|
2023-TIOL-875-HC-DEL-GST
Redamancy World Vs Additional Director General Goods And Services Tax Intelligence
GST - Authorities had issued a communication dated 14.05.2018, directing the buyers to whom the petitioner had sold the goods, not to make any payment to the petitioner till further verification - Court pointedly inquired from the Counsel for the respondent, as to the provisions of the Act under which the said communication has been issued, which is essentially in the nature of a garnishee order - Counsel for the respondent, seeks time to take instructions as to the statutory provisions under which the said communication was issued and whether the same is still operative - Matter listed on 26 July 2023: High Court [para 4 to 7]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-874-HC-MUM-GST
Wallem Shipmanagement India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has contended that Respondent No.2 was not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's refund application without giving adequate opportunity of a hearing.
Held: It is known fact that from 23rd March 2020 onwards, there was a total disruption of the normal human activities as also of every economic activity world over, on account of the pandemic - The whole world had virtually come to a standstill - It is, however, surprising that the show cause notice was issued during the pandemic that is on 30th September 2020, certainly it could not be expected that the Petitioner could immediately reply to the same - Thus in our opinion, the reason as furnished for extension of time to file a reply to the show cause notice by the Petitioner on account of pandemic was a sufficient reason - The Respondent No.2, in these circumstances, ought to have given a reasonable time for the Petitioner to file its reply, however, Respondent No.2 gave only three days to file the reply, which cannot be termed on the facts of the present case any reasonable time or an adequate opportunity of a hearing - Certainly, a prejudice has been suffered by the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 20th October 2020 - For such reasons, the impugned order is required to be set aside on account of violation of principle of natural justice - Matter remanded - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7, 8]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-873-HC-AHM-GST
Tagros Chemicals India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner had supplied goods to the buyer on payment of full duty (under an error) of IGST at the rate of 18% instead of concessional rate of 0.1% in terms of Notification No.41/2017–Integrated Tax (Rate) - Petitioner, therefore, filed refund claim on 03.09.2020 as prescribed under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 -However, the claim was rejected, therefore, the present petition.
Held: Apex Court has [in Bonanzo Engineering & Chemical Pvt. Ltd. 2012-TIOL-25-SC-CX ] taken a view that merely because by mistake, the assessee paid duties on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act -Further, in the case of Share Medical Care v. Union of India - 2007-TIOL-26-SC-CUS it is held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage -In view of the aforesaid view taken by the Apex Court, the Order dated 22.6.2021 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of 23,09,100/- with interest applicable as per law within reasonable time -Petition allowed: High Court [para 14, 16]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-679-CESTAT-KOL
Sova Ispat Alloys (Mega Projects) Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The appellant manufacture ferro alloys - They use amongst other items "Electrode Carbon Paste(ECP)" in furnace to facilitate the manufacture of finished goods - (ECP) is used inside the furnace and it is their contention that same is in nature of consumable and gets consumed during course of manufacturing process - They submit that ECP is also contained in finished goods i.e. ferro alloys and therefore, it is rightly considered to be an input in terms of Rule 2 (k) of CCR, 2004 - SCN alleging that appellants had taken 100% cenvat credit on ECP, treating the said goods as input - Adjudicating Authority decided the matter against appellant holding improper availment of credit, partially disallowing the same and permitting the same in subsequent year, confirming interest amount on alleged excess cenvat credit availed, besides imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 r/w Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 - The fact of use of said goods and its ultimate consumption in manufacture of finished goods is not disputed - The electrode carbon paste (ECP) owing to its capability to conduct electricity is essential for manufacture of ferro alloys and in process gets consumed even being a part of finished goods - Therefore, it is certainly in the nature of a consumable - There is no question of denying that electrode carbon paste is in nature of a consumable as it gets consumed during process of manufacture of ferro alloys - The electrode carbon paste, therefore, cannot be held to be capital goods in terms of Rule 2 (a) of CCR, 2004 - Electrode carbon paste used and consumed in process of manufacture of ferro alloys is an input eligible for cenvat credit under Rule 2 (k) of CCR, 2004 - No infirmity found in appellant having availed credit on said product as input - Accordingly, demand of interest cannot be sustained: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-678-CESTAT-KOL
CC Vs Prakash Overseas
Cus - Assessee imported old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated which were assessed after value enhancement, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Adjudicating Authority has imposed redemption fine and penalty at the rate of 30% & 10.4%, 11.2% & 10.7% of assessed value respectively - Assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner, who reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 30% & 10% respectively - Following the decision of Tribunal in Venus Traders , it is held that redemption fine and penalty imposed on assessee by Adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice - Therefore, redemption fine and penalty confirmed by Adjudicating authority is upheld - Consequently, no infirmity found in impugned order and same are upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-677-CESTAT-MUM
Tharwani Infrastructures Vs CCGST
ST - Appellant had paid entire service tax ascertained by them before issue of SCN - He had also paid interest voluntarily before issue of SCN - It is found from sub-section (3) of Section 73 ibid that if service provider, on the basis of its own ascertainment, pays service tax before issue of SCN, then Revenue cannot issue SCN - The said provision is not applicable only if non-payment of service tax is on account of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty - Revenue has invoked proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for raising demand for larger period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 by issue of SCN - However, for invocation of extended period and for making inoperative the said provisions of subsection (3) of Section 74 ibid, there are dual criteria of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact and intention to evade duty - Intention to evade service tax is absent - Therefore, there was no case for issue of SCN and there would not have been occasion to propose imposition of penalty - Had there been no occasion to issue SCN, there could not have been occasion to impose penalty - Imposition of penalty under Section 77 and Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable, same are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
|
