|
2023-TIOL-824-HC-AHM-VAT
Varmora Granito Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat
Whether where assessee had already made payment even prior to assessment passed by AO and prior to announcement of amnesty scheme, then assesee is entitled to benefit of remission of penalty & interest - YES: HC
- Assessee's petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-629-CESTAT-KOL
Alstom Projects India Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein demand of duty has been confirmed on compensation received as a result of cancellation of orders by West Bengal Power Development Corporation, treating the same as additional consideration under Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - SCN has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation as the facts that appellant has submitted all material information to Department through their letter about non-receipt of two contracts and thereafter, vide their subsequent letter, which was submitted on 25.03.2003, appellants informed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur Division about the final cancellation of contracts by customer and appended the orders of cancellation of contracts issued by customer along with final MOU - As per said MOU, appellant received the payment - As the SCN has been issued to appellant on 10.10.2007 by invoking extended period of limitation, as all the information were available to Department in 2003 itself and no information has been suppressed by appellants, SCN issued after period of four years of information gathered is not sustainable and is highly barred by limitation - All the demands are barred by limitation - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-628-CESTAT-MAD
Graphite India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had registered their Project Contract for import of capital goods and when documents were submitted for finalization, Revenue appears to have noticed two items missing from list that was originally registered with Project Import, which apparently were not imported by appellant - The importer did not remit duty demanded, but however, when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, importer filed an appeal before first appellate authority citing that date of receipt of adjudication order was on 28.07.2007 - Appellant had indicated that M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. had merged with M/s. GKW Ltd. in 1996 and subsequently, transferred to M/s. Graphite India Ltd. i.e., appellant before this forum - However, first appellate authority not accepting the date of receipt having dismissed their appeal as barred by limitation - In the first round of litigation before this forum, an appeal was filed by importer and this Bench after waiving pre-deposit, chose to set aside the impugned order by observing that appellant had no knowledge of adjudication against M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. at any date prior to 28.07.2007 - Further, the order of this Bench has been accepted by both the parties and thus, has attained finality - By the time the above order of this Bench was passed, second SCN was already on board and Tribunal do not see any whisper about the same anywhere in order of this Bench and in particular, any issue being made as to the SCN being issued much after the period of limitation - Hence, contention of appellant cannot be accepted as apparently, it has missed the bus - Further, when the order of this Bench which was passed against O-I-A wherein O-I-O was challenged, which was passed on second SCN, has become final now, by virtue of doctrine of merger, orders of lower authorities have merged with order of this Bench and it is only consequent to directions of this Bench that de novo O-I-O was passed - Undisputedly, appellant registered its Project Contract for import of capital goods, but it has not disputed the missing of two items which therefore resulted in denying concurrent benefit of exemption - For this, differential duty was demanded, which is as per law - Therefore, appellant has not made out any case even on merits: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-627-CESTAT-MUM
Satyasai Human Resource Solutions Vs CST
ST - The original authority has denied the appellant the exemption claimed, by the order through which application for refund was decided - Revenue has claimed that the amount deposited by appellant was not advance - ST-3 return was filed by appellant on 30.04.2013 - Appellant claimed the said exemption through said return - They had also claimed exemption from service tax for an amount of Rs. 43,26,000/-, appellant has claimed Rs. 5,34,693/- to have been paid in advance under subrule (1A) of Rule 6 - Tribunal did not find any counter from Revenue either through filing cross objections or through filing synopsis by them or any submissions stating that the said ST-3 return was not accepted by Revenue - Therefore, it is held that the said amount of Rs. 5,34,693/- was paid as advance under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules and therefore by applying the precedent decision of this Tribunal in case of Accounts Hub Pvt. Ltd., it is held that the appellant was eligible for said refund - Since the amount sought for refund was advance paid as per the said subrule, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise - Original authority is directed to issue refund cheque to appellant within a period of four weeks: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-626-CESTAT-MAD
Sify Technologies Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order, whereby the demand of Rs. 21,76,056/- which was proportionate input credit attributable to trading activity of appellant came to be confirmed under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 - The only issue to be decided is, whether the demand raised by Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit is in order - It is very clear from impugned order that the stand of Revenue is volatile, that is to say, from the findings of Commissioner in impugned order, proposed demand in SCN did not have any legal sanctity as the same, apparently, was not as per the law as prevalent during the period in dispute - Moreover, there is a mention about claim of assessee to have maintained separate accounts in respect of input services utilized for taxable and exempted services - But however, for something happened in earlier years, for which adjudicating authority is clearly functus officio, he concludes to hold that assessee is not maintaining separate books of accounts for taxable and exempted services - Since it is well understood that each year is independent and the facts may vary, hence, Tribunal do not propose to accept the said conclusion of not maintaining separate accounts which is a baseless allegation made without proper application of mind - Further, adjudicating authority has held that there is no specific provision under statute for determining the value of trading activity prior to insertion of Explanation w.e.f. 01.03.2011 and proceeds to determine the value of trading activity in a manner unknown to law - Adjudicating authority has referred to rulings of Ahmedabad and Mumbai CESTAT Benches wherein it was held that CENVAT Credit could not be availed on trading activity and that portion of credit attributable to trading had to be reversed - This again is passed without proper application of mind to the pleadings of assessee, which is extracted by said authority in impugned order - Demand proposed in SCN and that which was confirmed in impugned order are not sustainable, same are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
|
