|
2023-TIOL-581-CESTAT-DEL
Surya Metalloy Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots - A SCN was issued to appellant proposing recovery of Central Excise duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - The Adjudicating Authority agreed that out of differential amount of 6,91,61,767/- amount of Rs. 3,40,62,078/- is on account of Central Excise duty forming part of excisable turnover and accordingly dropped the demand of Rs. 42,57,760/- - As regards the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,99,689/-which was explained as pertaining to profit on sale and purchase of commodity operations, which have inadvertently been reported as sale of products - Same is part of total profit commodity of operations, Rs. 8,52,60,853/- - The said amount of Rs. 3,50,99,689/- plus amount already shows as profit from commodity operations in the balance sheet Rs. 5,01,61,165/-, total Rs. 8,52,60,952/- which is the profit from operations in commodity trading, as more fully explained hereinabove with reference to supporting evidences - The Adjudicating Authority rejected this contention observing that submissions were not supported by any corroborating evidence - Appellant have lead sufficient evidence and explained apparent difference - Both the Court below have not found anything erroneous or misgiving in cogent explanation given by appellant corroborated by books of accounts and vouchers - Undisputedly, appellant has profit from trading in commodities Rs. 8,52,60,853/- during the period - Further, contentions are also supported by certificate of Chartered Accountant - There is a categorical finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in favour of appellant to the effect that they have properly explained the apparent difference supported by books of accounts- commodity trading account, ledger - Thus, in spite of finding that apparent difference is properly reconciled, still Commissioner (A) have rejected the appeal by some irrelevant observations without there being any finding of fact against the pleadings of appellant - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-580-CESTAT-MAD
Port Department Vs CGST & CE
ST - The issue that require determination is, whether the royalty/concession fee/lease charges received by Port from M/s. KPPL represents consideration for providing services relatable to taxable service defined under sec. 65(105)(zzzq) of Finance Act, 1994 under category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' and whether the notice is time barred - KPPL has developed the land, built a Port and are offering services to trading community on the basis of fees fixed by KPPL - This contractual permission by Port Department to KPPL for setting up and running port facilities cannot be termed as support services of business or commerce, to be taxed at the Port Departments hands - The 'concession fee' paid by KPPL to Puducherry Port as a percentage of gross revenue generated by concessionaire each year is also not a payment for any support services of business or commerce given by Port Department to KPPL - It is basically a payment for rights to develop/operate/maintain the Port including project facilities - Impugned order has erred in classifying the activity of port contract under sec. 65(105)(zzzq) of Finance Act, 1994 and that the levy must fail - The appeal having being decided on merits in favour of appellant, issue of SCN invoking extended period of time does not survive - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-579-CESTAT-MAD
Adani Krishnapatnam Port Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant vide multiple Bills of Entry imported HDPE Pipes by classifying the same under CTH 89051000 - Revenue entertained a doubt that imported items merited classification under CTH 391721 since the HSN General Note to Chapter 89 excluded all separately presented parts and accessories of vessels or floating structures even if they were clearly identifiable as such - The first appellate authority having directed the appellant to make a pre deposit which was not met by importer, Commissioner has simply rejected the appeal inlimine without going into the merits of case - Both parties agree that there was no discussion on merits by first appellate authority in impugned order - Though both the parties have made respective submissions on merits and reference was also made to judicial pronouncements, Tribunal feel it improper to discuss anything on the same since, admittedly, lower appellate authority has not given any findings on the merits of case - Therefore, any discussion or even reference to the contentions of appellant may influence or have a bearing on proceedings before the authority - Matter is remanded - First appellate authority is directed to comply with principles of natural justice by hearing the appellant and thereafter pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
