|
2023-TIOL-1213-HC-MP-GST
Amba Shakti Udyog Ltd Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
GST - Petitioner has filed the writ petition against the order dated 08.12.2020 passed u/s 74 of the Act, 2017 - Bench has no reason to doubt that the pleas available to the petitioner on facts and in law including the alleged procedural irregularities, if were raised before the appellate forum, the same would not have been addressed - Petitioner, after arguing for a while, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file duly constituted appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act; however, seeks indulgence in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal as now, at this distance of time, more than two years' period has passed by, whereas limitation prescribed is of three months.
Held : Bench is of the view that the delay caused due to pendency of the writ petition should not come in the way of the petitioner in agitating the order of assessment before the appellate forum - Petition is disposed of by directing that, in case, appeal is filed within 30 days under Section 107 of GST Act, the Appellate Authority shall not insist on the question of limitation and address the issues raised by the petitioner on facts and in law; that the petitioner shall also be at liberty to apply for interim protection - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1212-HC-DEL-GST
Best Crop Science Pvt Ltd Vs Supdt. CGST
GST - Petitioner challenges the demand cum show cause notice dated 01.03.2023 on the ground that the same was issued beyond the period as specified under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, and, therefore, the goods seized were liable to be returned, therefore, SCN is also liable to be quashed.
Held : Order of confiscation has already been passed by the concerned authority and the same is the subject matter of another writ petition filed by the petitioner - Question whether the order of confiscation of goods is valid or is liable to be interfered with by this Court, is a matter to be considered in that petition and no order can be passed in this petition - Consequently, the relief as sought by the petitioner - that is, the goods be returned to the petitioner - cannot be directed without considering the merits of the order of confiscation - Consequence of Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act merely provides that if no notice is issued within the stipulated period, the goods seized are liable to be returned - It does not postulate that the notice, issued after six months, is invalid - No further orders are required to be passed in this petition - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 20, 21, 22]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-879-CESTAT-MUM
IFB Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant, upon import of 232 consignments of 'pumps' of several types and 'pump filter' for 'washing machines' and 'dishwashers', claimed classification against tariff item 8413 9190 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - For goods imported under heading 8413 in First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, three rates, at 5%, 12% and 28% existed as per notfn 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) which, w.e.f. 14th November 2017, was expanded to incorporate yet another rate of 18% (at sl no 317A of Schedule III) - Clearance of imported goods on discharge of integrated tax at 12%, with corresponding short-payment of Rs. 1,07,57,653, instead of at 18% intended, at sl no. 453 of Schedule III, for any 'goods which are not specified in Schedule I, II, IV, V or VI' was the bone of contention in notice issued to appellant - The appellant was placed on notice of recovery under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the classification claimed by them did not quite fit the bill as 'pumps' were not to be used exclusively for handling water and that the classification claimed by them for the purpose of section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 was for 'parts' which called for levy of integrated tax at 18% - There was, however, no proposal for reclassification of impugned goods under appropriate sub-heading in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 thus demonstrating unacceptable inconsistency - Essential onus devolving on customs authorities for re-classification set out by Supreme Court has not been discharged in impugned proceedings - Consequently, and respectfully following the order of Tribunal in re Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Pvt Ltd , impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-878-CESTAT-KOL
Tata Motors Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle and motor vehicle chassis paying duty thereon - During audit, it was found that appellant cleared 62 nos. of motor vehicle and motor vehicle chassis without payment of Central Excise duty claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notfn 108/95-CE as amended vide Notfn 13/2008-CE - Said issue came up before Tribunal in appellant's own case for earlier period - As in appellant's own case, benefit of exemption Notfn 108/95-CE as amended vide Notfn 13/2008-CE, is given by Tribunal, therefore, following the said decision, exemption under said Notfns is allowed as the appellant has cleared Chassis in question to the projects funded by International Organization - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-877-CESTAT-AHM
A V B Handling Vs CCE & ST
ST - Issue arises as per revenue is that the appellant have provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service to their client - From nature of works, it is clear that appellant have not provided Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service but they only performed the job as required by their client - It is also clear from letter that the supervision and control of manpower deputed for aforesaid job was with the appellant and thus the client was not concerned about number of manpower, type of manpower and Man hour - Therefore, nature of work is cargo handling service provided at the port and not Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - It is further noticed from invoices of appellant raised to their client that service is not of manpower recruitment or supply agency service - From sample invoices, it is clear that appellant have been charging their service charges on the basis of metric tons of goods handled by them and not on the basis of wages of laborers deployed for the job - The invoices supported the claim of appellant that service was correctly classifiable under cargo handling service and not under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Appellant have admittedly paid service tax on cargo handling services except in case of export of cargo which is not taxable - Identical issue has been considered in various judgments wherein it was viewed that in case the contract is for a job and not for supply of manpower their services cannot be classifiable under manpower recruitment or supply agency service - Appellant's service is correctly classifiable under cargo handling service as claimed by appellant and not under manpower recruitment or supply agency service as alleged by Revenue - As regard the limitation, appellant have been paying service tax on same service under cargo handling service and discharged the service tax - The details of nature of service, payment of service tax etc. was declared in their ST-3 return - Nothing prevents the department from taking action against appellant on the basis of details provided in ST-3 returns, therefore, there is absolutely no suppression of fact on the part of appellant - Hence, demand is also hit by limitation for extended period: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
