I-T - No reopening can be initiated when there was no non-disclosure of material evidences by assessee: HC

I-T- AO cannot take recourse to re-open to remedy the error simply on basis of change of opinion: HC

I-T-Re-assessment proceedings merit being quashed where they have been initiated based on certain flaws which are subsequently found to not exist: HC

I-T - Prayer of assessee for Mandamus cannot be countenanced without application by assessee under first proviso to Sect 132: HC

I-T - Reopening notice issued in name of decased assessee is nullity and hence cannot be sustained: HC

I-T- Provision for warranty expenses can be claimed by manufacturer/dealer on after sale service/sale of spare parts as business expenditure: HC

I- T- Payment made to clubs which are in nature of subscription is not disallowable : ITAT

I-T- Where re-assessment is commenced w.r.t. a particular issue, then discovery of escapment of income would lead to framing of additions only if addition is made w.r.t. primary issue on which re-assessment is based: ITAT

I-T- When AO not considered books of account and vouchers then same were produced before CIT(A) in which there is no violation of Rule 46A : ITAT

Cus - When there was a negotiated price same had to be accepted as the value of imported item, if the customs do not find any cogent reasons for rejecting the same: CESTAT

CX - Since the goods have been supplied to research institutions and proper certificates have been issued by authorities of such institutions, benefit of exemption Notfn 10/97-CE cannot be denied to appellant: CESTAT

CX - Appellant is legally entitled for Cenvat credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess, hence, on this count refund cannot be denied: CESTAT

ST - Service of construction of residential complex provided by contractor to State Police Housing Corporation is not liable to service tax : CESTAT

ST - It is not the case of department that agreement provides for a consideration for an obligation to refrain from an act or for agreeing to tolerate an act or a situation, demand, therefore, could not have been confirmed: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-758-CESTAT-BANG

Ace Designers Ltd Vs CC

Cus - During international exhibition of machine tools, appellant purchased an industrial robot - This product was brought to India by foreign company participating in exhibition through ATA Carnet by declaring the value of product as EU 55900 - Appellant after negotiation, fixed the price at EU 30000 and accordingly, filed a Bill of Entry - Since the Revenue did not accept the value, appellant paid duty under protest and cleared the goods - Commissioner (A) has rejected this negotiated value on the ground that appellant had not furnished any justifiable reason for reduction of value from the value declared in ATA Carnet for arriving at negotiated transaction value as claimed by them - As seen from ATA Carnet documents, it is clearly shown that these goods are to be exported within six months - During relevant time, sale of such goods was permitted on payment of Customs duty with prior approval from Government of India - The question here arises is, whether the price adopted by Customs which is commercial value as per ATA Carnet form meant for exhibition can be taken as transaction value - As per Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for delivery at the time and place of importation is to be considered - Hence, if any value has to be rejected, the Proper Officer has to produce necessary documents or evidence to reject the value - Invoice issued by M/s. Saielo to appellant is on record to show that the item has been purchased for EUR 30000 - There is also a purchase order on record, which also shows the value as EUR 30000 - In case of Galaxy Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd = 2007-TIOL-80-SC-CUS , Supreme Court held that when there was a negotiated price and this negotiated price had to be accepted as the value of imported item, if the customs do not find any cogent reasons for rejecting the same - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2023-TIOL-757-CESTAT-AHM

Grauer And Weil India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Metal finishing Chemicals and Electroplating Salts classifiable under CETH 38249021 of CETA, 1985 - They have been clearing their product to various research Institutions claiming the benefit of Notfn 10/1997-CE - The product which is manufactured by appellant is nothing but Metal Finishing Chemical/ Electroplating salt which are consumables for various Electronic and Scientific institutions - Products manufactured by appellant are covered under category of consumables as mentioned in Notfn 10/97-CE - There are various certificates which have been issued by premier research Institutes - Requirement of Notfn 10/97-CE is fully satisfied by appellant and thus they are entitled for benefit of exemption notification - Even if there is a small lacuna on the part of authority signing the certificates cannot be considered as infringement of compliance with requirement of proper submission of certificates and substantial benefit cannot be denied on this ground - However, since there is no denial of the fact that goods have been supplied to research institutions and proper certificates have been issued by authorities of such institutions, the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the appellant - Consequently, personal penalty imposed on Shri Mahendra Bhurat, GM of appellant Company is also set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-756-CESTAT-AHM

AIA Engeneering Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Matter pertains to non-utilization of Cess due to transition provisions coming into force on implementation of GST from 1 July, 2017 - The appellants are having unutilized accumulated Cess, because of lack of provision at the relevant time to migrate the accumulated Cess to GST - However, appellant states that subsequently sufficient decisions have clarified the position in their favour - He particularly seeks to rely on decision in case of M/s. USV P. Ltd = 2023-TIOL-114-CESTAT-AHM and Emami Cement Ltd, Nu Vista = 2022-TIOL-280-CESTAT-DEL - He emphasize that refund cannot be denied because of particular situation due to which the assesse was unable to avail higher education Cess - This Court is of the view that the matter stands covered not only by said decisions but also various other decisions - Accordingly, issue is no longer res integra, appellants are entitled to cash refund as provided for in cases cited: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-755-CESTAT-AHM

Ample Construction Company Vs CCE & ST

ST - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is liable to service tax on the service of construction of residential complex for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation - Issue is no longer res-integra as in various judgments which bear identical facts, Tribunal has held that the construction of residential complex provided by contractor to State Police Housing Corporation is not liable to service tax - Considering the decision in Riddhi Siddhi Construction , demand in present case is not sustainable - Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-754-CESTAT-DEL

Bhagwati Power And Steel Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The issue that arises for consideration is, whether the amount deducted by appellant towards compensation for not supplying WHR boiler in time can be said to be an activity covered under declared service under section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994 - The records indicate that appellant had placed a purchase order upon M/s. Veesons Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. for supply of boiler but as the boiler was not supplied in time, appellant deducted certain amount towards compensation - The Commissioner (A) has found that deduction of amount was an obligation to tolerate the act of delay in supplying WHR boiler on time, which is a situation covered by definition of 'declared service' under section 66E (e) of Finance Act - Appellant has submitted that issue is covered by decision of Tribunal in South Eastern Coal Fields as also by Circular 214/2023 Service Tax and therefore, order deserves to be set aside - It is not the case of department that agreement provides for a consideration for an obligation to refrain from an act or for agreeing to tolerate an act or a situation - The demand, therefore, could not have been confirmed in view of decision of Tribunal in South Eastern Coalfields and Circular dated 28.02.2023 - The order passed by Commissioner (A) cannot, therefore, be sustained and is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT