2023-TIOL-1418-HC-JHARKHAND-MISC
Adhunik Power And Natural Resources Ltd Vs Central Coalfields Ltd
Whether since the impugned amount collected from the assessee was wrongfully deducted as Tax Collected as Source, it should be refunded - YES: HC
- Assessee's petition allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1411-HC-P&H-CT
State Of Punjab Vs KKK Mills
Whether since the assessee being a dealer outside the State of Punjab is entitled to benefit of the notification reducing the sales tax benefit from 4% to 2% - YES: HC
- State's petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1410-HC-P&H-VAT
Max Valves And Regulators Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Haryana
Whether Since the accountant of the assessee had been making regular appearances before the AO as and when required, the argument taken by the assessee that notice VAT N-2 had not been validly served upon it holds no ground - YES: HC
- Assessee appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-976-CESTAT-DEL
KVS Castings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The Assessee owns a factory engaged in manufacture of M.S. Ingots, Casting and Runner/Riser - It had availed area based exemption provided under a notification dated June 10, 2003 - The duration of the exemption was effective from November 02, 2006 for a period of ten years up to November 01, 2016 - The dispute in this appeal is with regard to the liability of the Assessee to pay excise duty on the stock of 130.82 metric tonnes of finished goods lying at a place outside the factory of the Assessee - According to the Assessee, the goods were lying in a godown of the Assessee but according to the Department it was lying in a warehouse belonging to the Assessee.
Held - Perusal of the order shows that what weighed with the Commissioner (Appeals) was that under rule 4(1) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 (2002 Rules), Central Excise duty would be payable on the goods either in the factory or in a warehouse on the date of removal and as the Assessee had declared stocks in the godown situated outside the factory lying unsold, they should be treated as lying in the warehouse of the Assessee - It is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods should be treated as lying in the warehouse - In the first instance, the show cause notice does not even allege that the goods were lying in the warehouse and secondly, the godown could not have been treated as a warehouse - A warehouse has been defined under rule 2(H) of the 2002 Rules to mean any place or premises registered under Rule 9 - It is the specific case of the Assessee that the premises were not registered as a warehouse - This apart, the show cause notice does not even allege that the premises which the appellant alleges is a godown is a warehouse - The Commissioner has merely drawn a presumption that the premises should be treated as a warehouse - Such being the position, it is not possible to sustain the order dated July 30, 2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals): CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-975-CESTAT-DEL
Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
ST - The issue arises is, whether appellant is liable to pay service tax under composite contract, being erection, commissioning and installation of railway signalling and telecommunication facilities and construction of Rail Over Bridges for companies other than Indian Railways - Appellant was registered with Department for services under head ECIS and GTA - The appellant have done work for railways, as is evident from nature of work from the SCN - Said works qualify for exemption under Sl. No. 14(a) of Mega Exemption Notfn 25/2012-ST - This Tribunal has held in precedent rulings that there is no distinction drawn by statute with respect to public railways or private railways - The work has been done and or the services provided to Government companies like RITES, NTPC, IRCON, which are wholly owned by Government of India and management of these companies are controlled by Ministry of Railways - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-974-CESTAT-DEL
C E Fernandes Vs CCGST & CE
Cus - The appeal was filed on March 02, 2020 without making mandatory pre-deposit contemplated under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - A fresh notice was thereafter sent to appellant to make pre-deposit and appellant was also informed that matter would be listed before Tribunal on August 10, 2022 - The Office has reported that said notice has been served both upon appellant by Speed Post on June 17, 2022 - When the matter has been called out, neither appellant nor the Counsel for Appellant has appeared - It would be seen from a bare perusal of section 129E of Customs Act that after 6.8.2014 neither the Tribunal nor Commissioner (A) have the power to waive the requirement of pre-deposit, unlike the situation which existed prior to amendment made in section 129E on 06.08.204 when the Tribunal, if it was of opinion that deposit of duty and interest demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship, could dispense the said deposit on such conditions as it deemed fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of Revenue - The Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh therefore, held that deposit under second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal - The Supreme Court also held that Appellate Tribunal could not have granted waiver of pre-deposit beyond the provisions of the Act - The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ankit Mehta also dismissed the Writ Petition that had been filed against order of Tribunal dismissing the appeal for the reason that required pre-deposit was not made - The contention that was advanced before Tribunal and before Madhya Pradesh High Court was that the appellant was not in a position to make pre-deposit due to financial constraints - In view of said decisions, it is not possible to maintain the appeal without making required pre-deposit - Thus, appeal stands dismissed on this ground alone: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
