I-T - Statement recorded during survey operation u/s 133A may be relevant material but in absence of further materials to substantiate it, it could not be basis for making addition: ITAT

I-T- Bonus amount paid by an employer to an employee out of appreciation for the latter, falls outside the purview of Section 17(iii) of the Act: ITAT

I-T - If land was shown as agricultural land in Revenue records, same was not converted to non-agricultural land and was situated beyond 8 km from municipal limits, then its sale is eligible for deduction u/s 2(14)(iii): ITAT

I-T- Commission expenses cannot be disallowed without considering business expediency for which such amounts had to be paid to parties & where all details have been furnished by assessee : ITAT

CX - Demand raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence demand cannot be sustained: CESTAT

ST - Refund cannot be rejected without putting appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected: CESTAT

Cus - NIDB data has been held to be insufficient for enhancement of value, in absence of any other independent evidence: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-341-CESTAT-KOL

Rana Sponge Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - A SCN was issued alleging that assessee intentionally and knowingly contravened the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with intent to evade Central Excise duty during month of November 2007 to December 2007 and August 2008 inasmuch as they had not paid Central Excise duty by debiting from their account - Penalty of Rs.25.00 Lakhs has also been imposed under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 - Gujarat High Court in case of Indsur Global Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2115-HC-AHM-CX has declared the words "without utilizing Cenvat Credit" under Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires which means that assessee can discharge duty by utilizing Cenvat Credit which is what exactly has been done in instant case by assessee - Said judgment has been followed by Calcutta High Court in case of Goyal MG Gases Pvt.Ltd. which is not stayed by Supreme Court - Calcutta High Court in said case, has declared the provisions of Rule 8(3A) ibid as invalid and further has held that Revenue cannot take a different stand and parity has to be extended to assessee - Demand has been raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during the period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence demand cannot be sustained - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-340-CESTAT-MUM

Gartner India Research And Advisory Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - There are two points to be determined i.e. one is whether refund can be rejected without putting appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected - Another one is what is the date of export of service - Insofar as rejection of refund is concerned, appellant was not issued with a SCN for the ground on which same was rejected - Appellant did not get opportunity to present their case - Therefore, part of order is not sustainable since the appellant could not present their case and adjudicating authority has made up his mind without taking into consideration the facts and contention of appellant on the issue - Insofar as rejection of refund of Rs. 27,33,267/- is concerned, it is to be examined whether export took place on 30.06.2012 or after that - It is crucial to examine the issue because after 01.07.2012 said Notfn 11/2005-ST did not have force of law - The notification states that services should be exported in terms of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 to be eligible to avail the benefit of said notification - Taking the relevant invoice into consideration which was raised on 30.06.2012, it is very clear under said Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 that export of service was provided on 30.06.2012 - Therefore, said Notfn 11/2005-ST was applicable to appellant for subject export - Therefore, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-339-CESTAT-AHM

Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Dispute is regarding valuation of goods imported by appellants - Assessing Authority re-assessed the imported goods at values higher than what was declared by appellants in Bills of Entry - Adjudicating authority enhanced the value as declared value appears to be low compared to value available in NIDB data, otherwise, there is no material available - Tribunal consistently observed that declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data - In case of Neha Intercontinental Pvt. Ltd. 2006-TIOL-749-CESTAT-MUM Tribunal has held that in absence of rejection of transaction value, invoice value requires acceptance and when contemporaneous import of similar goods is not established, value cannot be enhanced - In case of Modern Overseas, NIDB data was held to be insuffient, in absence of clarity about various parameters - List of such decisions is unending and it is sufficient to say that NIDB data has been held to be insufficient for enhancement of value, in absence of any other independent evidence - Admittedly, there is no such evidence produced by Revenue except reference to the NIDB data - Enhancement of value on basis of NIDB data cannot be accepted - As regard the second dispute that whether appellant are eligible for exemption under Notfn 30/2004-CE which provide exemption form Countervailing Duty (CVD), identical issue has been decided by Tribunal in appellant's own matter of M/s Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants are entitled for exemption from payment of CVD under notfn 30/2004-CE - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT