I-T- MSMED Act would not be applicable to CA firms appointed as 'special auditors' u/s 142(2A) of Income Tax Act: HC

I-T - Assessment order passed in name of deceased assessee, merits to be quashed: HC

I-T - Initiation of reassessment solely on basis of revisionary order u/s 263 in case of other co-owner which has not attained finality is 'evidence of borrowed satisfaction' and non-application of mind: HC

I-T - If Assessee had no outstanding demand, Revenue cannot withhold seized gold as per Sec 132B(3) merely because certain demand is outstanding in case of party who delivered gold to Assessee: HC

I-T - Facts & issues being identical, transfer pricing matter related to cost allocation & mark-up, listed with allied matters: HC

I-T- If merely due to arrangement amongst parties, payment is directly made to partners instead of firm then it cannot be said to be relinquishment of any right in favour of partners giving rise to capital gains: ITAT

I-T- Power of revision u/s 263 is rightly exercised where certain expenditures claimed by assessee are allowed by the AO without due verification of their veracity: ITAT

ST - Even during the period prior to 1-5-2006, the Business Auxiliary Service, even if provided by an individual to a client, was taxable: CESTAT

CX - Appellant need not to include surplus freight charges that have been collected from customers in assessable value for discharging Central Excise Duty: CESTAT

Cus - Goods have been exported by air from India to Russia and thus chances to diversion to third country is highly impossible without the goods first reaching Russia, sanction of drawback is as per law: CESTAT

CX - After holding entire proceeding pre-mature, Commissioner (A) ought not to have remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority instead of deciding finally particularly when appellant have raised ground on limitation: CESTAT

Cus - During pendency of appeal, Bill of Entry has been finalized as per declared value, since this development has occurred after passing of impugned order and Commissioner (A) has no occasion to deal with the same, matter remanded to decide afresh on merits: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-609-CESTAT-CHD

Nikhil Sharda Vs CCE

ST - The appellants are engaged in selling health/ beauty care products of M/s Forever Living Products (India) Private Limited on a commission basis being recognised as distributors - It appeared to Department that services rendered by appellant were "Business Auxiliary Service " under Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1944 - A SCN was issued to appellant demanding Service Tax along with interest and also proposing to levy penalties - Department submits that the issue of personal business being a business entity is no longer res integra and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that w.e.f 01.05.2006 the term "commercial person " in Section 65(105) (zzb) was replaced by "any person" even during the period prior to 01.05.2006, the Business Auxiliary Service even if provided by an individual to a client was taxable - Commercial concern covers individuals also when they are into a business - Appellants are liable to pay service tax on the services rendered by them to M/s Forever Living Products Pvt. Ltd. before and after 01.06.2005 - Appellants have not obtained any registration and have not paid applicable service tax - They have not disclosed the material facts of providing taxable service under category of "Business Auxiliary Service" to M/s Forever Living Products Pvt. Ltd. on their own and Department came to know about the activity only after conducting certain inquiries - Therefore, there is suppression of material fact on the part of appellants - Therefore, extended period is rightly invokable - Coming to imposition of penalties under Section 76 and Section 78, appellant relies upon High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Pannu Property Dealers 2010-TIOL-874-HC-P&H-ST wherein it is observed that simultaneous penalty cannot be imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 - Moreover, appellants have paid duty along with interest and 25% of value as penalty on 06.05.2010 and looking into the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, penalties imposed can be waived: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2023-TIOL-608-CESTAT-DEL

Arihant Overseas Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order confirming demand of duty draw back and further ordering confiscation of goods already exported under drawback under Section 113 (i) of Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Act - SCN has been issued after more than 13 years from 27.04.2003, when Customs has closed the matter by writing to Punjab National Bank, to defreeze the bank account of assessee - Thus, extended period is not available to Revenue and this ground is decided in favour of assessee and against the Revenue - So far the issue on merits is concerned, SCN is based on un-substantiated and vague facts which have no legs to stand - Admittedly, assessee have received the payment for goods exported, which is duly supported by BRCs issued and re-certified after verification by Punjab National Bank - Further, there is no evidence brought on record by Revenue that assessee have returned any remittance received on account of exports to the buyer located in foreign country - Revenue have not brought on record any evidence of diversion of goods to any third country - Admittedly, goods have been exported by air from India to Russia and thus, chances to diversion to third country is highly impossible without the goods first reaching Russia - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-607-CESTAT-MUM

Kumar Impex Vs CC

Cus - Appeal has been filed from impugned Order by which Commissioner (A) modified the order of Adjudicating Authority by setting aside the rejection of declared value of imported goods and re-determination of value of said goods but upheld the appropriation of amount paid as duty at the time of provisional assessment against re-determined value alongwith redemption fine and penalties - It has been brought to notice that during pendency of appeal herein, Bill of Entry has been finalized as per declared value and appellant made a very relevant submission that when Bill of Entry has been finally assessed at declared value then redemption fine and penalties cannot be imposed - Since this development has occurred after passing of impugned order and Commissioner (A) has no occasion to deal with the same therefore, without going into merits of appeal, Tribunal deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to Commissioner to be decided afresh on merits after taking into consideration the development subsequent to passing of impugned order - Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Commissioner (A) to be decided afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-606-CESTAT-AHM

Rudraksh Detergent And Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Issue involved is that whether re-credit claimed by appellant is correct or not in terms of para 2C of area based exemption Notfn 39/2001- CE - This appeal was filed against order of Commissioner (A) whereby they had remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority to keep the matter in abeyance till recredit orders are issued by Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and then to adjudicate the SCN - Appellant emphatically argued on the issue of limitation - Commissioner (A) instead of deciding limitation remanded the matter which is prima facie incorrect - It is the submission of appellant that after holding entire proceeding pre-mature, commissioner remanded the matter instead of deciding finally on this observation itself - Considering the facts and circumstance, Commissioner (A) ought not to have remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority particularly when appellant have raised the ground on limitation - Therefore, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (A) for deciding the appeal before him finally without remanding the matter to Adjudicating Authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-605-CESTAT-MAD

Concrete Products And Construction Company Vs CGST & CE

CX - The issue arises is, whether appellant has to include surplus freight charges that have been collected from customers in assessable value for discharging Central Excise Duty - Undisputedly, the freight charges which has been paid to transporters has been included in assessable value for discharging excise duty - The issue as to whether the amount that has been collected as surplus and is a profit in hands of appellant is required to be added to assessable value was considered by Apex Court in case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. 2002-TIOL-263-SC-CX wherein it was observed that profit made on transportation charges need not be included in assessable value since excise duty is not a tax on profits but only on actual value of finished goods - Following the said decision, it was observed that the demand cannot sustain: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT