I-T- Since Revenue has not incorporated reasons of issuing order manually without DIN and date & number of approval in body of assessment order, it does not comply with Circular No. 19/2019 : ITAT

I-T- Case can be remanded to afford an opportunity to assessee to substantiate its claim of exemption in respect of write back of its liabilities by adducing documentary evidence and explanation : ITAT

I-T- If notice u/s 148 has been issued well before date of grant of approval by PCIT then same is clearly jurisdictional defect u/s 151 which cannot be cured : ITAT

I-T- Action of AO in making addition u/s 68 and imposing penalty are based on mere surmises and conjectures without having any valid, positive, cogent or corroborative evidence: ITAT

Cus - When appellant's role starts after exportation of goods and issuance of Let Export Order and Shipping Bill by Customs department, it would not be proper to allege that appellant had omitted or did some act in relation to improper export of goods: CESTAT

CX - The disputed goods had been used for purposes of manufacturing of BMD Vehicles without which the 'Bulk Explosive' cannot be prepared, appellant is eligible to take Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

ST - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to ascertain whether all contracts entered by appellant with their clients are in nature of works contract service or some contracts are only for supply of services: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-892-CESTAT-MUM

Sanjay D Bhalerao Vs CC

Cus - The department had not issued any summon(s) to appellant for recording of statement(s) with regard to irregular exportation of subject goods and for ascertaining his specific role with regard to such activities - Though, impugned order has stated that appellant had earned 50% of profit out of export proceeds, but did not elaborate any findings with regard to actual role played by appellant in irregular exportation of goods - Further, the proceedings were initiated by department in a casual manner, inasmuch as the name of appellant has not been correctly mentioned either in SCN or in impugned order - Thus, in absence of proper substantiation of case, especially with regard to appellant herein, penal provisions contained in Section 114 ibid, cannot routinely be invoked for penalising the appellant - Exports had been made under claim of drawback, in Dollar terms to Dubai and under 'Re-payment of State Credit Scheme', popularly known as 'Rupee Rouble Trade' to Russia - The foreign remittance for exports made to Dubai has to come in the form of USD; and in case of export to Russia, no foreign remittances were received, since the goods had been shown as exported under 'Rupee Rouble Trade' - In case of 'Rupee Rouble Trade', the remittance was paid by RBI in equivalent Indian Rupees, based on advice received from Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs (BFEA) through designated bank of exporter - The documents forwarded by appellant were found to be in order by overseas bank, which is evident from the fact that no discrepancy was reported by them within the stipulated time frame - Further, it is not the case of Revenue that with regard to the disputed transactions, the banker was not registered with RBI - Since, based on available records, evidencing export of goods under scheme of 'Rupee Rouble Trade', RBI has remitted the rupees in favour of exporter through approved banking channel, it cannot be said that appellant had played any role with regard to irregular exportation of goods - When the appellant's role starts after exportation of goods and issuance of Let Export Order (LEO) and issue of exchange control copy of Shipping Bill by Customs department, it would not be proper to allege that appellant had omitted or did some act in relation to improper export of goods - Since the appellants' role as a banker has started after physical exportation of goods, more particularly after issuance of LEO and physical movement of goods from port of export, it cannot be said that they were involved in improper exportation of goods and consequently, would be exposed to penal liabilities provided under Section 114 ibid - No merits found in impugned order, in so far as it has imposed penalties under Section 114 ibid, on the appellants: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-891-CESTAT-KOL

Prasad Explosive And Chemicals Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The appellant is a manufacturer of bulk explosive - SCN was issued on allegation that appellant is not eligible to take Cenvat Credit and an amount was demanded for such credits taken for period June 2008 to December 2012 - In their own case in respect of such demand being made for period January 2013 to December 2013, the matter had come up before Tribunal in 2022-TIOL-1134-CESTAT-KOL wherein it has been held that appellant is eligible to take Cenvat Credit - Appellant has submitted copy of Chartered Engineer's Certificate specifying the usage of inputs/capital goods in question - Since the issue is identical pertaining to same appellant, respectfully following the decision of this Bench, appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-890-CESTAT-BANG

Mathias Aluminium Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The issue relates to applicability of service tax for composite contracts where materials along with services were rendered by appellant to various clients during relevant period 16/06/2005 to 31/05/2007 - Rejecting their contention by vivisecting the contract, the authorities below have confirmed the demand for services rendered by appellant and imposed penalty - Issue is covered by judgment of Supreme Court in case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - However, to analyse in detail, it is necessary to remand the matter to adjudicating authority to ascertain whether all contracts entered by appellant with their clients are in nature of works contract service or some contracts are only for supply of services - To ascertain said position, matter is remanded to adjudicating authority - Needless to say that principles of natural justice be followed by affording opportunity of hearing to appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT