant was under bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay Service Tax as commission paid to them was part of charges received by telecommunication service provider for providing post-paid connections - Appellant has furnished reasonable cause for failure on their part to pay Service Tax - It is also noted that they have paid up a major part of Service Tax - It is a fit case to invoke Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 to set aside the penalty imposed on appellant under Sections 77 and 78 - Impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994, without disturbing the confirmation of demand of Service Tax along with interest: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-198-CESTAT-AHM

Kaveri Buildcon Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant is in appeal against demand of service tax on construction of complex service - The residential house constructed by appellant were used by Essar Limited for its own staff - Appellants have claimed that said use amounts to personal use and therefore, service provided by them is not covered under definition of construction of complex service - Identical service has been defined by Tribunal in case of CR Patel - It is also pointed out that service provided by them is not in nature of works contact - In SCN, it is clearly seen that entire contract was inclusive of all the material and goods - Appellants are making residential properties for use of Essar Group for their employees - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT