I-T - Delay of one day in uploading assessment order or generating DIN cannot make assessment order unsustainable in law: HC

I-T - Original notices u/s 148 referable to old regime and issued between Apr 01, 2021 to June 30, 2021 would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of A.Y 2013-14 & 2014-15: HC

I-T - Original notices u/s 148 referable to old regime and issued between Apr 01, 2021 to June 30, 2021 would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of A.Y 2013-14 & 2014-15: HC

I-T - Penalty u/s 271F is sustainable where assessee does not file ITR or any justification for non-filing: ITAT

I-T - As per settled position in law, penalty cannot be imposed solely due to any claim of the assessee getting rejected : ITAT

I-T - Anything charged by assessee by way of excise duty and sales tax cannot be taken into account as they do not have any element of profit: ITAT

VAT - As per provisions of Sec 42(1) of DVAT if r/w/s 39, interest in any event was payable to assessee from date when it accrued to assessee in terms of section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act, 2004: HC

Cus - Mere non-mention of invoice number in certificate of Origin is not sufficient reason to deny the benefit of Notfn 46/2011-Cus: CESTAT

CX - Activity of Segregation of imported mixed brass scrap into foundry and non-foundry grade, results into manufacture, hence, demand of customs duty on clearance of segregated non-foundry scrap is not sustainable: CESTAT

ST - When service tax amount has been deposited before issuance of SCN, no penalty should be imposed: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-441-HC-DEL-VAT

CTT Vs Corsan Corviam Construction Sa Sadbhav Engineering Ltd JV

Whether where refund is withheld, assessee would be entitled to interest u/s 42(1) of DVAT Act, when as a result of appeal or any other proceedings, the assessee becomes entitled to a refund - YES: HC Whether as per provisions of Sec 42(1) of DVAT if r/w/s 39, interest in any event was payable to assessee from date when it accrued to assessee in terms of section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act, 2004 - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-291-CESTAT-AHM

Nirma Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against denial for benefit of Notfn 46/2011-Cus - Consignment was imported by MV Intrepid which sailed on 04.11.2011 from Indonesia carrying steal coal (non-coking) - The consignment imported by assessee is part of same cargo - The appellant have sought to rely on country of origin certificate which contains these details relating to date of sailing and name of ship and the quantity of cargo - Said certificate does not contain invoice number of either original purchaser or of assessee - The certificate produced by appellant clearly mentions that the goods were wholly obtained thereby implying that condition 3(a) of aforesaid rules stands satisfied - It is also not in dispute that consignment has been received directly from Indonesia to Indian Port to Bhavnagar and therefore, condition of Rule 8 of aforesaid Rules also stands satisfied - Now the only issue remains is if the defect of non mention of invoice number in Certificate of Origin can be enough to reject the certificate of origin and debar the assessee from benefit of Notfn 46/2011-Cus - There is no direct requirement in Rules or in Notification that invoice number has to be mentioned in certificate of origin - The Performa attached to Rules contains in column 10 space for the invoice number and date - All other details i.e. name of name of ship, date of sailing, entry of cargo and origin are in consonance with the claim made by assessee - Mere non-mention of invoice number in certificate of Origin is not sufficient reason to deny the benefit of Notfn 46/2011-Cus - The purpose of Notfn is to grant exemption under preferential Trade Agreement with Asian Countries and from the certificate of country of origin produced by assessee - It is sufficiently established that the goods have indeed originated in Indonesia and were wholly obtained in Indonesia - No merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Mitesh Impex Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant herein are 100% export oriented unit and engaged in manufacture of Brass articles - During relevant period appellant had imported Brass Metal scrap containing other impurities without payment of duty under Notfn 52/2003-cus as the said scrap, after receipt, segregated into foundry and non-foundry scrap - The foundry scrap is used in manufacturing of brass products - Whereas non foundry scraps containing other impurity was sold - Case of department is that once the non foundry scrap cleared by appellant is un manufactured goods and liable to custom duty on its clearance and on other after the allowance of 2% scrap over and above the 2% scrap is also liable to custom duty - The very same issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of Meridian Impex 2018-TIOL-2530-CESTAT-AHM - Said decision has been upheld by Gujarat High Court by dismissing revenue's appeal - Moreover, department has accepted Gujarat High Court order and subsequently dropped the proceedings in various cases on the same issue - Accordingly, issue is no longer res integra - Hence, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Jagati Cokes Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - The assessee's appeal is contested for imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994, whereas Revenue's appeal is contested for dropping penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 - There is no dispute that service tax has been paid by service provider, although the same was paid by assesse under reverse charge mechanism and same has been paid and appropriated - Now, the question arises, whether the assesse is required to penalize or not - Similar case has been decided by Tribunal in case of M/s Kamrup Coke Industries & SKJ Coke Industries wherein it is held that when service tax amount has been deposited before SCN, no penalty should be imposed - Assessee is entitled for benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 as amount of service tax has already been paid - Appellant is entitled for immunity from imposing penalty - Therefore, the order imposing penalty under Sections 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 on assesse is set aside and the order dropping penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, is upheld: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT