I-T- Revenue appropriated Self Assessment Tax deposited by Assessee, who also erred in filling challans; CBDT directed to examine one of three possible solutions proposed by Assessee: HC

I-T- Since notice is issued on last date of limitation period, assessee's contention that same is issued beyond period of limitation is erroneous : HC

I-T- Enhancement of addition or reduction of refund by CIT(A) is untenable where assessee is not given an opportunity of hearing before such action: ITAT

I-T- Demand on account of capital gains cannot be raised, when there has been no transfer of immovable property due to absence of conveyance deed: ITAT

I-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in cases involving AYs after AY 2016-17, where Explanation-4 to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable prospectively from AY 2016-17 and not prior thereto: ITAT

I-T- Making inadvertently making an erroneous claim while filing ITR, cannot be penalised under Section 271(1)(c), when no rationale is made out for Assessee to make such claim : ITAT

I-T- Disallowance u/s 14A cannot be framed when no exempt income has been earned in the relevant year: ITAT

I-T- Commission expenditure allowable as business expenditure when commission payment was evidenced by assessee: ITAT

I-T- Additions for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 are sustainable, where assessee fails to discharge onus of proving identity, creditworthiness of creditor & genuineness of transaction : ITAT

I-T- Loss incurred by Assessee cannot be deemed to be under-reporting of income, where Assessee does not claims set off of loss against any other income or against Assessee's income from house property - Penalty u/s 270A is unwarranted: ITAT

ST - The appellant who is acting as a stock Broking Company is not liable to pay Service Tax on computer to computer linkage charges: CESTAT

CX - Since Honey is not an exempted goods, proceedings against appellant are not sustainable under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-915-CESTAT-AHM

Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd Vs CST

ST - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on computer to computer linkage charges, while acting as a Stock Broking Company - The very same issue in appellant's own case has been decided by Tribunal in their favour - Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra - Following the Tribunal's order, it is held that demand is not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-913-CESTAT-AHM

Century Plyboards India Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appeal has been filed against rejection of their refund claim - The appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that they had paid antidumping duty in excess of actual dumping margin determined for such article - The refund claim was in respect of imports made during April 2010 to February 2012 - Appellant argued that DGAD has come to conclusion that there was lower dumping margin and negative injury and therefore the anti-dumping duty paid by them during this period was refundable to them - Impugned order denied the refund claim solely on the ground that Notfn 14/2012 does not apply to past clearances - The entire argument in impugned order is based on words appearing in said notification "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such suppression" - This exact expression has been examined by High Court of Madras in case of Vetcare Organics Pvt Ltd = 2011-TIOL-443-HC-MAD-CUS - Impugned order cannot be sustained, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-912-CESTAT-KOL

Dabur India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The appellant is manufacturing Glucose and Honey/Madhu whereas Glucose is dutiable and Honey although excisable, but no rate of duty is mentioned in tariff - Further, for period up to 31st March 2014, the ISD was not disputing advertisement services pertaining to Honey, but for advertisement services, they are disputing the credit pertaining to Glucose which is dutiable - As regards credit of other services ISD applied provisions of rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and apportioned the remaining credit in production value ratio of all the units and such apportionment, only so much credit as proportionate to taxable turnover of all units was distributed by ISD - The credit was not distributed by ISD was reversed at its end - For period post 01.04.2014 except credit pertained to trading activity, ISD distributed the entire credit among all the units in their production value ratio and therafter appellant themselves applied the provisions of rule 6(3)(ii) of CCR on cenvat credit distributed by ISD in the ratio of taxable turnover to total turnover during the preceding financial year on provisional basis and same was adjusted by appellant on the basis of final ratio by 30th June of next financial year - For the period July 2015 to January 2017 and pre-SCN consultation was done by issuance of letter by revenue and said issue has been settled by dropping CERA objection raised against the appellant - On going through said pre-SCN consultation letter and dropping proceeding against appellant, it is clear that appellant is reversing proportionate cenvat credit, as per Rule 6(3)(a) therefore appellant is not required to pay 6% of value of Honey cleared by them - Honey is not an exempted goods, in fact, no duty is payable on honey as same is classifiable under CTH 0409 00 00 of CETA, 1985, where no rate of duty is mentioned - That does not mean that Honey becomes exempted as held by High Court in case of Gularia Chini Mills = 2013-TIOL-568-HC-ALL-CX - The said order was affirmed by Supreme Court in case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. = 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX - Therefore, provisions of rule 6 are not applicable to the facts of this case as Honey is not an exempted goods - Impugned orders deserve no merits, accordingly same are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT