I-T - Re-assessment order & demand notice merit being quashed where issued in the name of a non-existent company which ceased to exist on account of its dissolution : HC

I-T - Re-assessment cannot be resorted to when there is no failure on part of assessee to make full & true disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment: HC

ST - Sale of goods by tender does not fall within auctioneering services, demand of service tax cannot sustain: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-958-CESTAT-MAD

Erode Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Appellant is engaged in conducting sale of goods by tender which according to Department was Auctioneer services - SCN was issued proposing to demand Service Tax for period from 01.10.2006 to 13.09.2011 along with interest and for imposing penalties - It is asserted by appellant that price is not fixed by them and goods are not sold without consent of farmer - In ordinary service of auction, price gets fixed by auctioneer as per bid - Further, there will be a live process wherein public is called upon to take part in auction - In present case only members who are part of society participate in sale of products by way of method which is more akin to tender process - The main contention put forward by appellant is that the activity does not fall within auctioneering services - The nature of activity engaged by appellant for sale of farmers produce has been explained - Demand cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-957-CESTAT-MAD

Acero Strips And Packaging Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appeal has come up for hearing on various dates - There was no representation on behalf of appellant - The Bench directed to issue notice to appellant through department by registered post - Respondent submitted that notice was issued to appellant through department - Consignment addressed to appellant was delivered on 3.12.2022 - Department has produced track consignment sheet also - It is noticed that department has issued letter in address given by appellant in their Customs Act, CA-3 Form used for filing this appeal - The track report shows that item has been delivered on 3.12.2022 - Still there is no response from appellant - It is presumed that appellant is not interested in pursuing the litigation: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-956-CESTAT-AHM

Rainbow Papers Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The Assessee availed exemption Notification No 04/2006-CE under Sr No 91, which allows concessional rate of duty @ 4% with condition No 11 - Accordingly, the Assessee availed Cenvat credit on inputs - The Department opined that since there is an exemption to the same goods i.e. papers or paper boards under Sr. No. 90 which prescribed nil rate of duty, the Assessee was supposed to avail such notification mandatorily - The Department contended that the exemption under Sr. No 90 is absolute exemption in terms of Section 5A (1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Assessee had no option except to opt for notification - Hence, as the goods were under nil rate of duty, the Assessee was not allowed to avail Cenvat credit - Therefore the Cenvat credit was sought to be disallowed.

Held - The limited issue to be decided in this case is that availing the cenvat credit by the Assessee where the Assessee has availed the option of Sr No. 91 of Notification 04/2006 - CE is correct or they were mandatorily required to avail the exemption under Sr. No. 90 of the same Notification - From the plain reading of the exemption notification entries it is clear in our mind that both exemption entries carry conditions for allowing either nil rate of duty or 4 % of duty therefore there is no doubt that both the exemption entries are conditional - The contention of the Revenue is based on Section 5A (1A) which prescribes that in case of absolute exemption the asseessee has no option except to avail such exemption - In the present case, as discussed above, both the exemption entries are subject to certain conditions therefore both the entries have absolute exemption - In this position it is an option to the Assessee to choose any one of the exemption entries - Therefore, in the present case the Assesee has chosen to avail the exemption under Sr No. 91 is absolutely legal and correct - There is no doubt that the Assessee has availed the exemption under Sr. No 91 correctly and legally - Consequently, they are entitled for the cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT