I-T - CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 on recharacterization of gains on transfer of listed shares/securities and subsequent clarification, is retrospective in operation: HC

I-T - Principles of natural justice are contravened where assessment u/s 153 r/w Section 144 is done by AO without giving assessee an opportunity of personal hearing : HC

I-T - No disallowance of interest can be made when interest-bearing funds exceed the investments made by assessee in securities yielding exempt income : ITAT

I-T - Re-assessment invalid where commenced by AO without considering the supporting documents adduced by assessee to explain sources of income : ITAT

I-T - Penalty u/s 271B need not be imposed where book results shown by assessee were substantially accepted by Revenue as genuine & delay in audit of accounts was duly explained: ITAT

I-T - To impose or not to impose penalty is at the discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially & on considering all relevant circumstances ; AO can drop penalty for bona fide or technical breach of provisions: ITAT

ST - Tax liability does not arise by way of being Commission Agent on whose behalf he collects the toll as per section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to introduction of negative list regime: CESTAT

Cus - Merely because some parts were imported separately and cleared under a separate Bill of Entry, department cannot contend that goods cannot be classified under CTH 8437: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-370-HC-KERALA-VAT

Master Fire Security Systems Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Kerala

On considering the Original Petition, the High Court observes that the Tribunal has considered the relevant facts and has also exercised discretion in accordance with the law. On perusing the orders challenged before it, it has granted a conditional stay, which the High Court finds to be reasonable and legal.

- Original petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-245-CESTAT-DEL

Sangam India Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The core issue to be decided is, whether collection of toll /user fee by appellant on behalf of NHAI tantamounts to a service and whether such amount is chargeable to service tax - Appellant responded to a tender floated by NHAI for collection of toll charges on specified sections of highways - Appellant was successful in this bid and offered highest assured payment at specified intervals and emerged as designated operator - The expenditure for maintenance of assigned section was to be met from toll collected at rates determined by Government from time to time with balance, if any, after setting off lumpsum payments, being the returns to operator - The non-payment of tax on this consideration led to issue of SCN culminating in impugned order - The allegation that appellant worked as an 'Commission Agent' on whose behalf he collects the toll, appears to have overlooked the underlying scheme of tender which brought the appellant into this transaction - The contractual arrangement between appellant and NHAI was for undertaking the collection of toll or user fee - Terms of contract is very clear: possession of 'Kanwaliyas Toll Plaza' asset is transferred to appellant for stream of lumpsum payment guaranteed by appellant - Any deficit returns owing to decreased vehicular traffic or any other reason affects the revenue steam of appellant - A 'Commission Agent' is akin to a channel partner in delivery of goods/service, wherein Principal bears all the risks - Tax liability does not arise by way of being Commission Agent as per section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to introduction of negative list regime - Issue under consideration is squarely covered by order of Tribunal in case of Souvenir Developers India Pvt. Ltd - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-244-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Kaveri Seed Company Ltd

Cus - Though the department has denied classification adopted by assessee (CTH 8437), as rightly discussed by Commissioner (A), it is not stated either in SCN or in O-I-O as to what would be the correct classification if goods are not to be classified under CTH 8437 - Demand has been raised by denying classification to under CTH 8437 - The other allegation raised by department is that the assessee has not followed procedure laid down in Public Notice No. 91/87 - The proforma invoice shows the import of composite unit comprising of two seed processing lines - Order placed for supply would be complete only by including goods imported vide both Bills of Entry - Merely because some parts were imported separately and cleared under a separate Bill of Entry, department cannot contend that goods cannot be classified under CTH 8437 - No reasons found to interfere with decision arrived at by Commissioner (A): CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-243-CESTAT-MAD

CCE Vs Emerson Process Management India Pvt Ltd

CX - The issue relates to eligibility of Central Excise duty exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-C.E. for clearances of "shutdown valves" on payment of duty to M/s. ONGC during month of March 2011 on the basis of purchase order secured through International Competitive Bidding - Shutdown valves were supplied to M/s. ONGC on payment of duty - Though initially, area of operation was informed as Non-Petroleum Exploration Licence/Mining Lease, subsequently the area of operation was changed to Petroleum Exploration Licence/Mining Lease - Entire dispute revolves around whether assessee is required to produce a certificate from a duly authorized officer of Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, as prescribed under Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - Issue is squarely covered by decision of Tribunal in M/s. Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-211-CESTAT-MUM - Tribunal have also considered the evidences given regarding granting of lease to M/s. ONGC vide Letter and Project Authority Certificate for the supply of various shutdown valves by assessee and also M/s. ONGC's letter informing that as Central Excise duty on shutdown valves was not payable as supplies were meant for Petroleum Exploration Leased/Mining Leased areas where licences had been renewed after 01.04.1999 in view of Notification No. 06/2006-C.E., Central Excise duty paid by assessee was not reimbursed to them - They have also intimated that they would not have any objection to assessee claiming refund for Central Excise duty already paid - Appeal filed by Revenue cannot sustain: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: CHENNAI CESTAT