2023-TIOL-1057-HC-MUM-VAT
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd Vs State Of Maharashtra
Whether since any order beyond show cause notice is bad in law, the Revenue's order should be set aside - YES: HC
Whether in absence of satisfying the pre-condition prescribed under proviso to Rule 58(1), application of rate specified in Rule 58(1) in final review order is without jurisdiction - YES: HC
- Assessee's writ allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-800-CESTAT-MUM
Aurangabad Electricals Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appeal filed against impugned order by which the Commissioner while partly allowing the appeal filed by appellant rejected the Cenvat Credit on Manpower Service (office boy & Driver) and confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit availed on said service - Appellant submits that the same services have been held as eligible input service by Commissioner (A) in appellant's own cases for period September, 2013 to August, 2014 and also by Adjudicating Authority for the period from May, 2016 to June, 2017 - Time and again it has been held by Tribunal that revenue is not permitted to take contrary view on identical issue - If they are permitted to do so then the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as assessees in a quandary - A similar view has been taken by Tribunal in matter of Vistex Asia Pacific P. Ltd. - As the issue has already been settled in favour of appellants by authorities below for different period, therefore, issue involved herein is decided in favour of appellant as no justification found to take a contrary view - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-799-CESTAT-BANG
Sutures India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - During investigation by officers of customs, it was noticed that 29 Daikin Air Conditioners, one FET continuous filament melt spinning system and 31 bin storage racks were installed in non-bonded area (DTA) - There is no dispute that conditions of notifications were violated and appellant had contravened the provisions of section 71 of Customs Act 1962 - Accordingly, entire duty demanded was paid and appropriation of duty payment has been confirmed by Commissioner in the findings portion of his Order - The commissioner has demanded interest on duty demanded and imposed penalty equivalent to duty demanded in terms of proviso to Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 - The fact that the goods were diverted to DTA from their bonded warehouse is not disputed and this fact has come to the notice of department only after investigation, is also not contested - The only plea made by appellant is that it was done on account of their inefficiency of staff and there was no intention to evade duty - Based on investigations, the Commissioner has rightly held that appellant had wilfully suppressed and mis-declared the fact that goods were used within the bonded warehouse - Therefore, appellants were liable for penalty under Section 114A - The Commissioner has given an option to pay interest along with 25% of duty within 30 days from date of receipt of his order in terms of Proviso to Section 114A of the Act - Appellant has now presented a copy of payment of duty along with interest and 25% of penalty on demand confirmed by Commissioner - Hence, nothing survives in the order: CESTAT
- Appeal rejected: BANGALORE CESTAT
2023-TIOL-798-CESTAT-HYD
Yadala Balaji Rao Vs CCE, C & ST
ST - Appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal which was filed in 2009 - There is no dispute that entire amount of Service Tax as demanded in SCN has been paid by appellant even before issue of SCN - It is not known as to whether appellant was even made aware of the fact that if interest is paid by them, appellant would get complete waiver of penalties - From SCN and O-I-O, it is seen that Department has not disputed appellant's claim that they have not charged/collected Service Tax from their clients - When appellant has not charged Service Tax on their clients they are entitled to cum-tax benefit in terms of Section 67(2) of Finance Act, 1994 - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority with directions that appellant should be allowed to get benefit of cum-tax benefit and amount of Service Tax is required to be quantified accordingly - Appellant is required to pay interest on re-quantified amount of Service Tax from the time the Service Tax was due till the date on which Service Tax liability has been completed by him - Subject to his paying such differential interest as per this procedure, penalties stand waived under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Since the matter pertains to year 2007-2008, Adjudicating Authority is directed to complete Denovo Adjudication proceedings within a period of 4 months - If appellant fails to pay interest, if any, within 3 months, waiver of penalty granted above will not be available to appellant and Revenue may proceed to recover the penalties on requantified confirmed demand as per the earlier O-I-O: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: HYDERABAD CESTAT |
