More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Central Tax - Rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellants are manufacturers of table-top wet grinders who have cleared the goods by adopting the valuation mechanism under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after availing 35% abatement on the MRP - Revenue rejected the MRP assessment and assessed the goods under Section 4 by including the value of the 35% abatement - Whether the rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified – HELD - The issue involved in these appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by this very B... [Read more]

Central Tax - Rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellants are manufacturers of table-top wet grinders who have cleared the goods by adopting the valuation mechanism under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after availing 35% abatement on the MRP - Revenue rejected the MRP assessment and assessed the goods under Section 4 by including the value of the 35% abatement - Whether the rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified – HELD - The issue involved in these appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by this very Bench in the cases of PG Electoplast Ltd. vs. CCE & ST Noida, Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd. & LLM Appliances Ltd. vs. CCE Chennai, and Ponmani Industries vs. CGST & Central Excise, Coimbatore. In the case of Ponmani Industries, the Tribunal had set aside the demand raised under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the goods were correctly assessed under Section 4A. In the absence of any decision to the contrary, there is no reason to deviate from the above rulings – Further, the Department's claim that the packages did not bear any RSP and did not carry the appellant's brand name and hence were to be valued under Section 4 of the CEA 1944 is not tenable, as the act of omission alone will not take the goods outside the purview of valuation under Section 4A - The rejection of MRP assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not justified. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

The provisions mandate transfer of entire unutilised ITC by transferor entity to transferee entity upon amalgamation. The transferor entity cannot transfer only a part of the unutilized ITC to transferee and subsequently claim refund of remaining ITC.

Central Excise - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices under Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Payment of duty arising out of suppression of facts – Revenue appeal against the Tribunal order allowing CENVAT credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. The Department had denied the credit on the ground that the supplementary invoices were hit by the bar under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the additional duty was paid due to suppression of facts and intent to evade duty - Whether the CESTAT was justified in allowing the CENVAT credit on the supplementary invoices - HELD - The... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices under Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Payment of duty arising out of suppression of facts – Revenue appeal against the Tribunal order allowing CENVAT credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. The Department had denied the credit on the ground that the supplementary invoices were hit by the bar under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the additional duty was paid due to suppression of facts and intent to evade duty - Whether the CESTAT was justified in allowing the CENVAT credit on the supplementary invoices - HELD - The CESTAT erred in allowing the CENVAT credit without properly addressing the detailed findings recorded by the adjudicating authority (Commissioner) in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner had comprehensively examined the issue and recorded a clear finding that the supplementary invoices were hit by the bar under Rule 9(1)(b), as the additional duty became recoverable from SECL on account of suppression of facts and intent to evade duty - The CESTAT had merely relied on its earlier decisions without undertaking an independent examination of the facts and reasoning of the present case. The Tribunal was duty-bound to deal with the specific findings of the Commissioner, particularly those relating to the confirmation of demand against SECL, invocation of extended period, and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944 - The administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting rights must be supported by cogent and intelligible reasons, as reasoned orders are essential to sustain public confidence in the justice delivery system and form an integral part of due process and the rule of law. In the absence of a reasoned order, the decision remains incomplete and unsustainable in law - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration and passing of a reasoned and speaking order after dealing with each and every aspect addressed by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Original – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs - Duty exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997 (as amended) - Appellant was granted customs duty exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997 (as amended) for importing goods for a project financed by an international organization. The DRI alleged that the appellant had wrongfully availed this exemption by using forged Project Implementing Authority Certificates (PIAC). The Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai, passed an order denying the exemption benefit and imposing penalties on the appellant - Whether the denial of the exemption benefit and imposition of penalties were va... [Read more]

Customs - Duty exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997 (as amended) - Appellant was granted customs duty exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997 (as amended) for importing goods for a project financed by an international organization. The DRI alleged that the appellant had wrongfully availed this exemption by using forged Project Implementing Authority Certificates (PIAC). The Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai, passed an order denying the exemption benefit and imposing penalties on the appellant - Whether the denial of the exemption benefit and imposition of penalties were valid, given the appellant's contentions that (a) there was a violation of principles of natural justice as they were not heard before the order was passed, (b) the countersignature requirement on the PIAC could not have been the basis to deny the exemption, and (c) no Show Cause Notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could have been issued as the assessments were provisional – HELD - The appellant did not demonstrate prejudice caused by the lack of a personal hearing, the serious allegations of fraud required that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity to explain their case. The evolving concept of natural justice includes the 'doctrine of prejudice', wherein every violation of natural justice may not lead to nullifying the order, and the ultimate test is the test of prejudice or fair hearing - The matter should be remanded to the Original Authority to decide the issue afresh in de novo proceedings, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to file written submissions and be heard personally. The appellant to cooperate with the adjudicating authority to complete the process expeditiously, within 90 days of receipt of the order - The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Compliance with export obligation (EO) under Advance Authorizations – Appellant was issued three Advance Authorizations to import copper concentrates duty-free, subject to fulfilling the specified export obligation (EO) in terms of both value and quantity. While the appellant fulfilled the EO in terms of quantity, there was a shortfall in fulfilling the EO in terms of value - DGFT regularized the shortfall by allowing the appellant to pay 1% of the shortfall in value, and issued Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) redeeming the Advance Authorizations -The Customs authorities sought to demand duty o... [Read more]

Customs - Compliance with export obligation (EO) under Advance Authorizations – Appellant was issued three Advance Authorizations to import copper concentrates duty-free, subject to fulfilling the specified export obligation (EO) in terms of both value and quantity. While the appellant fulfilled the EO in terms of quantity, there was a shortfall in fulfilling the EO in terms of value - DGFT regularized the shortfall by allowing the appellant to pay 1% of the shortfall in value, and issued Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) redeeming the Advance Authorizations -The Customs authorities sought to demand duty on the ground that the appellant had violated the conditions of the relevant Customs notifications by not fully discharging the EO - Whether the Customs authorities can raise a demand alleging violation of the conditions of the Customs notifications, when the DGFT had already regularized the shortfall and issued EODCs – HELD - The DGFT is the final authority on interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and it is the DGFT who specifies the export obligation to be fulfilled. Once the DGFT has regularized the shortfall and issued EODCs, the Customs authorities cannot take a different view and deny the benefit of duty exemption. Customs authorities cannot override the decision of the DGFT, which is the licensing authority - The condition in the Customs notifications regarding fulfillment of EO has to be read in the context of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures (HBP), and not in isolation. Once the DGFT has regularized the shortfall in EO and issued EODCs, the Customs authorities cannot go behind this and raise a demand - The issuance of EODCs by the DGFT has the effect of the export obligation having been revised and restated. Thus, the demand raised by Customs authorities does not survive – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Service tax liability on remuneration paid to whole-time Director - Whether the remuneration paid to the whole-time director is liable to service tax or is it to be treated as salary and hence not subject to service tax – HELD - The issue is no longer res-integra and is squarely covered by its previous decisions. The Tribunal relied on various judgments and the clarification issued by the CBIC, which states that the remuneration paid to Managing Director/Directors of companies, whether whole-time or independent, when being compensated for their performance as Managing Director/Directors, would not be liab... [Read more]

Service Tax – Service tax liability on remuneration paid to whole-time Director - Whether the remuneration paid to the whole-time director is liable to service tax or is it to be treated as salary and hence not subject to service tax – HELD - The issue is no longer res-integra and is squarely covered by its previous decisions. The Tribunal relied on various judgments and the clarification issued by the CBIC, which states that the remuneration paid to Managing Director/Directors of companies, whether whole-time or independent, when being compensated for their performance as Managing Director/Directors, would not be liable to service tax - The whole-time director is essentially an employee of the company, and whatever remuneration is being paid in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act is pursuant to an employer-employee relationship. The mere fact that the whole-time director is compensated by way of variable pay will not alter or dilute the position of employer-employee status between the company and the whole-time director – The remuneration paid to the whole-time director is not liable to service tax. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Royalty and Dead Rent for Grant of Mining Rights – Department is engaged in the grant of mining leases for extraction and sale of minerals. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the royalty and dead rent collected by the appellant was in the nature of rent for allowing the use of vacant land for mining purposes, and hence, service tax was leviable under 'renting of immovable property' category - Whether the royalty and dead rent for grant of mining rights are liable to service tax under the category of 'renting of immovable property services' falling within the definition of 'support servi... [Read more]

Service Tax - Royalty and Dead Rent for Grant of Mining Rights – Department is engaged in the grant of mining leases for extraction and sale of minerals. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the royalty and dead rent collected by the appellant was in the nature of rent for allowing the use of vacant land for mining purposes, and hence, service tax was leviable under 'renting of immovable property' category - Whether the royalty and dead rent for grant of mining rights are liable to service tax under the category of 'renting of immovable property services' falling within the definition of 'support services' – HELD - The issue is no more res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant in their own case earlier. The activity of lease of land solely for mining purposes is in the nature of exercise of sovereign right and is not a service that entities can carry out by themselves. The service of renting of immovable property would fall within the definition of 'support service' only if such services fit into the middle part of the definition, which is not the case here. The clarification issued by the Board that mining lease for grant of mining rights is not a 'support service' is in accordance with the statute. Considering the change introduced in Section 66D(a) of the Negative List, the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the appellant that when there is no change in law as to the person liable to pay service tax, the revenue cannot collect service tax from the assessee on forward charge basis for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2016 and under reverse charge basis from the lessee on the very same service after 01.04.2016 - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Classification of Services - Information Technology Software Service vs Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) Service – Appellant filed refund claims for accumulated Cenvat credit for export of services under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claims were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the services rendered by the appellant were not covered under export of services as the conditions specified under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were not satisfied. The authorities held that as per Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services (POPS) Rules, ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Classification of Services - Information Technology Software Service vs Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) Service – Appellant filed refund claims for accumulated Cenvat credit for export of services under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund claims were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the services rendered by the appellant were not covered under export of services as the conditions specified under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were not satisfied. The authorities held that as per Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services (POPS) Rules, 2012, the services provided by the appellant, which were registered under OIDAR services, the place of provision of service would be the location of the service provider, and hence, the services cannot be considered as export of services - Whether the services provided by the appellant should be classified as Information Technology Software Service or OIDAR Service – HELD - The lower authorities had rejected the refund claims solely on the ground of the appellant's registration under OIDAR services, without analyzing the nature of services provided by the appellant as per the agreement/contract with the client - The classification of services must be based on the characteristics of the services, analyzed in terms of the provisions of the Act, and not solely on the basis of the registration certificate - The classification of services should be based on the analysis of the nature of services, and non-registration cannot be a ground for rejecting refund claims - The appellant had corrected the mistake by amending their registration certificate to "Information Technology Software Service", which is a more specific description than the general "OIDAR services" – Matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the refund claims on the issue of classification of service, and pass fresh orders - The appeal is partially allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Punjab VAT Act, 2005 - The petitioner is a construction company that entered into a contract with the Rail Coach Factory (RCF). Under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, the contractee (RCF) was required to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the contractor (petitioner) at the rate of 2%, which was later increased to 4% by the State Government. However, RCF continued to deduct tax at the old rate of 2%, unaware of the enhanced rate. The Department later informed RCF about the enhanced rate of 4% and directed it to recover the differential amount of Rs.10,70,328/- from the petitioner's running and final bills - Whether RCF... [Read more]

Punjab VAT Act, 2005 - The petitioner is a construction company that entered into a contract with the Rail Coach Factory (RCF). Under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, the contractee (RCF) was required to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the contractor (petitioner) at the rate of 2%, which was later increased to 4% by the State Government. However, RCF continued to deduct tax at the old rate of 2%, unaware of the enhanced rate. The Department later informed RCF about the enhanced rate of 4% and directed it to recover the differential amount of Rs.10,70,328/- from the petitioner's running and final bills - Whether RCF was required to recover the differential amount of tax from the petitioner's bills – HELD - The petitioner had duly filed its quarterly and annual VAT returns, and the tax liability was assessed and paid. The non-deduction of tax at the enhanced rate by RCF merely resulted in a slight delay in the receipt of the differential tax amount by the State Government, which was ultimately deposited by the petitioner. The object of tax deduction at source is to ensure the payment of tax, and since the petitioner had already paid the total tax liability, there was no revenue loss to the State. The RCF, being a public sector undertaking, had no mala fide intention, and the non-deduction of tax at the enhanced rate was a mere lapse on its part. The Excise and Taxation Department is directed to calculate the interest, if any, and recover it from the person liable to pay, and prohibited RCF from recovering the alleged differential amount from the petitioner - The petitions are disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - Assessable Value - Appellant cleared bulk bitumen from its refinery and transferred some quantity to its depots for packing in barrels before further sale - Appellant initially assessed the value of barreled bitumen sold from the depots by including the cost of barrels, but later started deducting the cost of barrels - Revenue sought to include the cost of barrels in the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) and Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules - Whether the cost of barrels is to be included in the assessable value of barreled bitumen cleared from the depot – HELD - The barreled bitumen sold from the depot... [Read more]

Central Excise - Assessable Value - Appellant cleared bulk bitumen from its refinery and transferred some quantity to its depots for packing in barrels before further sale - Appellant initially assessed the value of barreled bitumen sold from the depots by including the cost of barrels, but later started deducting the cost of barrels - Revenue sought to include the cost of barrels in the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) and Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules - Whether the cost of barrels is to be included in the assessable value of barreled bitumen cleared from the depot – HELD - The barreled bitumen sold from the depot is not cleared as such from the refinery, therefore, it is incorrect to assess "such goods" at the same price at which bulk bitumen is cleared from the refinery. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Clariant (I) Ltd. case, where it was held that where goods are not sold when removed from the factory but are merely transferred to the depot, the depot becomes a place of removal under the law and the cost of packing is to be included in the transaction value of the packages sold from the depot - The appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of excise duty paid on purchase of barrels for packing of bitumen in their depots before clearance, as the depot is an extension of the factory and the packing material used there is eligible for Cenvat credit. The matter is remanded to redetermine the duty liability on the appellant for the normal period along with interest and penalty, if any, and to allow the Cenvat credit of duty paid on packing materials - The appeals are partially allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Service Tax - Valuation of mandap keeper service and applicability of Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Appellant collected amounts separately as "Banquet Bill" for the food and beverages provided in the banquet halls, on which service tax was not paid. Department was of the view that the mandap keeper service provided by the appellant is of composite nature and the value of food and beverages should be included in the taxable value - Whether the demand for service tax on the value of food and beverages provided along with the mandap keeper service is tenable - HELD - The appellant had evidenced through separate invoices that ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Valuation of mandap keeper service and applicability of Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Appellant collected amounts separately as "Banquet Bill" for the food and beverages provided in the banquet halls, on which service tax was not paid. Department was of the view that the mandap keeper service provided by the appellant is of composite nature and the value of food and beverages should be included in the taxable value - Whether the demand for service tax on the value of food and beverages provided along with the mandap keeper service is tenable - HELD - The appellant had evidenced through separate invoices that the charges for mandap keeper service and sale of food to the customers were segregated. The requirements of Notification No. 12/2003-ST have been duly complied with, as the appellant had also paid VAT on the value of the food items. The issue involves interpretation of law, and hence the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of penal interest, liquidated damages/notice pay, and CSR expenditure as sponsorship service - Demand of service tax on: (i) penal interest collected from borrowers for delay/default in EMI payments; (ii) liquidated damages/notice period pay recovered from employees who resigned without serving the stipulated notice period; and (iii) CSR expenditure incurred, which was alleged to involve sponsorship services - Department alleged that penal interest collected by the banks constituted consideration for "tolerating an act" under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, and was therefore taxable as a d... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of penal interest, liquidated damages/notice pay, and CSR expenditure as sponsorship service - Demand of service tax on: (i) penal interest collected from borrowers for delay/default in EMI payments; (ii) liquidated damages/notice period pay recovered from employees who resigned without serving the stipulated notice period; and (iii) CSR expenditure incurred, which was alleged to involve sponsorship services - Department alleged that penal interest collected by the banks constituted consideration for "tolerating an act" under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, and was therefore taxable as a declared service – HELD – For Section 66E(e) to apply, there must exist a conscious, positive and pre-agreed obligation to tolerate an act, refrain from an act, or to do an act, where such toleration itself is the object of the contract. In loan transactions, the Banks do not agree to tolerate default. On the contrary, default is expressly discouraged, and penal interest is imposed only as a consequence of breach, not as a service willingly rendered - The penal interest recovered by banks on delayed payment of EMIs is compensatory in nature and does not constitute consideration for “tolerating an act”, and therefore does not amount to a taxable service. The provisions of Section 66E(e) are not attracted in such circumstances - The questions relating to penal interest and liquidated damages, are answered in favour of the appellants, and the demands raised thereon are set aside. The question relating to Sponsorship Services, is answered in favour of the respondent/Department and the demand of service tax on Sponsorship Services, along with applicable interest, is upheld – The appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed - Taxability of liquidated damages/notice pay: The Department alleged that the recovery of liquidated damages/notice period pay from employees who resigned without serving the stipulated notice period was taxable under Section 66E(e) as "tolerating an act" – HELD - The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in GE T&D India Ltd. v. Dy. CCE and the Tribunal's decision in South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., held that liquidated damages/notice pay recovered from employees are compensatory in nature and do not constitute consideration for a taxable service. The Tribunal observed that such recoveries arise from an employer-employee relationship, which is excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44). Accordingly, the demand on this count was set aside - Taxability of CSR expenditure as sponsorship service: The Department alleged that the CSR expenditure incurred by the banks involved sponsorship services, as evidenced by the display of the banks' logos or brand visibility, and was therefore taxable under Section 65(99a) read with the reverse charge mechanism – HELD - For an activity to be considered as a taxable sponsorship service, there must be an identifiable event and reciprocity or quid pro quo, where the sponsor derives a commercial or promotional benefit. While pure donations or gifts are excluded from the definition of "sponsorship" under Section 65(99a), the banks failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to establish that the impugned CSR expenditure was in the nature of a pure donation without any element of sponsorship or promotional benefit – Further, the essence of sponsorship service under the statute is not confined merely to formal advertising contracts but extends to any arrangement where consideration flows for promotion of the sponsor’s brand, name or logo. Therefore, references made by the adjudicating authority to advertisement or promotional benefits are only explanatory and incidental to establish the nature of sponsorship and do not amount to introduction of a new case beyond the SCN. The impugned orders do not travel beyond the scope of the SCN, and the findings of the adjudicating authority are not vitiated on this ground. Accordingly, the demand of service tax on the CSR expenditure to the extent it involved sponsorship services, is legal and proper, and the same is upheld. [Read less]

GST - Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of inverted duty structures, Amendment to Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Petitioner imports edible oil and supplies the same in the domestic market after refining and packing. The petitioner sought refund of accumulated ITC on account of inverted duty structures – Rejection of refund applications on the ground that Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules precludes the grant of such refund - Whether the amendment to the formula in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules should be applied retrospectively – HELD - The GST Council, in its meeting held on 28/29.06.2022, had taken cogniz... [Read more]

GST - Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of inverted duty structures, Amendment to Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Petitioner imports edible oil and supplies the same in the domestic market after refining and packing. The petitioner sought refund of accumulated ITC on account of inverted duty structures – Rejection of refund applications on the ground that Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules precludes the grant of such refund - Whether the amendment to the formula in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules should be applied retrospectively – HELD - The GST Council, in its meeting held on 28/29.06.2022, had taken cognizance of the anomalies in the formula prescribed under Rule 89(5) and accepted the recommendation of the Law Committee to amend the formula. The amendment to the formula in Rule 89(5) has to be treated to be clarifictory in nature and consequently would be retrospective. In the present case, though the orders of rejection as well as the appellate order were passed prior to the amendment, the fact remains that the petitioner had continued to agitate his claims in regard to the refund sought by the petitioner – The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Omission of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Recovery of refunds availed under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules on the grounds of violation of conditions under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules regarding refunds of IGST paid on exports. During the pendency of the proceedings, Rule 96(10) was omitted without a saving clause - Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause would affect the pending proceedings against the petitioners – HELD - The proceedings initiated under a provision of law can only be continued if the omission of such provision is accompanied by a saving clause. In the present case, since there ... [Read more]

GST - Omission of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Recovery of refunds availed under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules on the grounds of violation of conditions under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules regarding refunds of IGST paid on exports. During the pendency of the proceedings, Rule 96(10) was omitted without a saving clause - Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause would affect the pending proceedings against the petitioners – HELD - The proceedings initiated under a provision of law can only be continued if the omission of such provision is accompanied by a saving clause. In the present case, since there was no saving clause provided, the pending proceedings under Rule 96(10) stood lapsed. In the absence of a saving clause, the pending proceedings would stand lapsed, subject to the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - The impugned assessment orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Department relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and printouts of emails to reject the declared value of the goods. The appellant contended that the procedure under Sections 138B and 138C of the Customs Act was not followed for the admissibility of these statements and documents – HELD - The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon to reject the transaction value and re-determine the value under the Customs Valuation Rules. The procedure under Section 138B(1)(b) of th... [Read more]

Customs - Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Department relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and printouts of emails to reject the declared value of the goods. The appellant contended that the procedure under Sections 138B and 138C of the Customs Act was not followed for the admissibility of these statements and documents – HELD - The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon to reject the transaction value and re-determine the value under the Customs Valuation Rules. The procedure under Section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act must be followed before such statements can be considered relevant. The statements must be first admitted in evidence by the adjudicating authority after examining the person who made the statement and forming an opinion that the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice. The requirements of Section 138C of the Customs Act regarding the admissibility of documents such as printouts of emails were not satisfied in the present case - The Department could not rely on the statements recorded under Section 108 or the printouts of emails without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 138B and 138C of the Customs Act – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Refund of amounts mistakenly paid towards Kerala Flood Cess, Relevant date for computing the period of limitation - Petitioner mistakenly paid Kerala Flood Cess along with GSTR Form-1 instead of through the correct Form KFCA. The petitioner later made the payment in the correct account and applied for refund of the mistaken payments, which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were time-barred - Whether the petitioner's refund applications, filed within two years from the date of making payment in the correct account, are within the period of limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, ... [Read more]

GST - Refund of amounts mistakenly paid towards Kerala Flood Cess, Relevant date for computing the period of limitation - Petitioner mistakenly paid Kerala Flood Cess along with GSTR Form-1 instead of through the correct Form KFCA. The petitioner later made the payment in the correct account and applied for refund of the mistaken payments, which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the applications were time-barred - Whether the petitioner's refund applications, filed within two years from the date of making payment in the correct account, are within the period of limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD – The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 54 would be the date on which the petitioner made the payment in the correct account - The Section 54 of the CGST Act, provides a period of limitation of two years from the relevant date. In the light of Section 54, it is evident that, the relevant date in this case can be the date on which, the petitioner had actually made payment of tax in the correct account. The payment was affected by the petitioner in the correct account, only on 10.03.2025 and thus, the petitioner became entitled to seek refund of the said amount on that date onwards - The petitioner's refund applications filed on 12.04.2025 and 14.04.2025 are within the two-year period of limitation. The refund rejection orders are quashed and the authorities are directed to reconsider the refund applications – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]