Function to Commemorate 40 years of The Tribunal

I-T - If assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by failing to discharge its primary legal onus of proving that expenses were incurred exclusively for purpose of business, then additions are possible u/s 69A: ITAT

I-T - Dividend Distribution Tax - Excess tax paid by assessee merits being refunded where assessee's wholly owned subsidiary duly remits Dividend Distribution Tax on dividends declared by it: ITAT

I-T- Assessee cannot claim deduction in respect of non-refunded security deposit during the year under consideration as a business loss where security deposist was an adjustment against period for which assessee used premises without paying any rent : ITAT

I-T- The first requirement of furnishing the return electronically is a mandatory one, the second one of sending acknowledgement of such filed return to the CPC is only directory: ITAT

CX - Even though service tax on any service is not payable but appellant pays the service tax, the recipient is entitled for cenvat credit: CESTAT

ST - Appellant's activity of treatment of effluent water has been exempted from levy of Service Tax vide Notfn 08/2017-S.T., so demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-205-CESTAT-AHM

Nirma Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue relates to availment of cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on reverse charge - Revenue has denied cenvat credit on the ground that since the service is exempted under Notification No. 17/2004-S.T. as appellant have paid R& D cess, therefore, tax paid on such exempted service cannot be allowed as cenvat credit - From said Notification No. 17/2004-S.T., it can be seen that same is conditional one - Whether there is a compulsion to avail conditional notification or not same is provided under Section 5A of CEA, 1944 - As per Section 5A, appellant enjoys the option of availing conditional notification or not - Therefore, if appellant have paid Service tax without availing said Notfn, same is not objectionable and payment of service tax is legal and correct - Consequently, cenvat credit on such service tax paid can also not be disputed - In catena of case laws, it is held that even though service tax on any service is not payable but appellant pays the service tax the recipient is entitled for cenvat credit - Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit of total amount paid as service tax - Since entire amount of cenvat credit of the service tax paid by appellant is allowed, there is no question of further refund as claimed: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Indiana Minerals Vs CCE

ST - Appellant had constructed 11 culverts at the premises of India Cements Limited and paid service tax for the work on 33 % of value and claimed 67% abatement - On verification of records, it was found that the service receiver had provided steel, cement and concrete pipes for said work - Department was of the view that as appellant has received free supply of materials, they are not eligible to claim abatement under Notfn 1/2006-ST - Issue is no longer res integra and decided by Apex Court in case of M/s. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. - Said judgment has taken into consideration the issue even after amendment brought forth in Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 - Following the ratio of said decision, demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Perundurai Common Effluent Treatment Plant Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant is engaged in activity of treating effluents discharged from member units - They also collected fixed cost and variable cost from each member unit by raising bill for quantity of effluent water discharged from these units - Apart from this, they also collected 10% amount on fixed cost towards emergency/capital expenditure account, which would be utilized for meeting emergency expenditure for treating effluents - Issue to be decided is, whether appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on remuneration collected from member units for activity of treatment of effluent water - Said activity has been exempted from levy of Service Tax vide Notification No. 08/2017-S.T. - Since the activity is exempt from levy of Service Tax as per Notification, demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Sukhdev Exports Overseas Vs CC

Cus - Appellant had filed five Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods 'Motorcycle and Alloy Wheels 18 inches & 19 inches' - When appellant was shown the details of how the value was calculated, appellant accepted that it was based on the value ascertained during market survey and also undertook to pay differential value with interest - On the basis of statements made by proprietor of appellant, a detailed order was passed by Assessing Officer for re-determination of market value and this order was upheld by Commissioner (A) - Appeal filed by appellant to assail this order has been dismissed by order of date - It appears that for this reason CHA of appellant accepted the value on hardcopies of Bills and differential duty was also paid by appellant - As re-determined amount was accepted by customs house representative of appellant, there was no necessity for Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order - Commissioner (A) in the order that has been impugned in this appeal has also noted that an order was passed by Assessing Officer in regard to similar/identical goods on the basis of a market survey that was conducted - Much emphasis has been placed by appellant on the letters sent to Assessing Officer for passing a speaking order - These letters were submitted by appellant after they had accepted the value and goods had been cleared on payment of differential duty - There is, therefore, no merit in appeals and same are dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT