I-T- Re-assessment valid only if income escapes assessment, due to assessee's failure to make full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment - cannot be based on AO's change of opinion: HC

I-T- Order passed mentioning old PAN of assessee is invalid where assessee had sought to cancel said PAN & applied for new one & where such fact was known to Revenue: HC

I-T- Adjustment of tax payable by assessee against an amount of refund payable to an assessee is invalidated, where no prior intimation of such adjustment is given to assessee: HC

I-T- Re-assessment notice is invalid where it is issued in the name of an entity that ceased to exist by way of amalgamation & where such fact was also known to the Revenue: HC

I-T- Re-assessment is invalidated where based on change of opinion: HC

I-T- Penalty for late submission of audit report can't be imposed as there is only one day delay that too for technical glitches and latches on portal : ITAT

I-T- As per the provisions of section 80A(2) of the Act, the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee: ITAT

ST - Where assessee is undergoing insolvency proceedings under the IBC 2016 & Resolution Plan is approved by NCLT, CESTAT becomes functus officio - Hence, appeal abates: CESTAT

Cus - Simply because the mounts and heads were used mainly for sanitisers makes no difference to classification when the goods are clearly covered under CTH 9616 10 10: CESTAT

ST - As trade mark and patent rights were not registered in India therefore said rights were not governed by any law for time being in force, assessee is not liable to pay Service Tax on amount paid as royalty or licence fee: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-566-CESTAT-MUM

Jet Airways India Ltd Vs CST

ST - Assessee had entered into an agreement in relation to trade mark with a foreign company who have no offices in India - In terms of said agreement M/s. Borelli Tea Holdings Ltd. granted to the assessee non-exclusive, nontransferrable licence allowing use of its patents and trade marks for manufacture/production of tea and export thereof - In consideration for granting of patents and trade marks, assessee have been paying M/s. Borelli Tea Holdings Ltd. a royalty and/or licence fee @ 1.5% and 1% of their net sales - Revenue is of the view that assessee have obtained intellectual property rights therefore assessee is liable to pay Service Tax on said amount of royalty paid to their foreign service provider under Reverse Charge Mechanism - As it is an admitted fact that trade mark and patent rights were not registered in India, which have been obtained by assessee for use in India from their foreign principal therefore said rights were not governed by any law for time being in force - Therefore relying on decision of Munjal Showa Ltd. 2017-TIOL-3119-CESTAT-CHD , it is held that the amount paid by assessee as royalty or licence fee is not taxable in India - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CST Vs Mcleod Russel India Ltd

ST - Assessee had entered into an agreement in relation to trade mark with a foreign company who have no offices in India - In terms of said agreement M/s. Borelli Tea Holdings Ltd. granted to the assessee non-exclusive, nontransferrable licence allowing use of its patents and trade marks for manufacture/production of tea and export thereof - In consideration for granting of patents and trade marks, assessee have been paying M/s. Borelli Tea Holdings Ltd. a royalty and/or licence fee @ 1.5% and 1% of their net sales - Revenue is of the view that assessee have obtained intellectual property rights therefore assessee is liable to pay Service Tax on said amount of royalty paid to their foreign service provider under Reverse Charge Mechanism - As it is an admitted fact that trade mark and patent rights were not registered in India, which have been obtained by assessee for use in India from their foreign principal therefore said rights were not governed by any law for time being in force - Therefore relying on decision of Munjal Showa Ltd. 2017-TIOL-3119-CESTAT-CHD , it is held that the amount paid by assessee as royalty or licence fee is not taxable in India - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

Pr.CC Vs Bans International

Cus - Issue arises is as to whether plastic trigger sprayer for plastic bottles lotion pump for plastic bottle and fine mist sprayer for plastic bottles are classifiable under 84242000 as held by Commissioner (A) in impugned order or under CTH 96161000 as claimed by Revenue - Tribunal have seen imported goods samples of which were produced by assessee - These are mounts which can be screwed on top of any bottle and can be used to dispense the contents of bottle either in form of a spray or as a gel - These are not mechanical appliances for spraying covered under Chapter 8424 - These can be mounted on bottles and used to dispense sanitisers and other liquids or gels - They can only be called "Scent sprays and similar toilet sprays, and mounts and heads therefor" - This heading covers not only the sprays but also the mounts and heads for the sprays - What were imported were mounts which could be fixed on any bottle - Simply because the mounts and heads were used mainly for sanitisers makes no difference to the classification when the goods are clearly covered by heading - Issue of classification of mounts and heads used to spray/ dispense liquid soap was decided by Tribunal in Reckitt & Coleman of India Ltd. 2005-TIOL-612-CESTAT-MUM - The imported goods are classifiable under CTH 9616 10 10 and are chargeable to appropriate rates of duty read with any exemption notifications - The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to this case and it is consistent with findings in these appeals - The fact that the mounts were used on bottles of toilet sprays in Reckitt and Coleman and in this case they are used for sanitizers makes no difference: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CGST & CE Vs Vinod Kumar Match Industries

CX - Appeals are filed against orders passed by Commissioner who set aside the demand of duty on the ground that SCNs issued are time-barred - Issue on merits has already been decided in favour of Revenue by adjudicating authority - Department has come on appeal aggrieved by very same order which set aside the demand on the ground that SCN is time-barred - It is discussed by Commissioner (A) that Circular would apply for interpretation of notification 6/2002 and that assessee is eligible for benefit of notification - The decision in case of Omega Packing Ltd. has also been adverted to by Commissioner (A) that assessee is eligible for availing the notification - However, as per Final Order passed by Tribunal, issue on merits was considered and decided against assessee - There was a difference of opinion between Members as to interpretation of notification whether assessee who does not use aid of power is eligible for benefit of Notfn even though raw materials have been manufactured by using aid of power - All these aspects would indicate that issue is purely interpretational in nature - Assessee was under bonafide belief that they are eligible for benefit of Notification - Moreover, there are no new materials/evidence unearthed by department which has formed the basis for determination of duty - All the figures were available to department as per invoices submitted by assessee - On such score, invocation of extended period cannot be justified - Impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT