2023-TIOL-1112-HC-KERALA-VAT
Yousaph C Vs State Of Kerala
Whether where other parties are deposing against their own interest that slips found in their possession belonged to them and not assessee, then Department should have considered such matter accordingly - YES: HC
- Assessee's revision allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1111-HC-KERALA-VAT
Value Industries Ltd Vs State Of Kerala
Whether in absence of compliance with statutory mandate, authorities had no option but to confirm additions made for want of production of statutory Forms - YES: HC
- Assessee's revision dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1109-HC-MAD-CT
TVL Suresh Rajendran HUF Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Whether where order against assessee was passed ex parte and in a hurry, such case deserves to be remitted to pass reasoned order – YES: HC
- Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT 2023-TIOL-820-CESTAT-CHD
Vinayak Industries Vs CCE & ST
CX - Main allegation of department is that appellants have not availed CENVAT Credit available to them in order to manipulate cash refund in terms of Notfn 56/2002 - The appellants claim that there is no time limit specified under CENVAT Credit Rules to avail CENVAT Credit - The appellant also relies on CBEC Circular 345/2/2000-TRU - It appears that though the word "immediately" is used in Rule 4, there appears to be no outer time limit prescribed for availing CENVATCredit - The appellants further submits that even if duty is paid from PLA, without fully utilising CENVAT Credit available, the same cannot be a ground to deny cash refund under Notfn 56/2002, as such unutilised credit of a month can be utilised for payment in subsequent months and entire situation leads to Revenue neutrality - As pleaded by appellant, department has accepted the procedure followed by appellants in an earlier refund case; it cannot take a contrary stand in subsequent cases - Revenue seeks to include the value of cardboard boxes supplied free of cost by customer to be included in assessable value of tin containers - All the issues raised vide impugned SCN are squarely covered in favour of appellant - Appellant has not violated any provisions of either CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or the conditions of Notfn 56/2002 - The appellants did not avail cash refund in some months and in some months, they availed refund less than the upper limit of 39% - This goes to prove the bona fides of appellant - Appellants are not required to include the cost of packing material supplied free by them in assessable value of tin containers manufactured and cleared by them - Therefore, demands raised and confirmed thereof; penalties imposed are not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2023-TIOL-819-CESTAT-CHD
Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The appellant is engaged in construction services as a civil contractor - Department opined that appellant have not included service tax in respect of advance received from M/s Areans and M/s A.K.M (MBD) and that they have not included the value of free supply material while calculating tax liability and thus have evaded service tax in violation of provisions of Sections 67, 68 & 70 of Finance Act, 1994 and Rules 6 & 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - The contracts entered into by appellant involve material as well as service component - As such, the service rendered by appellant is taxable only from 01.06.2007 - Moreover, in view of decision in Bhayana Builders, value of free supply items cannot be included in assessable value for the purpose of calculation of service tax - It is not disputed that repeated SCNs have been issued to appellants on the very same issue and on the basis of very same objections raised by Audit - It is not permissible in view of Supreme Court judgment in case of Nizam Sugars Factory = 2006-TIOL-56-SC-CX - It was followed in a number of decisions by High Courts and Tribunals - Impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
2023-TIOL-818-CESTAT-KOL
Marshall Corporation Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant undertaken the activity of evacuation of fly ash from silos and hydro bins of various thermal power stations of M/s CESC Ltd. - They considered this activity as transportation of goods liable to service tax under category of GTA service, whereas Department considered that the activities would fall under category of 'cleaning service' - The 'fly ash' is being evacuated and removed as per the contract and the same cannot be termed as a 'cleaning activity' - The evacuation of 'fly ash' is required to continue the industrial activity - Unless the accumulated fly ash is removed from silos, it cannot be utilized to receive further 'fly ash' emerging during course of manufacturing - Thus, removal of 'fly ash' from silos is an essential part of production process - Issue is no more res Integra and has been decided by Tribunal in case of M/s Hindustan Steel works construction Ltd. - Accordingly, the activities undertaken by appellant are not chargeable to service tax under category of 'Cleaning Service' - Hence, demands confirmed in impugned Revision Order are not sustainable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-814-CESTAT-BANG
Xiaomi Technology India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is engaged in business of trading of electronic goods and various ecosystem products - They had filed various Bills of Entry for import of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels and parts of LCD panels - They had classified the said items under Chapter Heading 9013 9010 which was not accepted by original authority and Commissioner (A) - Original Authority classified the said items under Chapter 8529 9090 - By following the ratio of Apex court judgment rendered in case of M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. , the LCD Panels are to be classified under Chapter Heading 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are to be classified under Chapter Heading 9013 9010 - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
|
