I-T- Re-assessment notice merits being set aside where the CRID appended to the SCN does not align with the contents of the notice issued to the assessee : HC

I-T- Re-assessment commenced beyond 4-year limitation is invalid, when there is no tangible material available on record to conclude that income had escaped assessment: HC

I-T- Exercise of power by CIT(A) to enhance income of assessee by raising new issues not germane out of assessment order is not tenable: ITAT

I-T- Expenses booked by assessee upto date of survey cannot be treated as bogus solely since the same are accounted in books of account subsequent to date of search: ITAT

I-T- Disallowance of interest expenses in relation to financial transactions incurred by the assessee be made in absence of any business purpose established by assessee therefor : ITAT

I-T- Where in course of Survey operations, additional income is surrendered by assessee & the same is not from any other unexplained source but from business proceeds of the assessee, provisions of Section 115BBE need not be applied : ITAT

I-T- Expenses incurred on foreign education of a director in the assessee-company be disallowed where assessee is unable to prove that such expenses were incurred for business purpose or related to assessee's business activity: ITAT

I-T- Addition for unexplained cash credits u/s 68 is rightly made as assessee fails to satisfactorily explain identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties to whom allotment of shares is made : ITAT

I-T- Disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income : ITAT

Cus - As appellants are only carriers of gold valued at more than Rs. 39 Lacs which has already been absolutely confiscated, penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed on them is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-: CESTAT

CX - Credit of inputs used in exempted goods exported under bond/LUT or otherwise cannot be denied to assessee in terms of Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT

Cus - During period under dispute, i.e., August 1996 to March 2001, Department had no provision to get the barge charges included in total value for payment of Customs Duty: CESTAT

CX - Processed fabrics on which imported chemicals coated has been duly received in premises of appellant the job worker, hence no justification found for raising demand of duty not paid at the time of import on chemicals: CESTAT

ST - Appeal filed by Revenue against order of Commissioner (A) has already been withdrawn under National Litigation Policy thereafter, no demand is sustainable against appellant, amount paid by them is only a deposit, appellant is entitled for refund claim: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-571-CESTAT-KOL

Debabrata Saha Vs CC

Cus - Appeals have been filed being agitated by penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed against Shri Debabrata Saha and Shri Sanjay Ray and third appeal has been filed by Shri Mithun Ghosh being aggrieved by imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and confiscation of his vehicle wherein option to redeem has been given to him - Both Shri Debabrata Saha and Sanjay Ray have clearly admitted in their recorded statements that they were given gold biscuits by Bangladeshi National for handing over the same to an Indian person - They have stated that Shri Mithun Ghosh, is one of their friends and they had approached him to lend the car for their personal use - Without giving any finding as to why the Recorded statements are not applicable, Adjudicating Authority has confiscated the vehicle and imposed redemption fine - On appeal, Commissioner (A) has not even addressed this issue and he has mechanically confirmed the order of Adjudicating Authority in respect of first two Appellants without making any reference to 3rd Appellant - This Bench concludes that no case has been made out against Shri Mithun Ghosh - Accordingly, confiscation of his vehicle with an option to redeem the same along with penalty imposed on him stands set aside - In respect of other two appellants, it is clear that they have indulged in smuggling activity and they have given their statements in terms of Section 108 which has not been retracted at any time before Adjudicating Authority/Appellate authorities - However, considering the fact that they are only the carriers of gold and gold valued at more than Rs. 39 Lacs has already been absolutely confiscated, the penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed on them is reduced to penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-570-CESTAT-HYD

3F Industries Ltd Vs CCT

Cus - The appellant has imported edible oil from port of Kakinada during period August 1996 to March 2001 - SCN was issued on the ground that valuation adopted by them while filing Bill of Entries was not correct - Department sought to add the value of barge charges incurred by them between anchorage port and port of unloading - Accordingly, SCN was issued and Customs Duty was confirmed in respect of two SCNs issued to appellant - Appellant submits that an amendment was carried out to Rule 10 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - In case of Ispat Industries Ltd. 2006-TIOL-127-SC-CUS the Supreme Court has also gone into applicability of Garden Silk Mills Ltd. 2002-TIOL-19-SC-CUS-LB which was relied upon by Adjudicating Authority while passing the O-I-O - The Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1387-CESTAT-AHM-LB has gone into aspect as to whether the amendment carried out has retrospective effect - On going through these decisions, it is seen that issue is no more resintegra - A harmonious reading of case laws along with amendment carried out to Rule 10 would clarify that during period under dispute, i.e., August 1996 to March 2001, Department had no provision to get the barge charges included in total value for payment of Customs Duty - It is observed that third appeal is on account of personal penalty imposed on Senior Executive - Since the basic issue is held in favour of appellant and their appeals have been allowed, personal penalty imposed on him is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-569-CESTAT-KOL

Pecon Computech Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & Excise

ST - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order where Adjudicating Authority has rejected their refund claim - Revenue, opposes the contentions made by appellant and submits that appellant has paid amount for which they sought refund without protest after decision on merit by Apex Court against appellant and the appeal was pending before Tribunal filed by Revenue - At the time when Commissioner (A) passed the order for dropping proceedings against appellant, decision of Apex Court was not available - Therefore, appellant was not liable to pay any service tax for impugned period - Moreover, appeal filed by Revenue against order of Commissioner (A) has already been withdrawn under National Litigation Policy, thereafter, no demand is sustainable against appellant and the amount paid by them is only a deposit - No limitation is applicable - Further, no bar of unjust enrichment is applicable, as appellant has also made the payment for period from 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005 on 26.02.2011 - Appellant is entitled for refund claim - Accordingly, no merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-568-CESTAT-CHD

CCE, ST & C Vs Coral Drugs Pvt Ltd

CX - It is the case of Department that assessee is availing CENVAT credit and using inputs commonly in manufacture of excisable goods, exempted goods and non-excisable goods; while the assessees are paying an amount of 10% of value of exempted goods cleared by them, they are not paying such amount in case of non-excisable goods manufactured and exported by them under bond/LUT - Assessee submits that the issue is no longer res integra being decided by Bombay High Court in case of Repro India 2007-TIOL-795-HC-MUM-CX - The High Courts and Tribunal have been consistent in holding that credit of inputs used in exempted goods exported under bond/LUT or otherwise cannot be denied to assessee in terms of Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and that it is not the intention of Government to export Taxes - Situation would not alter even if non-excisable goods are manufactured by using dutiable inputs and are subsequently exported - Appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2023-TIOL-567-CESTAT-KOL

Tarasafe International Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit and engaged in manufacture of Fire Retardant Industrial Safety Garment - For the manufacture of these goods, they make use of Fire Retardant Fabric which is made by Coating the fabrics with certain specialised imported chemicals for providing fire retardant property - The appellant imported goods duty free under Notfn 52/2003-CUS - Department took the view that appellant's act of clearing chemicals imported by them under Notfn 52/2003 did not satisfy conditions stipulated in para 4 of Notification - Further, Department's charge was that the activity did not also specify conditions of CBEC circular 65/2002- CUS which dealt with permission to be granted for job work - SCN was issued to appellant proposing to demand duty on imported chemicals for violation of conditions under which goods were allowed for clearance duty free - In appellant's own case, the Tribunal has observed that the activity carried out at premises of job workers will be squarely covered within para 4 (iii) of Notification under which due permission has been granted by Development Commissioner - There is no dispute that the processed fabrics on which the imported chemicals coated has been duly received in premises of appellant - Hence, no justification found for raising demand for duty not paid at the time of import on chemicals - Issue is no more res integra - Therefore, no merit found in impugned order and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT