I-T- It is material which AO has in his possession when he forms belief and not what he gathers thereafter, that is relevant to test tenability of reassessment proceedings : HC

I-T- Application u/s 12AA & 80G rejected for not being filed electronically - the condition of filing form electronically was not conveyed to applicant & electronic form 10A was not available at time of filing - rejection of applications is unsustainable: HC

I-T- Addition for unexplained cash credit can sustain as issue failed to meet test of creditworthiness and genuineness : HC

I-T-Re-assessment order is invalidated where the AO does not consider reply submitted by the Assessee to Show Cause Notice issued : HC

I-T- Where relevant information relied on by AO before passing order is not put to assessee, then assessee's ability to file contentions against such order is compromised - order merits being quashed: HC

I-T- Brand names invest in owner commercial rights and fall within scope of intangible assets, which is amenable to deprecation u/s 32(1)(ii) of Act : HC

CX - When there is enough reason to justify the delay of twenty three days ideally such delay should have been condoned and appeal heard on merits, matter remanded to decide on merits: CESTAT

CX - Proper verification of input services invoices has been carried out and found to be eligible input services, therefore, no infirmity found in impugned order dropping the demand: CESTAT

ST - Inasmuch as entire information was in knowledge of Revenue, SCN should have been issued within normal period of one year whereas same was issued after prescribed limit of one year, demand raised in SCN is clearly time-barred: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1184-HC-AHM-VAT

Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

On appeal, the High Court directs that the Appellant deposit Rs 50 lakhs within a period of 15 days from today and Rs 50 lakhs shall be deposited before 31.10.2023 and Rs 1 crore before 30.11.2023 with the Revenue. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the First Appellate Authority shall decide the appeals by the appellant within 90 days from the date of deposit i.e. on or before 29.02.2024.

- Appeal disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-866-CESTAT-ALL

E L Sewedy Electrometer Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The only issue that is required to be considered is as to whether Commissioner (A) was justified in rejecting the appeal of appellant on the ground of limitation - Commissioner (A) has been authorized under Central Excise Act, 1944 to condone the delay up to 30 days in filing appeal - It is settled law for such technicalities right of appeal to be heard by a Competent Appellate Authority, as statutorily provided should not be withered away - Commissioner (A) in this case by not allowing the application for condonation of delay has denied the opportunity to appellant to put his case on merits in appeal filed - There is enough reason to justify the delay of twenty three days ideally such delay should have been condoned and appeal heard on merits - Accordingly, no merits found in order of Commissioner (A) dismissing the appeal of appellant on grounds of limitation after dismissing his application for condonation of delay - The matter is remanded back to Commissioner (A) for decision on merits and to be decided within three months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-865-CESTAT-AHM

CCE & ST Vs Savita Oil Technologies Ltd

CX - Revenue has filed the appeal only on the ground that Commissioner has decided the matter on the basis of reports given by jurisdictional range officer and Commissioner has not verified the eligibility of input services - Tribunal had remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority with a clear direction for verification of ISD invoices - The Adjudicating Authority has conducted verification through jurisdictional officers - Obviously the jurisdictional officer has verified the invoices of service providers in detail which consists of description of input service - Therefore, it cannot be said that the aspect of eligibility of input service has not been verified - From the facts and findings of Adjudicating Authority, it is absolutely clear that proper verification of input services invoices has been carried out - Therefore, the ground taken in appeal is only on assumption basis that Commissioner might not have verified the eligibility of input service - On perusal of chart and description of services given therein, it is found that all the services listed in chart are required in or in relation of manufacture and overall business activity of appellant - Even on independent analysis of services, all the services are eligible input services - Therefore, no infirmity found in impugned order hence, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-864-CESTAT-AHM

Arya Logistics Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue involved is regarding demand of service tax for period April 2008 to March 2011 on the ground that appellant has availed in-eligible benefit of notfn 1/2006-ST by discharging service tax liability by availing Cenvat Credit and paid service tax after availing abatement of 70% of gross amount - It is found from records and copy of ST-3 produced that appellant had been filing ST-3 returns regularly - It becomes clear from ST-3 return that appellant were discharging Service tax on Transport of Goods in container by Rail service and availing Cenvat credit and utilized the Cenvat credit was in knowledge of Revenue - However, SCN to Appellant was issued on 26.02.2013 - Inasmuch as the entire information was in knowledge of Revenue, longer period of limitation is not available - SCN should have been issued within the normal period of one year as prescribed under Section 73(1), whereas SCN for the period April 2008 to March 2009 was issued on 26.02.2013 i.e. after prescribed limit of one year - There is no suppression of fact on the part of appellant - Entire case of department on merit is that since appellant have availed Cenvat Credit, they violated the condition of abatement notfn 01/2006-ST - Having all the facts were disclosed to department, nothing prevented department from issue of SCN within normal period of one year - Therefore, demand raised in SCN is clearly time-barred - Since the demand is not sustainable on limitation alone, Tribunal refrain from giving finding on merit of the case: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-863-CESTAT-AHM

Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The Assessee-company manufactures Motor vehicles - It imports goods used as components for manufacturing Motor Vehicles - The Assessee sought classification of such components imported for manufacture of motor vehicle under the specific heading of those components whereas the Revenue is seeking the classify the same under the heading of 8708 as parts of the motor vehicle.

Held - A matter involving identical dispute in respect of same appellant had been decided by the Tribunal in Final Order No. A/10665/2022 dated 07.06.2022 - It is noticed that this decision relies on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature explanatory notes - It is notice that while the order takes note of the criteria laid down in explanatory note but there is no discussion on the said criteria - The Revenue's counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in OK PLAY (INDIA) LTD. and CAST METAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD - The crux of both the decisions of Apex Court is that the functional utility, design shape and predominant use have to be taken into account while classifications of goods - The test of predominant use is incorporated in the set of test to be exercise before classification - Hence there is no conflict in the decision of Apex Court cited by the Revenue's counsel and the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case dated 07.06.2022 - Hence the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals to decide the present case in an identical manner: CESTAT

- Case remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT