I-T- Delay in submission of tax audit report is mere only technical breach of law which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271B of Act : ITAT

I-T - Where income on sale of wind power is accepted as such by Revenue, then it would not be justified in disallowing depreciation claimed on the such windmill at the eligible rates : ITAT

I-T - Onus to establish genuineness of any expenditure incurred by assessee lies on himself, even though certain expenditure was incurred to maintain/improve property: ITAT

Odisha Entry Tax Act - Provision for interest is to be construed as substantive law & not as machinery provision; only ordinary charging section which fixes liability is to be strictly construed: HC

Cus - When proprietor had admitted re-determined value and also paid differential duty with interest and penalty, it is not open for appellant to contend, after goods have been cleared, that market value could not have been re-determined: CESTAT

ST - Service of erection, commissioning and installation is indeed used and wholly consumed in SEZ, appellant is eligible for exemption under notfn 9/2009-ST as amended by notfn 15/2009-ST: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-349-HC-ORISSA-MISC

Shree Bharat Motors Ltd Vs Sales Tax Officer

Whether provision for interest is to be construed as substantive law & not as machinery provision, ergo, only an ordinary charging section which fixes liability is to be strictly construed - YES: HC

Whether moreover, the machinery provisions must be so construed as would effectuate the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same - YES: HC

Whether while deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice - YES: HC

- Writ petitions disposed off: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-208-CESTAT-DEL

Sukhdev Exports Overseas Vs CC

Cus - Appellant has sought the quashing of order passed by Commissioner (A) who upholds the order of Additional Commissioner by which declared assessable value of Alloy Wheels of motorcycles the imported goods in three Bills of Entry has been rejected and has been re-determined; the differential customs duty already paid has been appropriated; imported goods have been confiscated under provisions of section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with an option to appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine in terms of section 125 of Customs Act; and penalty has been imposed under section 114A - The very fact that the importer had agreed for enhancement of declared value in statements made under by section 108 of Customs Act, itself implies that importer had not accepted the value declared in Bills of Entry - The value declared in Bills of Entry, therefore, automatically stood rejected - As importer had accepted the enhanced value and there was, therefore, no necessity for assessing officer to determine the value in manner provided for in rules 4 to 9 of Valuation Rules sequentially - When proprietor had admitted re-determined value and also paid differential duty with interest and penalty imposed by competent authority, it is not open for appellant to now contend, after goods have been cleared, that the market value could not have been re-determined - Contention of appellant that principles of natural justice have been contravened as copies of statements relied upon as well as the market enquiry report have not been supplied to appellant cannot be accepted - The value has been re-determined on the basis of opinion given by shopkeepers during the market survey, which value was accepted by appellant - It is, therefore, not a case where only the statement of proprietor has been relied upon - The provisions of section 111(m) of Customs Act have been correctly invoked as the value of goods imported by appellant do not correspond with the value given by appellant in Bills of Entry - Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-207-CESTAT-AHM

Neo Structo Construction Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant have provided services to SEZ during period 03.03.2009 to 20.05.2009, during said period exemption to service provided to SEZ was available under notfn 9/2009-ST which was by way of refund however, subsequently notfn 15/2009-ST was issued amending notfn 9/2009-ST wherin, sub-para (c) of para 1 of notfn 9/2009-ST was substituted - From the amendment, it can be seen that amendment is explicitly by way of substitution of sub-para (c) in notfn 9/2009-ST - It is settled law that if any amendment is brought whereby, earlier terms of notification is substituted then, such amendment shall be effective from retrospective effect i.e. from the date of original notification accordingly, for the services provided during the period 03.03.2009 to 20.05.2009 substituted sub-para (c) shall apply - As per sub-para (c) of notfn 15/2009-ST., if service provided is for use in authorized operations in SEZ shall be exempted without opting for refund by service provider subject to condition the services are consumed wholly within the SEZ - In present case, service of erection, commissioning and installation is indeed used and wholly consumed in SEZ therefore, appellant is eligible for exemption under notfn 9/2009-ST as amended by notfn 15/2009-ST - Even as per SEZ Act, all supplies of goods and services made to SEZ are not chargeable to duty or service tax - For this reason also, demand is not sustainable - Demand of service tax in respect of services provided to authorized operation of SEZ is not sustainable accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-206-CESTAT-AHM

Velji P And Sons Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant have cleared their excisable goods outside the factory without payment of duty and without preparing any documents - There is clear violation of Central Excise Rules and procedure - Appellants' main defence is that the goods were meant for export and subsequently same have been exported, therefore, no mala fide intention with intent to evade payment of duty - Even if this fact is considered but violation of provision is clearly exists that though excisable goods from factory cannot be cleared without payment of duty and without issuing the invoices, ARE-1 if it is meant for export - Therefore, goods were rightly confiscated - However, appellants' claim is that the goods which were confiscated have been finally exported, on such goods excise duty is not chargeable but in this case subsequent event of export of goods has not been considered - Accordingly, matters needs to be re-adjudicated after ascertaining facts about the disposal of goods whether the same were cleared in DTA or for export - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order preferably within a period of two months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT