|
2023-TIOL-66-SC-CT-LB
Tata Motors Ltd Vs DCCT
Whether transaction between manufacturer & dealer while acting pursuant to warranty, has to be construed as sale within meaning and definition of sale under Sales Tax Acts - YES: SC LB
Whether credit note issued by manufacturer to dealer, is valuable consideration within meaning of definition of sale and hence, exigible to sales tax under the respective State enactments of the States under consideration - YES: SC LB
- Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2023-TIOL-548-HC-ALL-GST
Shri Ram Ply Product Vs Addl.Commissioner
GST - Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was beyond the maximum period fixed by the statute for filing the appeal viz. four months - Inasmuch as the appellate authority has computed the four months period by considering each month as being of thirty (30) days.
Held: Section 107 provides for filing of appeal within the prescribed period of three months from the date on which the said order was communicated to the person concerned and further more sub-section (4) of s.107 provides that the appellate authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting appeal within the period of three months, may allow it to be presented within a further period of one month - Bare reading of the provisions of Section 107 of the Act, 2017 reflects that it is not 120 days, but it is four months and, therefore, it would depend upon the date on which date the adjudicating authority passes the order - The four months may be of 121 days or 122 days, as the case may be - In the present case, the four months comes to 121 days and the appeal was filed on the 121st day - Since the appellate authority has considered the four months period to have ended on the 120th day, the impugned order is set aside - Counsel for Revenue does not dispute either legal or factual position - The appeal is, therefore, restored to its original number and the appellate authority is directed to proceed with the appeal and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law - Petition allowed: High Court [para 5, 7]
- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-357-CESTAT-KOL
Racily Udyog Vs CCE
CX - Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Tubular Plate Lead Acid Batteries since April 2005 - They claimed that these batteries are specifically designed for use in solar photovoltaic modules/ system, to store electricity generated by solar cells and are an integral part of photovoltaic module -` Appellant cleared said batteries without payment of excise duty in terms of Sl. No. 237 of Notfn 6/2002-CE and Sl. No. 84 of Notfn 6/2006-CE, which exempted non-conventional energy devices/ systems specified in List 9 and 5, respectively - SCN was issued questioning eligibility of Exemption Notfn to appellant on various grounds - From the Notfns, it is clear that intention of Government is to promote non conventional Energy systems and for that both the Systems/Devices as well as its parts were exempted - However, as per Entry 21, parts are exempted only if they are used within factory of production - In this case 'Batteries' manufactured by appellant is a special type of battery used in solar PV systems - This has been confirmed by Certificates and Expert Opinions submitted by them which clearly indicate that they are specially made Batteries to store electricity generated by solar cells and an integral part of solar Photovoltaic Module - They have an independent function on its own and hence can be called as a 'Device' on its own for purpose of Notfn 6/2006 and hence exemption can be made available to Batteries - There is no doubt that Legislature wants to extend the benefit of Exemption to Non-Conventional Power Generating System - It is a policy decision of Government to promote Renewable sources of energy - In many cases, entire system cannot be manufactured within factory - The fully finished system will come into existence only at the site after assembly of various parts - It is practically impossible to bring into existence a fully finished system within the factory - Just because the fully finished system comes into existence only at the site, benefit of exemption available to System cannot be denied to 'parts', which are an integral part of the system - Thus, 'Batteries' manufactured by appellant, which are an integral part of Solar Power Generating System, are eligible for benefit of exemption Notfn 6/2002 as amended - Hence, the demand confirmed is not sustainable - Since the demand itself is not sustainable, penalty imposed on Sh Kalyan Das is also not sustainable - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
|
