2023-TIOL-685-HC-MUM-MISC
Yes Bank Ltd Vs UoI
Whether joint application by both parties is not required for seeking refund of court fees in every case - YES: HC Whether merely because borrower does not consent for joint application to be presented for refund of court fees, legal rights of applicant to receive such fees cannot be defeated - YES: HC
- Case disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-684-HC-KOL-MISC
Mannoj Kumar Jain Vs UoI
Whether Look Out Circulars have inexplicably long shelf-life and therefore, banks cannot use them in absence of acceptable apprehension - YES: HC
- In favour of Petitioner: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-492-CESTAT-MAD
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The issue that needs to be addressed is, whether stand of Revenue is correct in not adjusting excess payment against alleged short payment of duty - Original adjudicating authority after considering the details as to the clearances made by appellant to M/s. BPCL have finalized the provisional assessments on the basis of clearances made in each month, i.e., as per the E.R.-1 returns filed, and arrived at the shortfall of duty for the period from January 2008 to August 2008 and from June 2009 to July 2010 and excess payment of duty for the period from September 2009 to May 2009 - In doing so, he has adhered to instructions given in C.B.E.C.'s Excise Manual for Supplementary Instructions as well as provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - For the shortfall, he raised a demand whereas in case of excess payment, original adjudicating authority has ordered for credit into Consumer Welfare Fund as there is a finding that duty of excise paid to appellant had been passed on to M/s. BPCL - There is a categorical finding in adjudication order that duty burden has been borne not by appellant, but by M/s. BPCL, the consignee of goods - Refund of excess payment was not sanctioned for the reason that duty burden has been passed on to M/s. BPCL attracting provisions of Rule 7(6) - Not only that, M/s. BPCL had availed CENVAT Credit of excess payment of duty on the basis of Central Excise cenvatable invoices issued under Rule 11 of CER, 2002 - As such, no error found in order passed by lower adjudicating authority : CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-491-CESTAT-DEL
Container Corporation Of India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Issue arises is, whether customs duty on approximate assessable value have been rightly demanded from appellant who is custodian and further imposition of penalty under Section 117 - In absence of any inspection at any stage either at country of loading or load port, nor by Indian customs after arrival of said container in India, till the date of joint inspection/ survey on 03.04.2013, when the said container was found empty while lying in premises of appellant custodian - There is total darkness, as to what exactly the said container was stuffed with - The demand of duty is wholly based on assumption and presumptions of goods said to be in said container - However, under the Customs Act r/w HCCAR, 2009, the appellant was obligated to keep the container in safe custody and to offer the container in sealed condition for inspection, which they have failed - There is contributory negligence on the part of customs department also, as they have failed to take timely action for disposal of goods in spite of receiving intimation of appellant as early as on 03.11.2010 - Demand of duty is set aside - However, amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-490-CESTAT-DEL
Dhananjay Confectioneries Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order passed by Commissioner (A) wherein their appeal has been dismissed and demand of CENVAT credit confirmed by Adjudicating Authority has been upheld with interest - Issue involved is, whether Parle Biscuits was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to turnover of each unit between manufacturing plants of Parle Biscuits and its contract manufacturing units, including appellant under rule 7(d) of CENVAT Rules - Assessee claims that it was authorised by Parle Biscuits to manufacture, on its behalf, "biscuits" and to comply on its behalf all procedural formalities contemplated under Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder in respect of goods manufactured on behalf of Parle Biscuits and also to furnish information relating to price at which Parle Biscuits would sell said biscuits in order to enable the determination of value of said goods under section 4A of Excise Act - The inputs used for manufacture of biscuits are supplied by Parle Biscuits which pays for inputs but assessee takes credit of same and utilises credit for payment of duty on biscuits cleared on account of Parle Biscuits - Assessee also claims that it availed and utilised input services used in relation to manufacture of biscuits for Parle Biscuits in accordance with provision of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The final product is cleared on payment of excise duty by assessee on maximum retail price declared by Parle that is printed on packages of biscuits, as is provided under rule 10A of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 - Parle was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to final product on pro-rata basis proportionate to turnover of each unit between manufacturing plants of Parle and its contract manufacturing units, including appellant under rule 7(d) of CENVAT Rules - Impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-489-CESTAT-DEL
HLS Asia Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant provides wireline logging, perforation and data processing services to ONGC and OIL and has been paying service tax on these three services from 1.6.2007 under head 'mining services' and department has not disputed this classification of service - Once the department accepted that these are 'mining services', it cannot, simultaneously, classify them under Technical Testing and Analysis services(TTA) - Unless the department can establish that appellant was wrong in classifying these services under 'mining services" and department itself was equally wrong in accepting their classification under 'mining services', department cannot classify the services under any other head, including TTA - Nothing found in impugned order explaining why the department and appellant were both wrong in classifying them as 'mining services' - Therefore, demand cannot be sustained on merits - The scheme in Finance Act, 1994 is that if appellant does not self-assess tax correctly, the remedy against it is 'Best Judgment Assessment' under section 72 - This provision is similar to the provision for re-assessment under Section 17 (4) of Customs Act, 1962 - The Commissioner imagined that wrong self-assessment by an appellant would amount to deliberate misdeclaration and suppression of facts with intent to evade - As per Finance Act, 1994, if appellant wrongly self-assesses tax in its returns and none of five elements required to invoke extended period of limitation is present and if demand gets time-barred, the responsibility for it rest squarely on officer who had the jurisdiction and mandate to Best Judgment assessment under section 72 but has not done so and NOT on appellant - Therefore, invocation of extended period of limitation cannot be sustained - Demand of interest and penalties also set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-488-CESTAT-KOL
CST Vs Allahabad Bank
ST - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order alleging that assessee was not entitled to take CENVAT Credit of input services in contravention of Rule 4A(2) read with Rue 9 (1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - It is not a case of non-levy or not paid, short-levied or short-paid and/or erroneous refund of service-tax, it is a case of wrong availment of credit of tax paid by assessee on input-services received by assessee - Activities of assessee are not hit by any of clauses mentioned at (a) to (e) and therefore, imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is not warranted - Adjudicating authority had categorically found that assessee have obtained Central Excise Registration and is a Input Service Distributor - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT |
