I-T - Once withdrawals & deposits during year in two bank accounts maintained by assessee and deposits so made duly stand explained by earlier withdrawals, then no adverse view is warranted: ITAT

I-T - Exemption u/s 54 should be allowed, after considering date of possession of new residential premises instead of date of sale of agreement and date of registration: ITAT

I-T - Provisions of Section 80P are inapplicable to a cooperative credit society which is not a primary cooperative bank : ITAT

GST - If petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 2.5% of its liability, petitioner's appeal against O-I-O would not be rejected solely for want of requisite pre-deposit: HC

GST - Expiry of e-way bill - Any hindrance in the movement of goods or fray amounts to an obstacle in the development of the nation: HC

Cus - In absence of evidence to the effect that documentary evidence produced by asesee are not legal document, confiscation of 7000 kgs of Black Pepper is set aside: CESTAT

CX - When Chartered Engineer's Certificate clearly shows that all the goods were used for capital goods in factory of appellant, cenvat credit should be allowed: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-414-HC-DEL-GST

G S Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

GST - Petitioner filed the petition, inter alia, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty for maintaining an appeal against O-I-O - The petitioner submits that demand has been raised on erroneous premise that they could not avail the benefit of abatement as it had availed of certain CENVAT credits - This Court is unable to accept that petitioner can set off its obligation to make a pre-deposit against its claim for refund of CENVAT credit - However, merit found in contention that petitioner's remedy of an appeal would be rendered illusory where petitioner does not have liquid funds to make said deposit - Petitioner states that they would make a deposit equal 2.5% of liability instead of 7.5% to maintain the appeal against O-I-O - It is directed that if petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 2.5% of its liability, petitioner's appeal against O-I-O would not be rejected solely for want of requisite pre-deposit - In so far as merits of case are concerned, court is refraining from making any observations in that regard: HC

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-413-HC-TRIPURA-GST

Swapan Chandra De Vs State Of Tripura

GST - Validity of the e-way bill was upto 17.03.2022, but due to some mechanical defect the vehicle reached Churaibari on 18.03.2022, and by that time the validity of e-way bill had expired for which the vehicle was detained and seized and ultimately on 18.03.2022 the driver of the vehicle was informed regarding such seizure - The seller Podder & Podder Industries P Ltd. had filed a Writ petition and the High Court had in its order  inter alia - 2022-TIOL-534-HC-TRIPURA-GST observed - that balance has to be brought between transportation of goods as well as the taxing event i.e. the sale or purchase of goods of service; that in a case where there is no doubt that a transaction is made between two registered dealers and is covered by the necessary documents including the e-way bill even if the e-way bill has expired just prior to the date of entry into the State, such goods ought not to be stopped and instead an undertaking should be taken from the buyer or the seller and intimation should be provided to the assessing officer of both the parties before whom the buyer or seller may appear to make necessary compliance; that any hindrance in the movement of goods or fray amounts to an obstacle of the development of the nation and accordingly the petition was disposed of with directions - However, the respondent no.3 caused an assessment and imposed tax and penalty under the Act/Rules and without issuing any notice to the petitioner - In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the demand made by the respondent no. 4 imposing penalty and tax upon the petitioner by its order dated 02.04.2022 stands quashed and are set-aside - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 8 to 11]

- Petition allowed: TRIPUR HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-274-CESTAT-KOL

Maa Lilori Bhander Vs CC

Cus - The Consignment of 7,000 kgs of Black Pepper were being transported under proper GST Invoices, E-Way Bills and under proper Consignment Notes - The seizure also was affected, not in any border area, but after traveling for three to four days from place of origin i.e. Mizoram - Appellant has demonstrated that all transactions were carried through proper banking channels - Seizure Report has provided two witnesses - From the signatures, it looks as if they were not well educated, there is no detail of their address - The statements nowhere specify that persons giving the statement were made aware of fact that they were giving statements in terms of Section 108 of Customs Act 1962 - Their statement does not say that knowingly or unknowingly they were dealing with goods of foreign origin - The Recorded Statements on their own fail to corroborate Department's case - As statements have not been recorded in terms of Section 108 nor the procedure specified under Section 138B(1) have been followed - This shows that the procedures were not properly followed and conditions as specified by Chhattisgarh and Punjab and Haryana High Court in judgment Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. 2018-TIOL-3124-HC-CHHATTISGARH-CX and Ambika International 2016-TIOL-1238-HC-P&H-CX have not been fulfilled - Appellant has produced the Invoice copies as well as E-Way- Bills and other relevant banking transactions details to prove that goods have been properly procured by them from A Z Enterprises - The documentary evidence shown like GST Invoice, E-way Bill and Consignment Notes were available right at the time of Seizure and Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that these are not legal documents - Once the Appellant is able to provide such documentary evidence, burden of proving that the goods are of a foreign origin falls on Department, which has not been done by them - Confiscation of 7000 kgs of Black Pepper is set aside along with penalties imposed on appellant: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-273-CESTAT-AHM

Indus Tropics Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue in brief is that though entire defaulted amount of central excise duty along with interest stands deposited with a delay of few weeks, Department is of the view that as per provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, appellant should have paid entire delayed payment in cash rather than same being paid by utilizing Cenvat credits - Matter has been decided by Tribunal in case of SPACE TELELINK LTD. 2017-TIOL-2998-HC-DEL-CX, SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P. LTD. 2022-TIOL-622-CESTAT-MUM and ANDHRA CYLINDER P. LTD. 2020-TIOL-215-CESTAT-HYD - Different High Courts have struck down the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and appeals against such judgments have been admitted by Supreme Court and have yet to be decided - Since the given facts of the appeal are identical to the one which has been decided in ANDHRA CYLINDER P. LTD. , the demand is unsustainable and needs to be set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-272-CESTAT-AHM

HIL Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue involved is, whether appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of Cement, MS angles, Channels, Beams and Bars used for foundation of plant and machinery in factory of appellant - This is the second round of appeal before Tribunal - In the first round of appeal, Tribunal has remanded the matter - From said order of Tribunal, it is clear that in principle Tribunal has not objected cenvat credit on goods such as Cement, MS angles, Channels, Beams and Bars for construction of Silos which are used for storing of goods - Tribunal has only remanded the matter to appellate authority only to address Chartered Engineer's certificate regarding consumption of material for fabrication of Silos - Appellant have submitted revised Chartered Engineer's certificate which is more elaborated based on actual location where the goods were consumed - According to said certificate, plant and machinery wise quantification of material was provided from which it clearly appears that all the goods were used for capital goods in factory of appellant - On the basis of Chartered Engineer's Certificate, no reason found why the cenvat credit should not be allowed - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-271-CESTAT-AHM

Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appeals filed appeal mainly on the ground that rejection of refund claim for period for which duty was wrongly paid by them and refund subsequently sought by them should have been accepted by Commissioner (A) as same was within a period of limitation and that services provided by them were not Management Consultant Services and therefore not liable to tax - Essentially, appellants were engaged in promoting agricultural activity in state of Gujarat and to help identified farmers, financially through subsidy of State Government - The appellants were assigned the task to disburse Government subsidy to various farmers of identified targeted group and that appellants were neither providing any advice to State Government or any consultancy for technical assistance and were simply handling agricultural subsidy sanctioned by State Government to qualified farmers - No reason found to differ with findings of Commissioner (A) - The case law quoted by appellant in case of Electrical Inspectorate, Government of Karnataka 2007-TIOL-2175-CESTAT-BANG was properly considered and rejected by Commissioner (A) - No merit found in appeal and accordingly the same is rejected: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT