|
2023-TIOL-1124-HC-MAD-VAT
Royal Welding Wires Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
Whether compliance of pre-deposit should be adhered to by assessee before filing statutory appeal u/s 51 of TNVAT Act - YES: HC
- Case disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1123-HC-MAD-GST
KPS And Company Vs Pr.CCGST & CE
GST - The Assessee filed the present petition to contest the validity of an assessment order passed with respect to the relevant period - A Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 had been issued to the Assessee - Since the petitioner's address had changed and the notice was delivered at the old address, the notice remained unserved to the Assessee - The Assessee failed to respond to the notice issued under Section 73, and consequently, the notice fixing date of personal hearing, also remained unserved - Thus, the Assessee has suffered an adverse order in the hands of the Department - The Assessee however received a recovery notice dated 22.03.2023, at his new address - Hence, the Assessee approached this Court stating that the order has been passed in violation of principles of the natural justice.
Held - It is seen that the Assessee had informed the Department about the change in its office address - Thus, the proceedings initiated were continued without proper service of notice on the petitioner - Therefore, the order in question is liable to be quashed - The case is remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order: HC
- Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-827-CESTAT-KOL
Umesh Jain Vs CC
Cus - Appellant has filed COD Application for being filed the appeal with a delay of 4,636 days - They had been indulging in delaying tactics right from 03/01/2003 - It is on record that after Denovo Proceedings were initiated by Adjudicating Authority in 2003, appellant for the first time has stated that they have not received the copy of SCN - They had already gone upto CESTAT and has never taken this stand before CESTAT when Final Order was passed on 28/02/2000 - When the hearings were fixed on various dates in 2003 Appellant was continuously seeking Adjournments and was not attending the Personal Hearing - After this, fresh Adjudication proceedings were taken up by next Adjudicating Authority in 2006 but no one turned up on behalf of Appellant - Thereafter, impugned order was passed - Further, it is on record that letter dated 02/11/2012 was received by appellant at the same address for which he has filed the reply on 06/12/2012 - Similarly, the letter dated 06/02/2013 and 18/02/2013 was received by appellant at the same address for which he has filed the reply on 06/03/2003 - Therefore, this shows that appellant had deliberately not claimed the OIO no. 06/07 when same was attempted to be delivered by Postal Authorities - Further when the arrears reminder letters were sent in 2012 and 2013 as to why the Appellant did not make any effort to approach the Adjudicating Authority to check the status of Denovo Adjudication is not known - Appellant while properly sending their reply to Department on arrears letters, never bothered to approach Denovo Adjudicating Authority to know the status of their case, which was taken up for Adjudication by way of issue of several PH letters in 2006 & 2007 with the Adjudicating granting PH on several occasions - This shows that Appellant has not brought in any supportive evidence or any plausible explanation to consider the Condonation of this huge delay of 4636 days - Appellant has not brought in any evidence towards non-receipt of OIO and has failed to explain his silence for many years without making any efforts to find out the status of denovo adjudication even after receiving the Letters in 2012/2013 seeking payment of arrears - Therefore, no merit found in COD Petition and dismiss the same - Consequently, appeal filed by him also stands dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-826-CESTAT-KOL
CST Vs National Insurance Company Ltd
ST - Issue involved is related to leviability of service tax on the amount paid to foreign insurance companies for reinsurance as well as on the amount received by them from other insurance companies in the domestic sector during period May '06 to March-08 - The department contended that Appellant paid re-insurance premium to foreign based companies, but did not pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - They were also liable to pay service tax on reinsurance premium collected from other insurance companies - W.e.f.01.05.2005, insurer includes re-insurer also - Thus, there is no dispute that amount received by Appellant from domestic insurance companies for re-insurance service is liable to service tax - There is no dispute regarding service tax liability on re-insurance premium paid by Appellant to foreign insurance companies as well as reinsurance premium received by them from domestic insurance companies - Appellant has already paid service tax - Hence, confirmation of service tax demand and appropriation of amount already paid towards confirmed demand is in order - Appellant is liable to pay interest towards is this liability, if not already paid - As regards to penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - The Appellant contended that there was no intention to evade service tax - They had not included re-insurance premium paid by them to foreign companies as well as received by them from domestic insurance companies in ST-3 returns - Adjudicating authority considers this omission as suppression of fact for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Thus, there were some confusion regarding payability of service tax on re-insurance premium paid to foreign insurance companies - The issue became clear only after the issue of Taxation of Services Rules, 2006 - After this, appellant has agreed their liability and paid service tax on re-insurance premium paid by them to foreign companies - Thus, there was no intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of appellant - In such cases, no penalty imposable under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - There is no ingredient available in this case to impose penalty under section 76 of Finance Act,1994: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal rejected: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-825-CESTAT-AHM
CCE & ST Vs AGS Transact Technologies Ltd
CX - The issue involved is, whether assessee is eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit on input services and capital goods at Daman unit - There is no dispute about genuineness of transaction and duty paid documents are not doubted - The contention of revenue is that Cenvat credit availed by assessee at Daman Factory on input services and capital goods did not have any nexus, directly or indirectly, with excisable goods manufactured by assessee at their Daman unit, therefore they are not eligible for said disputed Cenvat credit - However, assessee was engaged in manufacture of ATM Machine, Computer Systems and other excisable goods at its factory at Daman - The said services were provided across India through its various locations - There is no dispute on the fact that for shifting centralized billing, assessee applied for amendment of Centralized service tax registration with Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai for change of principle place of Business from Mumbai office to Daman Factory - Assessee also informed the Jurisdictional Superintendent, Central Excise Daman about application for change of place of business from Mumbai to Daman - The necessary endorsements were granted on 20.08.2015 - The Commissioner by relying on Judgment of M/s Karan Chand Thapar and Brothers (Coal Shed) Ltd. and in case of M/s M.P.V & Engineering Industries = 2003-TIOL-107-SC-CX rightly observed that amendment in registration of 'Centralised Service Provider' should be considered from March 2014 - The authorities have taken own time in grant of amendment of Centralized Registration from Mumbai to Daman for which assessee cannot be made to suffer - It is to be noted that during disputed period assessee is registered both as manufacturer as well as provider of output services - Since the assessee is both a manufacturer and provider of output services from their Daman factory during disputed period they are eligible for availment of Cenvat credit on input, capital goods and input services used for providing output services from centralized service tax registration at Daman factory and used for manufactured goods and for providing their output services - Further Cenvat being a beneficial piece of legislation, which was enacted for removing cascading effect, denial of credit citing procedural irregularities is unsustainable - There is no restriction in Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 in respect of input service to be received and utilized only in factory or premises of output service provider - Thus, Commissioner rightly allowed the Cenvat credit to assessee - From the Board's letter F. No. 381/23/2010/862, also it is clear that availment and utilisation of Cenvat credit from common pool of Excise duty as well as Service Tax is permissible - Apex Court in case of Ramesh Foods Ltd. = 2005-TIOL-07-SC-CX held that there is no requirement of one-to-one co-relation in availment of Cenvat credit - Impugned order is correct and legal which does not require any interference, same is upheld: CESTAT
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
