I-T-AO cannot proceed with re-assessment if the grounds mentioned in re-assessment are non-existent : ITAT

I-T - Failure of assessee to file neccesary documents despite several opportunities, calls for cost, in case prayer for readjudication of those documents stands accepted: ITAT

I-T - If assessee has explained about identity, creditworthiness and financials of each of share subscriber company individually, no addition is warranted u/s 68 on account of unexplained credit: ITAT

I-T-CIT(A) has all power to entertain any additional grounds raised & as per settled law, must exercise discretion to or not to permit raising of an additional grounds: ITAT

I-T - Vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) is available only when property is 'actually let out' and not based on intention of letting out: ITAT

Cus - Demand confirmed by original authority on the ground that appellant has not produced end-use certificate cannot sustain, as there is no such condition attached to goods imported under Notfn 89/94-Cus: CESTAT

CX - The person who engaged in discounting of cheques as his profession is not supposed to know what are transactions behind payment for which appellant have discounted the cheques, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed: CESTAT

ST - Use of residential complex by Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd is excluded from definition of residential Complex as 'intended for personal use as residence by such persons', demand of service tax cannot sustain: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-317-CESTAT-MAD

Suraj Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellants imported 'Glass Neck Tubes' and claimed benefit of Notfn 88/94-Cus. - Later, Customs Receipt Audit pointed out that exemption was only for duty that is in excess of 30% and not 20% as assessed in terms of notification - Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for the reason that appellants have not produced end-use certificate from jurisdictional Central Excise authorities - On appeal, Commissioner (A) disposed the appeal by holding that order of confirmation is set aside, however, demand notice is upheld - It is noticed by Commissioner (A) that stay was granted waiving the requirement of predeposit, observing that appellant was not served with SCN and the order passed by original authority - Further, Commissioner (A) has set aside the order of confirmation but has upheld the SCN, which is found to be improper - On perusal of order passed by original authority, it is seen that a notice was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 demanding duty for the reason that exemption is only for duty that is in excess of 30% and not 20% - Amount of Rs.2,20,777/- has been confirmed by original authority on the ground that appellant has not produced end-use certificate - Indeed, said finding is beyond the scope of SCN - On perusal of Notfn 89/1994, it is found that there is no such condition attached to goods imported under List-C - There is no evidence available from impugned order or from records that SCN and the OIO have been served on appellant - Said plea has been put forward by appellant from very beginning of litigation - Demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-316-CESTAT-AHM

Mudra Finvest Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant was imposed with penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appellant had nothing to do with goods - The main case was of obtaining fraudulent advance license - In money transaction of advance license, appellant had a limited role of discounting cheques - The person who engaged in discounting of cheques as his profession is not supposed to know what are the transactions behind the payment for which appellant have discounted the cheques - For this reason itself, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed - Moreover, from the specific activities prescribed under Rule, 26 for imposition of penalty, appellant by any stretch of imagination not involved in any of the activity specified under Rule, 26 - The identical case of appellant has been decided in their favour in case of R. C Jain, wherein the appellant was also one of the appellant before Tribunal - Accordingly, issue is no longer res integra - Hence, penalty imposed under Rule 26 upon appellant is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-315-CESTAT-AHM

R N Dobariya Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appeal filed by appellant against demand of service tax as "Construction of Residential Complex Service" and "Works Contract Service" - The definition of residential complex in both the services excludes from levy of Service Tax "complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of lay out and construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such persons" - This expression has been interpreted by Tribunal in case of Sima Engineering 2018-TIOL-3479-CESTAT-MAD - T he use of residential complex by Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (GSPHCL) is excluded from definition of residential Complex as "intended for personal use as residence by such persons" - No merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT