2023-TIOL-164-SC-CUS
New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Mudit Roadways
Whether the privileges enshrined in Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding abatement and remission extend exclusively to the ‘importers' of the insured goods - YES: SC
- Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023-TIOL-1643-HC-GUW-GST
Surya Businees Pvt Ltd Vs State of Assam
GST - The Assessee-company filed the present petition to contest the vires of a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act r/w corresponding provisions of the Assam GST Act - It was alleged in the notice that the Assessee had not declared correct liability while filing GST return in Form GSTR 09 - The counsel for the Assessee contended that the notice ought not to have been issued since an order under Section 65(6) of the Act had already been passed.
Held - List the matter for hearing on 15.11.2023 - If no order has been passed on or before 28.10.2023 or subsequent thereto till date, status quo as regards the proceedings stated to be drawn up vide the Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2023, be maintained till the next date of listing: HC
- Case deferred: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1054-CESTAT-HYD
Mahavir Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of MS Ingots - SCN alleged that the Assessee had availed CENVAT credit fraudulently during the period 204-05 to 2007-08; that appellant has suppressed production and clandestinely removed MS ingots without payment of any CE duty - Appellant had produced records and ledgers maintained in 'modi script' [regional language] - Case of department is that on a theoretical study, the approximate yield considering the power consumption indicated that there was excess production and which was cleared clandestinely and without payment of any CX duty.
Held: Admittedly, Appellants have maintained sufficient records of their transactions, production, etc. - They have furnished regular returns and other prescribed forms which have not been found to be untrue or wrong - Bench finds that the demand raised for alleged clandestine production and clearance of finished goods and raw materials is vague and not based on any proper prescribed norms - Further such demand is hit by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RA Castings Pvt. Ltd ( 2008-TIOL-2732-CESTAT-DEL confirmed by Supreme Court - 2011 (269) ELT A108 (SC)) - Insofar as CENVAT credit on items in question, viz., MS angles, bars, coils, beams, plates, channels, etc., is concerned, they have admittedly been used in the factory of production - Bench also finds that part of these inputs have been used in the fabrication of EOT Crane, which is used for material handling inside the factory - Further, some of the items like MS bars, which are required to stir the molten steel during production, get melted and become part of the molten steel in the furnace and thus, gets consumed in the manufacture of finished goods - Further, inputs like new plates and coils have been used in repair of the furnace lining, which has to be done periodically - Thus, Bench holds that the Appellants have rightly taken CENVAT credit and the disallowance of credit is bad - Impugned orders set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 25, 26]
- Appeals allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT
|
