I-T - U/s 153C, third party has to furnish I-T returns of preceding six years, starting from date when AO assigns third party's documents to concerned AO and not from date of original search: SC

I-T - Where interest was allowable u/s 37, then principal amount returned by virtue of order of Court was also allowable, as both formed composite money decree : ITAT

I-T - Where AO during assessment proceedings had made adequate enquiries before accepting explanation offered by assessee, exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by PCIT is not justified: ITAT

I-T - If employer's contribution to PF was not deposited within due date of filing income tax return, such situation calls for disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): ITAT

CX - IIT & NIT will come under Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification issued by Department of Revenue in 2012: SC

Sales tax - Goods & wares made of glass would fall within Entry No.IV of Notification No.5784 dated Sep 07, 1981 and thus attract a duty @15%: SC

ST - Even if an excess amount of service tax was admitted by appellant, right course of action would be to issue a Corrigendum to demand and include excess amount to Notice before confirmation, confirmation of duty in excess of demand made in notice is not sustainable: CESTAT

Cus - Department has not been able to adduce any evidence in support of their proposition of mis-representation and deliberate suppression of facts, imposition of penalty and demand of interest is set aside: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-145-SC-CX

CC, CE & ST Vs Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt Ltd

Whether interpretative tools should be employed to make a statute workable and not to reach to a particular outcome - YES: SC

Whether merely because statute does not yield intended or desired results, is no reason to overstep by employing tools of interpretation to interpret a provision keeping in mind its outcome - YES: SC

Whether Indian Institute of Technology and the National Institute of Technology will come under the Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in 2012 - YES: SC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-144-SC-CT

Triveni Glass Ltd Vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Whether all goods & wares made of glass would fall within Entry No.IV of Notification No.5784 dated Sep 07, 1981 and thus attract a duty @15% under Central Sales Tax - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-925-CESTAT-KOL

Guru Shipping And Clearing Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - The notice was issued to appellant for a demand of Rs.96,80,867/-, whereas the adjudicating authority has gone beyond Notice and confirmed an amount of Rs.1,08,13,836/- - The Appellant cited Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994 and contended that the law does not provide confirmation of any amount in excess of demand made in Notice - It was submitted that Adjudicating Authority has confirmed demand in excess of demand made in Notice because the same was admitted by appellant and excess liability was not disputed - Even if an excess amount of service tax was admitted by Appellant, the right course of action would be to issue a Corrigendum to demand and include excess amount to the Notice before confirmation - Thus, confirmation of duty in excess of demand made in notice is not sustainable - Accordingly, confirmation of Service Tax of Rs.96,80,867/- as demanded in Notice is upheld - Appellant mainly contests the penalty equal to the service tax imposed in impugned order under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - In SCN also there was no allegation of suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of service tax - Further, they stated that as they have paid the entire amount of service tax confirmed along with interest, they could have availed SVLDRS Scheme, but could not do so due to illness and demise of one of working partners - Notice only says that 'had the scrutiny of records not been conducted by the Audit, the nonpayment of service tax could have gone undetected' - There is no other evidence brought on record to allege suppression of fact on the part of Appellant with an intention to evade payment of tax - Further, if Appellant has any intention to evade payment of tax, they could not have declared more tax liability than what was demanded in Notice, on their own volition - Suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of tax has been not established in this case - Accordingly, it is a fit case to invoke provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and waive the penalty - Demand of service tax of Rs.96,80,867/- is upheld along with interest as demanded in Notice - Penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is set aside by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: KOLKATA CESTAT

CC Vs B R Marbles Pvt Ltd

Cus - The revenue is in appeal against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) has set aside the order for imposition of penalty and demand of interest on assessee - The assessee obtained an EPCG Authorization to import duty free capital goods for mining of marbles and exporting the same - Assessee could not undertake any mining activity because of restrictions imposed by Apex Court - To attach motives on part of appellant under such circumstances is certainly not called for - It cannot be anybody's case that assessee continued to import capital goods with intentions of defrauding the revenue and depriving the department of its rightful claim - Department has not been able to adduce any evidence in support of this proposition of theirs of mis-representation and deliberate suppression of facts - The fact that assessee could not discharge their export obligation and hence failed to meet export commitments leading to nonissue of EODC is understandably beyond the control of assessee - They did approach the department to permit them to make payment of duty foregone in terms of EPCG Licence issued, in installments and waive the requirement/imposition of interest and penalty as was proposed in SCN - Assessee has paid total duty due in terms of EPCG in two installments before filing of appeal before Commissioner (A) and balance amount on 2nd November 2017, pursuant to order passed by Commissioner (A) - In wake of global economic crisis in Asia and particularly so in Southeast Asia, Tribunal in case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. , had set aside the penalty interest and fine imposed where export obligation under EPCG Licence could not be fulfilled by importer due to global economic crisis - Likewise, in case of Taurus Novelties Ltd. 2004-TIOL-709-CESTAT-BANG , wherein the importers had not met export obligation cast upon them, due to collapse of Korean economy and therefore, could not procure requisite orders and export the Ceramic goods manufactured, Tribunal had allowed the plea for waiver of redemption fine, penalty as well as interest - Revenue has totally failed to establish any aspect of mens rea on part of assessee - No nfirmity found in orders of Commissioner (A), same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

Shiv Shakti Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - These appeals have been listed for hearing on many occasions earlier - On these occasions, either the appellants have sought adjournment or none appeared - When the matter was called for hearing, appellant company and its director by their letter sought adjournment stating that they wish to hire additional advocate - Their counsel is also present who is representing all the appellants as per record - As directed by Bench on 09.11.2022, no medical certificate has been produced - In view of these provisions, matter cannot be adjourned any further - Tribunal asked the counsel who is present to argue the matter, but he has expressed his inability to do so - Taking note of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, appeals dismissed for non-prosecution: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT