More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Central Excise - Eligibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs used for setting up a power plant - The appellant, a sugar mill manufacturer, availed Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs used for setting up a power plant to generate electricity, some of which was used captively for the sugar mill operations and the rest was supplied to the electricity department - Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the power plant was an exempted good and not an excisable good - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the capital goods and inputs used for setting up the power plant - H... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs used for setting up a power plant - The appellant, a sugar mill manufacturer, availed Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs used for setting up a power plant to generate electricity, some of which was used captively for the sugar mill operations and the rest was supplied to the electricity department - Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the power plant was an exempted good and not an excisable good - Whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the capital goods and inputs used for setting up the power plant - HELD - As per the definition of "capital goods" under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the goods on which credit has been taken fall within the categories listed and have been used in the factory of the appellant for manufacturing of the final products - The goods on which the credit has been taken fall within the categories of the goods listed in the definition of the capital goods and have been used for the manufacturing of final product. The fact that the capital goods are installed and become a fixed structure does not disentitle the manufacturer from availing Cenvat credit, as long as the goods satisfy the definition of "capital goods" under the Rules. The reliance by the department on the CBEC Circular and the Supreme Court decisions in Triveni Engineering and Quality Steel Tubes cases is misplaced as the issues in those cases were different from the present case – Further, the department failed to prove any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellant to invoke the extended period of limitation, and the imposition of penalty was also not warranted considering the appellant's bonafide belief and the complex interpretation of the legal provisions involved - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on hiring of chartered aircraft, club/association services and hotel services - Whether the respondent-assessee is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the services of hiring a chartered aircraft, club/association services and hotel services - HELD - The Tribunal relied on the decision in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax, wherein it was held that post 01.04.2011, the definition of 'input service' is wide enough to cover any service used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture. Further, the Department failed to issue a show cause notice t... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility of CENVAT credit on hiring of chartered aircraft, club/association services and hotel services - Whether the respondent-assessee is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the services of hiring a chartered aircraft, club/association services and hotel services - HELD - The Tribunal relied on the decision in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax, wherein it was held that post 01.04.2011, the definition of 'input service' is wide enough to cover any service used directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture. Further, the Department failed to issue a show cause notice to the input service distributor who had distributed the credit, and that the credit cannot be denied to the recipient unit without first denying the credit to the ISD - With respect to the club/association services and hotel services, the respondent is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on these services as they were used for business/manufacturing purposes and not for personal use - The impugned order passed by the Commissioner which had allowed the CENVAT credit on the various input services availed by the respondent is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of grants-in-aid received from Government Departments/Ministries under scientific or technical consultancy services - Appellant, a research institute, received grants-in-aid from various Government departments and Ministries - Department alleged that these grants-in-aid are taxable under the category of 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services' and raised a demand for service tax - Whether the grants-in-aid received by the appellant from government departments/ministries are taxable under the category of 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services' - HELD - The grants-in-aid received by the ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of grants-in-aid received from Government Departments/Ministries under scientific or technical consultancy services - Appellant, a research institute, received grants-in-aid from various Government departments and Ministries - Department alleged that these grants-in-aid are taxable under the category of 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services' and raised a demand for service tax - Whether the grants-in-aid received by the appellant from government departments/ministries are taxable under the category of 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services' - HELD - The grants-in-aid received by the appellant from Government departments/Ministries are not taxable under the category of 'Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services'. A grant-in-aid is a financial assistance provided by the government to another government body, institution or individual for a specific purpose, without requiring repayment. Such grants are typically used to support specific projects, programs or services and come with specific conditions and reporting requirements. The grants-in-aid received from the government cannot be treated as 'consideration' and therefore are not taxable under the service tax. Further, the demand invoking the extended period of limitation is also unsustainable as the appellant was under a bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on the grants-in-aid received - The demand and penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

GST - Export of Services vs. Intermediary Services, Refund of IGST paid on export of services – Petitioner provided education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and claimed refund of IGST paid on export of services. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Where an Indian entity renders educational consultancy/marketing services to foreign universities, raises invoices upon such foreign universities, and receives consideration from them, such services would not constit... [Read more]

GST - Export of Services vs. Intermediary Services, Refund of IGST paid on export of services – Petitioner provided education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and claimed refund of IGST paid on export of services. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Where an Indian entity renders educational consultancy/marketing services to foreign universities, raises invoices upon such foreign universities, and receives consideration from them, such services would not constitute intermediary services merely because students in India are incidentally assisted in the process. The determinative factor is the contractual recipient of the service, the person liable to pay consideration, and the nature of the service supplied, not the place where the incidental beneficiary may be located. In the present case, the petitioner does not charge students for its services, has no authority to bind the foreign university, cannot guarantee admission, and receives consideration from the foreign university - The issue is no longer res integra and stands covered by the judgments in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim by treating the petitioner as an intermediary cannot be sustained and set aside - The refund shall be processed and granted to the petitioner along with applicable statutory interest – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of mandarin orange concentrate - The appellant imported 'Mandarin (Kinow) Frozen Concentrate' and classified it under Tariff entry 2009 1100 (orange juice) - Department reclassified it under Tariff entry 2009 3900 (juice of any other single citrus fruit) - whether the orange/mandarin juice concentrate is classifiable under CTI 2009 1100 as per the appellants or under CTI 2009 3900 as per Revenue – HELD - The Customs Tariff makes a clear distinction between "Oranges" and "Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas)" under Chapter 8, and this distinction extends to their juices under Chapter 20. ... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of mandarin orange concentrate - The appellant imported 'Mandarin (Kinow) Frozen Concentrate' and classified it under Tariff entry 2009 1100 (orange juice) - Department reclassified it under Tariff entry 2009 3900 (juice of any other single citrus fruit) - whether the orange/mandarin juice concentrate is classifiable under CTI 2009 1100 as per the appellants or under CTI 2009 3900 as per Revenue – HELD - The Customs Tariff makes a clear distinction between "Oranges" and "Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas)" under Chapter 8, and this distinction extends to their juices under Chapter 20. The HSN and the Explanatory Notes also treat oranges and mandarins as distinct fruits and their juices accordingly. The application of the "common parlance" test cannot override the clear statutory scheme and the term "orange juice" under Heading 2009 must be read consistently with the meaning ascribed to "oranges" elsewhere in the Act - The mandarin orange concentrate cannot be classified under the "orange juice" sub-headings and must be classified under the residuary "juice of any other single citrus fruit" sub-heading - The appellant’s claim that Mandarin Frozen Concentrate is classifiable under Tariff Item 2009.11.00 as orange juice, is not acceptable. The classification of Mandarin Orange Juice concentrate under Tariff entry 2009 3900, by the impugned order is upheld – The appeal is answered in favour of the Revenue on the merits of classification and in favour of the appellants on the issue of limitation – The appeal is partly allowed - Extended period of limitation - The Department invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act - HELD - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there was no suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant was a regular importer, and the classification adopted by the appellant was known to the Department. The demand arose from an audit objection, and there was no positive act by the appellant to evade payment of duty. When a demand is based on an audit objection, there cannot be any allegation of suppression. [Read less]

Customs - Grant of interest on refund of Goods and Services (Special Importance) Tax paid inadvertently - Refund applications for refund of GSI tax paid inadvertently on import of PVC quoted cloth. The refund was sanctioned in 2018 after a long delay and the appellant was granted interest only from March 2018, instead of from three months after the date of filing of refund applications in June 2004 - Whether the appellant is entitled to interest from three months after the date of filing of refund applications in June 2004, as per the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, or only from the date of personal hea... [Read more]

Customs - Grant of interest on refund of Goods and Services (Special Importance) Tax paid inadvertently - Refund applications for refund of GSI tax paid inadvertently on import of PVC quoted cloth. The refund was sanctioned in 2018 after a long delay and the appellant was granted interest only from March 2018, instead of from three months after the date of filing of refund applications in June 2004 - Whether the appellant is entitled to interest from three months after the date of filing of refund applications in June 2004, as per the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, or only from the date of personal hearing, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD - The appellant is entitled to interest from three months after the date of filing of refund applications in June 2004 till the date of refund in November 2018, as per the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The refund applications were duly filed and acknowledged by the department in 2004, and the delay in sanction of refund was solely attributable to the negligent manner in which the department handled the applications - The department's argument of treating the application as incomplete till the submission of CA's certificate in 2017 is not valid, as the statute does not distinguish between 'completed' and 'deficient' applications for the purpose of payment of interest - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified. The Department is directed to pay interest at the applicable rate from three months after June 2004 till the date of refund in November 2018 – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of imported goods as "Cold Heading Quality Alloy Steel Wire in Coils" under CTH 7229 or 7227 - Whether the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 7229 as alloy steel wire or under CTH 7227 as wire rods – HELD - The imported goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 7229 as alloy steel wire. The goods have undergone spheroidized annealing and cold drawing processes which fundamentally alters the microstructure and mechanical properties of the steel, characteristic of finished wire used in cold heading applications. The distinction between wire rods and wire is clearly recognized in the HSN exp... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of imported goods as "Cold Heading Quality Alloy Steel Wire in Coils" under CTH 7229 or 7227 - Whether the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 7229 as alloy steel wire or under CTH 7227 as wire rods – HELD - The imported goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 7229 as alloy steel wire. The goods have undergone spheroidized annealing and cold drawing processes which fundamentally alters the microstructure and mechanical properties of the steel, characteristic of finished wire used in cold heading applications. The distinction between wire rods and wire is clearly recognized in the HSN explanatory notes to Chapter 72, where wire rods are hot-rolled semi-finished products whereas wire is obtained by drawing rods through dies - Further, the BIS certification issued to the supplier described the product as steel wire. The department failed to produce any technical evidence demonstrating that the imported goods are hot-rolled wire rods rather than cold drawn wire. Accordingly, the department's order which had classified the goods under CTH 7227 and denied the benefit of the applicable exemption notification, is set aside – The appeal is allowed - Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 152/2009-Cus - Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus – HELD - Since the Tribunal has held that the imported goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 7229, the denial of exemption and the demand of differential duty along with interest cannot be sustained. Once the assessee satisfies the conditions prescribed in the notification, the benefit thereof cannot be denied, and where the foundation of a demand fails, the entire demand must necessarily fail - Confiscation, limitation and penalties - The proposals relating to confiscation, penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA arise from the allegation of misclassification and wrongful availment of exemption – HELD - Since the primary allegation of misclassification itself fails, the confiscation of the goods and the penalties imposed cannot be sustained. The Tribunal also noted that there is no material on record to establish suppression, misdeclaration or wilful misstatement on the part of the appellant, and consequently the invocation of the extended period of limitation would not be sustainable. [Read less]

Customs - Seizure of gold and currency - The seizure was made on the allegation that the gold biscuits were smuggled into India and that the cash represented sale proceeds of such smuggled gold - Whether the seizure was valid and the subsequent confiscation and penalty sustainable – HELD - The seizure of the gold and currency is not valid as the proper officer did not record separate reasons for belief that the goods were liable for confiscation prior to the seizure, as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The power of seizure has to be exercised for valid reasons recorded prior to seizure. The CBIC instructio... [Read more]

Customs - Seizure of gold and currency - The seizure was made on the allegation that the gold biscuits were smuggled into India and that the cash represented sale proceeds of such smuggled gold - Whether the seizure was valid and the subsequent confiscation and penalty sustainable – HELD - The seizure of the gold and currency is not valid as the proper officer did not record separate reasons for belief that the goods were liable for confiscation prior to the seizure, as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The power of seizure has to be exercised for valid reasons recorded prior to seizure. The CBIC instruction issued later requiring separate seizure orders does not change this legal position, as the court rulings constitute binding precedent - Further, since the seizure was not valid, the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act could not be invoked. Mere foreign markings on the gold do not by themselves establish that the gold was smuggled, in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The confessional statement relied upon was retracted and not corroborated by independent evidence, hence could not be the sole basis for the confiscation - The confiscation order did not specify the relevant clause of Section 111 under which the goods were liable to confiscation, which is a serious defect and even if confiscation was justified, absolute confiscation was not warranted as gold is not a prohibited item, and the option of redemption under Section 125 should have been provided - The confiscation of the Indian currency is also set aside as there is no clear nexus established between the currency and any smuggled gold. Lastly, the imposition of penalty under Section 112 without specifying the relevant clause is also not sustainable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Additional Excise Duty (AED) on pre-budget stock - Whether AED is leviable on goods already manufactured and lying in stock prior to the introduction of AED, but cleared after its introduction – HELD - The AED is not leviable on the goods already manufactured and lying in stock prior to the introduction of AED. The Supreme Court in CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., has held that the levy of excise duty is on the manufacture or production of goods and not on their removal. The mere fact that the duty is collected at the stage of removal does not change the character of the tax, which remains on ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Additional Excise Duty (AED) on pre-budget stock - Whether AED is leviable on goods already manufactured and lying in stock prior to the introduction of AED, but cleared after its introduction – HELD - The AED is not leviable on the goods already manufactured and lying in stock prior to the introduction of AED. The Supreme Court in CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., has held that the levy of excise duty is on the manufacture or production of goods and not on their removal. The mere fact that the duty is collected at the stage of removal does not change the character of the tax, which remains on the manufacture or production of goods. Once the levy is not there at the time when the goods are manufactured or produced, it cannot be levied at the stage of removal of the said goods – Further, the Department had accepted earlier orders in the appellant's favor on the same issue and had not filed any appeal against them. Therefore, the demand of AED is set aside - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Gutka - The appellant was alleged to have clandestinely manufactured and cleared Gutka without payment of central excise duty - Department relied on Lorry Receipts recovered from transporters to establish the clandestine clearances – HELD - The Tribunal had earlier directed the adjudicating authority to verify all the Lorry Receipts and raise the duty demand pertaining only to the Lorry Receipts in the name of the appellant. However, the adjudicating authority did not verify the Lorry Receipts and instead relied on the re-quantification done by the DGGI. The adjudic... [Read more]

Central Excise - Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Gutka - The appellant was alleged to have clandestinely manufactured and cleared Gutka without payment of central excise duty - Department relied on Lorry Receipts recovered from transporters to establish the clandestine clearances – HELD - The Tribunal had earlier directed the adjudicating authority to verify all the Lorry Receipts and raise the duty demand pertaining only to the Lorry Receipts in the name of the appellant. However, the adjudicating authority did not verify the Lorry Receipts and instead relied on the re-quantification done by the DGGI. The adjudicating authority was not justified in rejecting the appellant's request for inspection of the original Lorry Receipts. Further, merely on the basis of the quantity of one raw material, i.e., Scented Tobacco, the clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka could not be established without evidence of receipt of other raw materials required for manufacturing Gutka - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Availing Cenvat credit on input services for electricity generation - Recovery of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on certain input services used for their captive power plant - Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the input services used for the captive power plant, as electricity is not an excisable good - HELD - Electricity cannot be treated as an excisable or exempted good for the purpose of Rule 6 of the CCR. Since the very foundation for raising the demand under Rule 6 on the basis that electricity is an excisable or exempted good is not sustainable, the impugned order is... [Read more]

Central Excise - Availing Cenvat credit on input services for electricity generation - Recovery of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on certain input services used for their captive power plant - Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the input services used for the captive power plant, as electricity is not an excisable good - HELD - Electricity cannot be treated as an excisable or exempted good for the purpose of Rule 6 of the CCR. Since the very foundation for raising the demand under Rule 6 on the basis that electricity is an excisable or exempted good is not sustainable, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Demand - Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing to demand service tax along with interest and penalties. The appellant submitted that during the period under dispute, the gross receipts were bifurcated into sales, works contract, and job work. It was argued that the works contract services were provided to government entities which are exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification, and the remaining amount pertained to trading of goods which is not subject to service tax – HELD - The appellant has properly accounted for and discharged the service tax liability on the job work services. Regarding the wo... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand - Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing to demand service tax along with interest and penalties. The appellant submitted that during the period under dispute, the gross receipts were bifurcated into sales, works contract, and job work. It was argued that the works contract services were provided to government entities which are exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification, and the remaining amount pertained to trading of goods which is not subject to service tax – HELD - The appellant has properly accounted for and discharged the service tax liability on the job work services. Regarding the works contract services, since these were provided to government entities, the appellant was not required to collect any service tax. For the remaining amount pertaining to sale of goods, this would be covered under the negative list of services and hence not subject to service tax. The demand was raised without proper examination of the books of accounts and establishing that the transactions were for provision of service. The service tax demand on the appellant is not sustainable in law – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Exemption from Service Tax for Government Entity - The appellant, an entity established by the Government of Kerala for training in the field of local governance, was issued a show cause notice demanding service tax for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15. The adjudication authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty - Whether the appellant, being a Government of Kerala entity, is liable to pay service tax and whether the demand confirmed by the adjudication authority by invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainable – HELD - The appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption under... [Read more]

Service Tax - Exemption from Service Tax for Government Entity - The appellant, an entity established by the Government of Kerala for training in the field of local governance, was issued a show cause notice demanding service tax for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15. The adjudication authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty - Whether the appellant, being a Government of Kerala entity, is liable to pay service tax and whether the demand confirmed by the adjudication authority by invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainable – HELD - The appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as it is an entity established by the Government of Kerala with more than 90% control and substantial interest by the Government, both in terms of financial support and administrative supervision. The certificate issued by the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, states that the appellant is established by the State of Kerala for training in the field of local governance. As per the definition of 'governmental authority' in the exemption notification, the appellant falls within the ambit of the exemption, as it is established by the Government to carry out functions entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution - The demand confirmed by the adjudication authority is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Amalgamation of companies, Proceedings against non-existent entity – Challenge to proceedings against subsidiary company Capital First Limited (CFL), which had previously amalgamated with the petitioner pursuant to an order of the NCLT. The Respondents initiated various proceedings including audit, show cause notices, and demand orders against CFL, despite the fact that CFL had ceased to exist after the amalgamation - Whether the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the Respondents against the non-existent entity CFL are valid in law - HELD - The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited case held that whe... [Read more]

GST - Amalgamation of companies, Proceedings against non-existent entity – Challenge to proceedings against subsidiary company Capital First Limited (CFL), which had previously amalgamated with the petitioner pursuant to an order of the NCLT. The Respondents initiated various proceedings including audit, show cause notices, and demand orders against CFL, despite the fact that CFL had ceased to exist after the amalgamation - Whether the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the Respondents against the non-existent entity CFL are valid in law - HELD - The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited case held that when a company is amalgamated pursuant to an NCLT order, the amalgamating company ceases to exist. Accordingly, any proceedings initiated against the non-existent entity are void ab initio - The respondents were fully aware that the CFL was no longer in existence, however, completely discarding the said position on a misplaced reliance on the provisions of Section 87 of the CGST Act - The Respondents' reliance on Section 87 of the CGST Act, which provides for treatment of transactions between merging companies, is applicable to facts of the case. The Section 87 is only applicable for the intervening period between the effective date of merger and the date of the merger order, and does not empower the authorities to initiate proceedings against a non-existent entity post-merger - The impugned orders passed against the non-existent entity are quashed and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Place of Removal and Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Outward Transportation - The respondent, engaged in manufacturing industrial cables, cleared goods on ex-factory basis as well as on FOR destination basis, including freight and insurance charges in the transaction value and discharging Central Excise Duty on such value. The Department denied CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation, contending that the place of removal was the factory gate – HELD - Where the goods were sold on FOR destination basis, freight and insurance were included in the assessable valu... [Read more]

Central Excise - Place of Removal and Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Outward Transportation - The respondent, engaged in manufacturing industrial cables, cleared goods on ex-factory basis as well as on FOR destination basis, including freight and insurance charges in the transaction value and discharging Central Excise Duty on such value. The Department denied CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation, contending that the place of removal was the factory gate – HELD - Where the goods were sold on FOR destination basis, freight and insurance were included in the assessable value on which Central Excise Duty was paid, and the risk/title remained with the respondent till delivery at the buyer's premises, the buyer's premises would constitute the "place of removal" for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation up to the buyer's premises is an admissible CENVAT Credit. The Department's denial of credit was not legally sustainable as it would amount to adopting inconsistent positions - one for valuation and another for credit - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the CENVAT Credit on outward transportation is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Issuance of show cause notice under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - Demand notice for recovery of an alleged excess refund, without issuing a show cause notice as mandated under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the initiation of recovery proceedings without issuing a show cause notice in the form and manner prescribed under Section 28 is legally sustainable - HELD - The issuance of a show cause notice in the prescribed form and manner is a mandatory requirement under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The SCN serves a dual and indispensable purpose - it informs the noticee of the precise case tha... [Read more]

Customs - Issuance of show cause notice under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - Demand notice for recovery of an alleged excess refund, without issuing a show cause notice as mandated under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the initiation of recovery proceedings without issuing a show cause notice in the form and manner prescribed under Section 28 is legally sustainable - HELD - The issuance of a show cause notice in the prescribed form and manner is a mandatory requirement under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The SCN serves a dual and indispensable purpose - it informs the noticee of the precise case that the Revenue seeks to establish against him, and it affords him an opportunity to be heard in his defence before any adverse order is passed. A bare demand notice that calls upon a person to deposit a sum of money, without expressly inviting the noticee to show cause against the proposed recovery, cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice. The absence of a proper show cause notice vitiates the entire proceeding at the root. The adjudication conducted without a valid show cause notice is unsustainable in law - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Inordinate delay in adjudication - The demand notice was issued in 1995, but the first notice of personal hearing was issued only in 2014, and the Order-in-Original was eventually passed in 2018, approximately 23 years after the demand notice - Whether the adjudication conducted after an inordinate delay of approximately twenty-three years can be sustained in law - HELD - The consequences of such delay are severe and tangible. The Appellant was prejudiced as most of the employees who had handled the relevant import transaction had since retired, and the existing staff was entirely unaware of the proceedings. Documents and records pertaining to the import transaction were no longer available. The Tribunal held that the right of a party to a fair hearing necessarily encompasses the right to have the proceeding concluded within a reasonable time, such that the party retains the ability to effectively exercise its right of defence. Adjudication after a delay of two decades irreparably erodes this right, and no party can be reasonably expected to preserve business records, maintain institutional memory of routine import transactions, or produce witnesses after the passage of nearly a quarter century. The department's inaction for approximately twenty-three years amounts to a constructive abandonment of the proceeding, and the Revenue cannot be permitted to revive and complete a proceeding that causes grave and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in adjudication. [Read less]

Service Tax – CHA Service - Reimbursable expenses - Service Tax liability – HELD - The Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, has affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court wherein Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 which provided for inclusion of expenditures or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services, in the value of such taxable services, was struck down as ultra vires Section 66 and Section 67 of the Act and as travelling beyond the scope of the said sections. The Supreme Court held that any other amount... [Read more]

Service Tax – CHA Service - Reimbursable expenses - Service Tax liability – HELD - The Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, has affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court wherein Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 which provided for inclusion of expenditures or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services, in the value of such taxable services, was struck down as ultra vires Section 66 and Section 67 of the Act and as travelling beyond the scope of the said sections. The Supreme Court held that any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot be a part of the valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such 'taxable service'. The Department could not have invoked the extended period of limitation as the issue was one of interpretation - The impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Classification of Transportation services for goods exclusively by road to customers purchasing such goods from Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO) portals – Transportation services involving multiple transit points, namely Source Mother Hub, Destination Mother Hub, Delivery Hub and the end customer, including last-mile delivery through independent delivery partners - The impugned order by the AAR held that the proposed activity satisfies the essential features of GTA service and such GTA services, when provided to unregistered end-customers, are exempt from GST under Sl. No. 21A of Notification... [Read more]

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Classification of Transportation services for goods exclusively by road to customers purchasing such goods from Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO) portals – Transportation services involving multiple transit points, namely Source Mother Hub, Destination Mother Hub, Delivery Hub and the end customer, including last-mile delivery through independent delivery partners - The impugned order by the AAR held that the proposed activity satisfies the essential features of GTA service and such GTA services, when provided to unregistered end-customers, are exempt from GST under Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – Revenue filed instant appeal before Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling - Whether the activities undertaken by the respondent constitute an independent GTA service supplied to end customers or an integrated e-commerce fulfillment/courier service – HELD - The substance of the transaction must be examined to ascertain whether the end customer is in fact receiving an independent GTA service, or whether the activity forms part of an integrated e-commerce fulfilment, logistics or delivery arrangement. Mere contractual description of the respondent as a transporter or GTA, or the description of the amount recovered from the end customer as transportation charges/GT charges, cannot be treated as conclusive for determining classification under GST. The mere recovery of an amount described as “transportation charges” from the end customer cannot, by itself, establish that the end customer has received an independent GTA service - The end customer does not independently contract for transportation with the respondent, and the alleged movement thereafter on account of the end customer is only a contractual fiction and not supported by the real conduct of the parties. Consequently, the end customer cannot be treated as having received an independent Goods Transport Agency service from the respondent. The activities undertaken by the respondent, including hub-based collection, sorting, transshipment, tracking, last-mile delivery and doorstep handover, substantially resemble organised courier/logistics fulfillment service rather than conventional GTA service. Accordingly, the respondent's activity cannot be classified as GTA service supplied to unregistered end customers, and the exemption under Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, as amended, is not available – Ordered accordingly - Requirement of a valid consignment note - Whether mere issuance of a document styled as a consignment note is determinative of classification – HELD - Issuance of a valid consignment note is an essential requirement for classification as GTA service. However, such condition cannot be read in isolation or treated as a mere matter of nomenclature. Classification under GST cannot depend solely upon the description adopted by the supplier in its documents. The true character of the service has to be determined from the substance of the transaction and the actual legal and commercial relationship between the parties. In the present case, the purported consignment note does not contain the relevant vehicle details, and the use of modes like two-wheelers or electric-operated vehicles which may not qualify as "goods carriage" is a relevant factor for determining whether the activity can be treated as conventional GTA service. [Read less]

Service Tax - Availing of Rent-a-Cab Services – Non-payment of service tax to the tune of 40% of taxable amount on unabated value of services received in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 – Payment of service tax on being pointed out by CERA Audit - Whether the SCN is sustainable when the payment of service tax and interest by the appellant was before the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice – HELD - As per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, if any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, and the person chargeable with the service tax pays the a... [Read more]

Service Tax - Availing of Rent-a-Cab Services – Non-payment of service tax to the tune of 40% of taxable amount on unabated value of services received in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 – Payment of service tax on being pointed out by CERA Audit - Whether the SCN is sustainable when the payment of service tax and interest by the appellant was before the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice – HELD - As per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, if any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, and the person chargeable with the service tax pays the amount of such service tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax, and informs the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, the Central Excise Officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid - In the present case, the appellant had paid the service tax and interest before the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice and had informed the Department about the same. Therefore, the SCN is unsustainable in law, and any proceedings initiated on the basis of the said Show-Cause Notice is a nullity - The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Parallel Proceedings – Challenge to the action of Central GST authorities in issuing a Show Cause Notice contending that the State GST Authority had already initiated inquiry in respect of the same subject matter – Whether the Show Cause Notice are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr., laid down binding directions regarding the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the 'inter-relationship between Central and State GST Authorities' - Once one authority (Central or State) has ini... [Read more]

GST - Parallel Proceedings – Challenge to the action of Central GST authorities in issuing a Show Cause Notice contending that the State GST Authority had already initiated inquiry in respect of the same subject matter – Whether the Show Cause Notice are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr., laid down binding directions regarding the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the 'inter-relationship between Central and State GST Authorities' - Once one authority (Central or State) has initiated proceedings first in point of time, the other authority is barred from commencing parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. However, legitimate investigative steps by either authority may continue so long as they do not result in parallel adjudication - Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Central Authority, file the response to the Show Cause Notice, and raise the contentions in terms of the Armour Security judgment. The State Authority is directed to communicate with the Central Authority to verify the claim of the assessee, and both authorities were directed to coordinate to ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Classification of Automatic Soap Dispenser - The appellant imported automatic soap dispensers and declared them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9616 10 20 - Department classified them under CTI 8424 89 90 - Whether the automatic soap dispensers should be classified under CTI 8424 89 90 as claimed by the appellant or under CTI 9616 10 20 as claimed by the Department – HELD – The automatic soap dispenser imported by the appellant disperses liquid soap in the form of foam and does not spray liquids. Therefore, it is appropriately covered under CTI 8424 89 90 dealing with mechanical appliances for dispersing liqu... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of Automatic Soap Dispenser - The appellant imported automatic soap dispensers and declared them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9616 10 20 - Department classified them under CTI 8424 89 90 - Whether the automatic soap dispensers should be classified under CTI 8424 89 90 as claimed by the appellant or under CTI 9616 10 20 as claimed by the Department – HELD – The automatic soap dispenser imported by the appellant disperses liquid soap in the form of foam and does not spray liquids. Therefore, it is appropriately covered under CTI 8424 89 90 dealing with mechanical appliances for dispersing liquids, and not under CTI 9616 10 20 which deals with sprays – The Chapter Heading 9616 deals with sprays of different kinds, including scent sprays and similar toiletry sprays. The words “dispersing” and “spraying” have both been used in Chapter Heding 8424. It is, therefore, clear that there is a difference between “disperser of liquids” and “spraying of liquids”. In such a situation, the product imported by the appellant cannot fall under Chapter Heading 9616 since it does not spray liquids. The Chapter Heading 9616 specifically excludes dispersing or spraying appliances covered under Chapter 8424 - The automatic soap dispensers imported by the appellant should be classified under CTI 8424 89 90 - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Demand of IGST on import of Software in the CD, Invocation of extended period of limitation - The appellant is a PSU engaged in manufacturing of electronic products for defence purposes and imported a CD containing software claimed to be an integral part of the LRSAM system - Department invoked the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act to demand IGST on the imported CD, alleging that the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the goods to evade duty – HELD - The Serial No. 21 of Notification No. 19/2019-Cus. dated 06.07.2019 provides that the specified goods when imported into... [Read more]

Customs – Demand of IGST on import of Software in the CD, Invocation of extended period of limitation - The appellant is a PSU engaged in manufacturing of electronic products for defence purposes and imported a CD containing software claimed to be an integral part of the LRSAM system - Department invoked the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act to demand IGST on the imported CD, alleging that the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the goods to evade duty – HELD - The Serial No. 21 of Notification No. 19/2019-Cus. dated 06.07.2019 provides that the specified goods when imported into India by Ministry of Defence or Defence Forces or the Defence Public Sector Units or other Public Sector Units or any other entities for Defence Forces, shall be exempt from whole of duty of customs. Merely because the appellant had retained the CD and had not supplied it to the Ministry of Defence cannot be made a ground to deny exemption from payment of duty under the Exemption Notification – Further, merely because the software was embedded in the LRSAM system initially and the appellant later imported a CD containing the same software for providing support services, it cannot be said that the appellant had deliberately mis-represented or concealed any material facts with the intention to evade payment of duty. The appellant had clearly indicated the details of the imported CD in the B/E, the Department could have sought further information if it had any doubts. The extended period of limitation is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there was no evidence to show that the appellant had any intention to evade payment of duty - The demand raised for the extended period and the imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act is set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Invoking of extended period of Limitation in classification dispute - Appellant cleared goods without payment of duty by wrongly classifying them and not declaring the manufacture and clearance in ER-1 returns - Department issued show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation - Whether the demand is barred by limitation – HELD - The Appellant had expressed its bonafide belief on the classification of the goods and the non-declaration in ER-1 returns cannot be considered as a conscious or deliberate withholding of information with an intent to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment or non-dec... [Read more]

Central Excise – Invoking of extended period of Limitation in classification dispute - Appellant cleared goods without payment of duty by wrongly classifying them and not declaring the manufacture and clearance in ER-1 returns - Department issued show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation - Whether the demand is barred by limitation – HELD - The Appellant had expressed its bonafide belief on the classification of the goods and the non-declaration in ER-1 returns cannot be considered as a conscious or deliberate withholding of information with an intent to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment or non-declaration does not amount to suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, required for invoking the extended period of limitation – Further, since audit of the appellant's records was conducted and the department had knowledge of the non-payment, the demand is barred by limitation even under the normal period of 1 year. The impugned order is set aside on this ground alone, without going into the merits of the classification dispute – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignments of computer cabinet cases that were found to be old, used, and incomplete systems. The Customs authorities rejected the declared description and value, and re-determined the assessable value based on a Chartered engineer's report - Whether the authorities were justified in re-determining the value and description of the imported goods – HELD - The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the re-determination of the value. The Chartered Engineer's report did not have adequate supporting evidence to substan... [Read more]

Customs - Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignments of computer cabinet cases that were found to be old, used, and incomplete systems. The Customs authorities rejected the declared description and value, and re-determined the assessable value based on a Chartered engineer's report - Whether the authorities were justified in re-determining the value and description of the imported goods – HELD - The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the re-determination of the value. The Chartered Engineer's report did not have adequate supporting evidence to substantiate the higher value of USD 25 per piece adopted by the authorities. Additionally, the imported goods, consisting of only a computer cabinet case with a motherboard and fan, cannot be classified as an incomplete or unfinished computer system, as they lacked the essential component of a Central Processing Unit (CPU). In the absence of any technical opinion placed on record by the revenue, the importer's declaration could not be brushed aside - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Classification of imported goods as incomplete computer systems - The customs authorities classified the imported goods as incomplete or unfinished computer systems, based on the Chartered Engineer's report - Whether the imported goods, consisting of computer cabinet cases with motherboard and fan, can be classified as incomplete or unfinished computer systems – HELD - The authorities did not record any reasons for concluding that the imported goods were incomplete or unfinished computer systems. The Chartered Engineer had used the terms "computer cabinet cases" and "bare bone systems" interchangeably, without any clear technical opinion. The computer cabinet case with just a motherboard and a fan cannot be considered an unfinished or incomplete system, as it lacks the essential component of a Central Processing Unit (CPU). Without any technical evidence placed on record by the revenue, the importer's declaration of the goods could not be rejected. [Read less]

Customs - Reassessment of Customs duty, Refund claim - The appellant imported gold jewellery, self-assessed the duty, and subsequently realized that the goods were eligible for exemption from CVD under a notification. The appellant sought reassessment and filed a refund claim, which were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that reassessment was not permissible without modification of the assessment order in appeal - Whether the appellant is entitled to reassessment and refund in the absence of a formal assessment order being modified in appeal – HELD - The appellant has shown due diligence and good faith in p... [Read more]

Customs - Reassessment of Customs duty, Refund claim - The appellant imported gold jewellery, self-assessed the duty, and subsequently realized that the goods were eligible for exemption from CVD under a notification. The appellant sought reassessment and filed a refund claim, which were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that reassessment was not permissible without modification of the assessment order in appeal - Whether the appellant is entitled to reassessment and refund in the absence of a formal assessment order being modified in appeal – HELD - The appellant has shown due diligence and good faith in pursuing his grievance, though the department did not find the procedure adopted to be as per law - The impugned order is set aside and the authorities are directed to treat the appellant's request for reassessment as an application for amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authorities should avoid taking a hyper-technical view and act as a trade facilitator. The excess duty paid by the appellant cannot be retained by the department, and the appellant is entitled to the consequential relief - The matter is remanded to the original authority for re-assessment and consideration of the refund claim in accordance with the law - The appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]

Service Tax liability for services received from goods transport operators – Appellant received services from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 - Department issued a notice proposing to demand service tax on the value of these taxable services. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that there was no requirement to file returns or pay tax during the relevant time period. Consequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2003, the appellant filed a return and paid the service tax under protest. The Department then issued another SCN demanding the service tax and interest/pen... [Read more]

Service Tax liability for services received from goods transport operators – Appellant received services from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 - Department issued a notice proposing to demand service tax on the value of these taxable services. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that there was no requirement to file returns or pay tax during the relevant time period. Consequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2003, the appellant filed a return and paid the service tax under protest. The Department then issued another SCN demanding the service tax and interest/penalties - Whether the confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and penalties on the appellant is legally tenable – HELD - The demand of service tax is legally valid as the Supreme Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Cements case had upheld the amendments made by the Finance Act 2000 and 2003 which retrospectively made the service recipients liable to pay service tax on the services received from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 – Further, since the Service Tax was payable along with the return on or before 13- 11-2003, therefore, the period of one year from the relevant date was from 13-11-2003 to 12-11-2004, and thus the second SCN Notice itself was within the normal period of limitation - However, there is merit in the appellant's contention that interest should not be levied as the return was filed within the 6-month period prescribed under Rule 7A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the levy of interest is set aside - The appeal is partly allowed, with the demand of service tax upheld but the levy of interest set aside [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of visa facilitation service - The appellant provided visa facilitation services to travelers to Saudi Arabia by interacting directly with the intending travelers and facilitating the procurement of visas from the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Mumbai. The department viewed this as a taxable commission agent service under Business Auxiliary Services - Whether the visa facilitation service provided by the appellant is taxable under service tax - HELD - The visa facilitation service provided by the appellant directly to the individuals is not taxable under service tax. The CBEC Circular No. 137/6/2011-S.... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of visa facilitation service - The appellant provided visa facilitation services to travelers to Saudi Arabia by interacting directly with the intending travelers and facilitating the procurement of visas from the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Mumbai. The department viewed this as a taxable commission agent service under Business Auxiliary Services - Whether the visa facilitation service provided by the appellant is taxable under service tax - HELD - The visa facilitation service provided by the appellant directly to the individuals is not taxable under service tax. The CBEC Circular No. 137/6/2011-S.T. dated 20-4-2011 clarified that assistance provided by a visa facilitator to individuals directly for obtaining visa does not fall under any taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity undertaken by the Appellant is not taxable under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Further, coordinate bench decisions in Green Channel Travel Services P. Ltd v. Commr. of ST, Ahmedabad and Globe Forex & Travels Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur, held that such visa facilitation services are not taxable - The extended period of limitation invoked by the department is untenable as the department was aware of the appellant's activities through various show cause notices and correspondence - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration, Validity of Show Cause Notice - Petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent appellate order – HELD - The show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is bereft of any shortcomings or contraventions alleged against the petitioner, which is in violation of the requirements under Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both the Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules specifically prescribe the mode, procedure, and the manner in which the show cause notice to be issued and final orders are to be passed, and both these provisions specifically p... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration, Validity of Show Cause Notice - Petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent appellate order – HELD - The show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is bereft of any shortcomings or contraventions alleged against the petitioner, which is in violation of the requirements under Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both the Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules specifically prescribe the mode, procedure, and the manner in which the show cause notice to be issued and final orders are to be passed, and both these provisions specifically provide for the issuance of a detailed show cause notice in respect of the contraventions and the shortcomings said to have been violated by the petitioner. In the absence of which, the show cause notice and the consequential order of cancellation are unsustainable in the eyes of law - The respondent to issue a fresh notice, if they so desire, and proceed further in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner is directed not to avail the benefits of Input Tax Credit until the proceedings are finalized - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Recovery of duty drawback - Applicability of recovery provisions under Drawback Rules, 1995 after repeal – HELD - The recovery of duty drawback amount under Rule 16 and Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 is not maintainable after the enactment of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 - The 1995 Drawback Rules ceased to operate with the commencement of the 2017 Drawback Rules, and the savings clause under Rule 20(2) of the 2017 Drawback Rules does not cover the proceedings under rule 16 or rule 16A of the 1995 Drawback Rules. The applicability... [Read more]

Customs - Recovery of duty drawback - Applicability of recovery provisions under Drawback Rules, 1995 after repeal – HELD - The recovery of duty drawback amount under Rule 16 and Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 is not maintainable after the enactment of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 - The 1995 Drawback Rules ceased to operate with the commencement of the 2017 Drawback Rules, and the savings clause under Rule 20(2) of the 2017 Drawback Rules does not cover the proceedings under rule 16 or rule 16A of the 1995 Drawback Rules. The applicability of the General Clauses Act would require an examination of the language of the new enactment to see whether it expresses a different intention from the earlier Act. The 2017 Drawback Rules have expressed a different intention by not saving the recovery provisions under Rule 16 and Rule 16A of the 1995 Drawback Rules, and hence, the Department cannot resort to these rules for recovering the drawback amount from the appellant - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty – HELD - The goods could not have been confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act as it applies to goods which are to be taken out of India and not to goods which have already been taken out of India. As the goods could not have been confiscated, the penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant. The penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant as the appellant had not knowingly or intentionally made, signed or used any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in the transaction of any business for the purposes of the Customs Act. The penalty imposed on the appellant and its partner under sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act is set aside. [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of GST Registration - Petitioner received a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration on grounds of fraud, misstatement, non-existence of business premises, issuing invoices without supply of goods, availing of fake ITC - Whether the SCN is violative of principles of natural justice and in compliance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – HELD - The SCN is violative of principles of natural justice as it does not provide any physical verification report, details of cancellation of major suppliers' registration, or specifics on how the petitioner is availing/passing fake ITC without actual ... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of GST Registration - Petitioner received a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration on grounds of fraud, misstatement, non-existence of business premises, issuing invoices without supply of goods, availing of fake ITC - Whether the SCN is violative of principles of natural justice and in compliance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – HELD - The SCN is violative of principles of natural justice as it does not provide any physical verification report, details of cancellation of major suppliers' registration, or specifics on how the petitioner is availing/passing fake ITC without actual movement of goods. The notice also fails to comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules as it does not serve the purpose behind its issuance - The show cause notice is set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Bar under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act, Order for provisional attachment - The petitioner claimed that the proceedings initiated by the Central authorities were barred under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act as the State GST authorities had already commenced proceedings on the same subject matter - HELD - There is no evidence of the State authorities having issued a show cause notice or commenced any adjudicatory proceedings. In the absence of such foundational material, the plea of statutory bar under Section 6(2) of the Act could not be examined in the abstract. A writ court cannot proceed on bald and unsubstantiated av... [Read more]

GST - Bar under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act, Order for provisional attachment - The petitioner claimed that the proceedings initiated by the Central authorities were barred under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act as the State GST authorities had already commenced proceedings on the same subject matter - HELD - There is no evidence of the State authorities having issued a show cause notice or commenced any adjudicatory proceedings. In the absence of such foundational material, the plea of statutory bar under Section 6(2) of the Act could not be examined in the abstract. A writ court cannot proceed on bald and unsubstantiated averments, particularly when jurisdictional objections are raised. The petitioner, who asserts the bar, is required to demonstrate by cogent material that proceedings have been formally initiated by State authorities and the subject matter is identical. In the absence of such material, the Court is unable to record even a prima facie finding on the applicability of Section 6(2) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are barred under Section 6(2) of the Act was rejected as being premature, unsupported and devoid of material particulars - The plea of bar under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act is not substantiated by any material and cannot be examined at this stage, and the impugned action is not vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing – The writ petition is dismissed - Violation of principles of natural justice - The petitioner contended that the impugned provisional attachment order was vitiated due to the violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the petitioner was in judicial custody and no opportunity was afforded prior to passing the attachment order – HELD - The issue stood authoritatively settled by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Tax v. Narasimhan Engineering Contractors Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not contemplate a pre-decisional hearing, and the statutory scheme provides a post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules - The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh has also clarified that provisional attachment is a protective measure and that safeguards are provided by way of objection and hearing post attachment. The contention of the petitioner that the absence of prior notice, particularly during the period of custody, vitiates the impugned action cannot be accepted, as the statutory framework itself contemplates immediate protective action followed by an opportunity of hearing, and the petitioner is not left remediless but is at liberty to invoke the said mechanism for redressal. [Read less]

GST - Ex parte order, Communication of notice addressed to email-id which could not be accessed as it was a paid e-mail account – Cancellation of registration due to discrepancy in Form ASMT-10 and petitioner was required to furnish export invoices and also reconciliation statement of export invoices and corresponding FIRC / BRC - Petitioner submitted that he was unable to access the email account where the notice was sent and was not able to reply to the show cause notice – HELD – The petitioner is in possession of the relevant documents and would meet the grounds raised in the show cause notice - The impugned order... [Read more]

GST - Ex parte order, Communication of notice addressed to email-id which could not be accessed as it was a paid e-mail account – Cancellation of registration due to discrepancy in Form ASMT-10 and petitioner was required to furnish export invoices and also reconciliation statement of export invoices and corresponding FIRC / BRC - Petitioner submitted that he was unable to access the email account where the notice was sent and was not able to reply to the show cause notice – HELD – The petitioner is in possession of the relevant documents and would meet the grounds raised in the show cause notice - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice, considering the petitioner's submission that he has relevant documents to reconcile the export invoices and corresponding FIRC/BRC. The respondent to restore the petitioner's GST registration forthwith – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Refund Claim for Export of Services – Providing of software development and related services to its associated enterprises located outside India – Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was providing intermediary services, and not export of services - Whether the petitioner was providing export of services and was eligible for the refund claim, or whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was providing intermediary services – HELD - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was non-speaking and did not consider the sub... [Read more]

GST - Refund Claim for Export of Services – Providing of software development and related services to its associated enterprises located outside India – Rejection of refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was providing intermediary services, and not export of services - Whether the petitioner was providing export of services and was eligible for the refund claim, or whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was providing intermediary services – HELD - The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was non-speaking and did not consider the submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner had contended that it was not a broker or an agent of any of the foreign entities and was providing services to the foreign entities on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore the services provided by the petitioner would qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act - The respondent authority had failed to record any specific finding on these contentions before rejecting the refund claim. The impugned order is quashed and matter is remanded back to adjudicating authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass a fresh and reasoned order after considering the submissions and documents of the petitioner - The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Export of services, refund of IGST - Petitioner claimed a refund of GST paid on the export of services – Revenue directed the Petitioner to submit suitable explanation and proof evidencing that the Petitioner and service recipient were not merely establishments of distinct persons – Rejection of refund by non-speaking order - HELD - No specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order before rejecting the refund application. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and did not adequately address the submissions made by the petitioner regarding the distinct nature of the petitioner and the service recipie... [Read more]

GST - Export of services, refund of IGST - Petitioner claimed a refund of GST paid on the export of services – Revenue directed the Petitioner to submit suitable explanation and proof evidencing that the Petitioner and service recipient were not merely establishments of distinct persons – Rejection of refund by non-speaking order - HELD - No specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order before rejecting the refund application. The impugned order is a non-speaking order and did not adequately address the submissions made by the petitioner regarding the distinct nature of the petitioner and the service recipient - The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration, after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner's contentions regarding the distinct nature of the petitioner and the service recipient should be considered by the adjudicating authority in a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the principles of natural justice – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Customs Broker's Liability for Overvalued Export Goods - Failure by Customs Broker to exercise due diligence - Whether the Customs Broker is liable for penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to exercise due diligence in accepting export documents from an unauthorized person and for not verifying the exporter's address, which resulted in the export of grossly overvalued goods - Whether the customs broker can be held liable for misdeclaration or overvaluation of export goods, and Whether the CHA is obligated to physically verify the exporter's address under the Customs Broker Licensing ... [Read more]

Customs - Customs Broker's Liability for Overvalued Export Goods - Failure by Customs Broker to exercise due diligence - Whether the Customs Broker is liable for penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to exercise due diligence in accepting export documents from an unauthorized person and for not verifying the exporter's address, which resulted in the export of grossly overvalued goods - Whether the customs broker can be held liable for misdeclaration or overvaluation of export goods, and Whether the CHA is obligated to physically verify the exporter's address under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 – HELD – The liability for misdeclaration or overvaluation of export goods lies with the exporter, and the Customs broker cannot be held responsible for the same. The customs broker's duty is limited to verifying the authenticity of documents and information provided by the client, not the accuracy of the declared value. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the binding precedent in World Cargo Movers v. Commissioner of Customs, which held that it is not the job of the customs broker to compare the invoice price with market price - Regarding the physical verification of the exporter's address, the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 do not mandate physical verification, and only require the customs broker to verify the client's identity and functioning at the declared address using reliable documents and information - The Customs Broker is not required to physically verify the premises of the exporter or compare the declared value with the market price. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the submissions made by the Customs Broker and the binding precedents cited by him. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to take a fresh reasoned decision after affording due opportunity to the Customs Broker and considering all the material on record – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Classification of Food Seasoning Material - The appellant imported goods described as "Food Seasoning Material for Snack Foods" and classified them under Customs Tariff Item 3302 10 10 - Revenue sought to reclassify the goods under CTI 2103 90 40 - Whether the goods were correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 or should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 – HELD - The impugned goods contain odoriferous substances like paprika, parsley and spearmint which are listed in the Explanatory Notes to Customs Tariff Heading 3302, and these substances give the goods their essential character. The Revenue's contention ... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of Food Seasoning Material - The appellant imported goods described as "Food Seasoning Material for Snack Foods" and classified them under Customs Tariff Item 3302 10 10 - Revenue sought to reclassify the goods under CTI 2103 90 40 - Whether the goods were correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 or should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 – HELD - The impugned goods contain odoriferous substances like paprika, parsley and spearmint which are listed in the Explanatory Notes to Customs Tariff Heading 3302, and these substances give the goods their essential character. The Revenue's contention that the goods should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 as the odoriferous substances are not predominant is incorrect, as the Explanatory Notes only require the presence of one or more odoriferous substances, not that they be predominant. Further, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that synthetic odoriferous substances can also be covered under CTI 3302. Therefore, the impugned goods are correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of registration and issuance of notice after long delay - Notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19 was issued after almost five years by means of being uploaded on the GST portal – HELD - The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 13.8.2018, whereas the notice under Section 73(1) for the financial year 2018-19 was issued after almost five years on 10.1.2024 by means of being uploaded on the GST portal - The petitioner could not be expected to regularly check the GST portal for such a long period of five years to ascertain whether any notice has been uploa... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of registration and issuance of notice after long delay - Notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19 was issued after almost five years by means of being uploaded on the GST portal – HELD - The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 13.8.2018, whereas the notice under Section 73(1) for the financial year 2018-19 was issued after almost five years on 10.1.2024 by means of being uploaded on the GST portal - The petitioner could not be expected to regularly check the GST portal for such a long period of five years to ascertain whether any notice has been uploaded. Merely uploading the notice on the portal does not fulfill the requirements of Section 169, which mandates at least two modes of service. Since the notice was not served through any other mode prescribed under Section 169, the petitioner was not granted appropriate opportunity of hearing, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice - The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

MP VAT Act, 2002 - Maintainability of writ petition against ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders - Petitioner challenged the ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders, contending that the orders were antedated and passed without giving any opportunity of hearing - The petitioner had earlier filed applications to set aside the ex-parte orders, which were dismissed on the ground that no second application was maintainable under Section 34 of the MPVAT Act - Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46 of the MP VAT... [Read more]

MP VAT Act, 2002 - Maintainability of writ petition against ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders - Petitioner challenged the ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders, contending that the orders were antedated and passed without giving any opportunity of hearing - The petitioner had earlier filed applications to set aside the ex-parte orders, which were dismissed on the ground that no second application was maintainable under Section 34 of the MPVAT Act - Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46 of the MP VAT Act – HELD - The petitioner had received notices after the remand of the matter by the Commissioner, and it was the duty of the petitioner to keep track of the proceedings. The allegations made by the petitioner regarding the antedated orders and the violation of principles of natural justice are baseless, as the order sheets did not reflect the presence of the petitioner or its counsel on the dates specified – Further, the petitioner had obtained an interim relief based on incorrect statements and also levelled malafide allegations against the respondent No.4 that she is in the habit of passing antedated orders - The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000, out of which Rs. 25,000 was to be deposited in the account of the CCD and Rs. 25,000 was to be paid to the respondent No. 4 by the petitioner – The petition is dismissed [Read less]

M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Best Judgment Assessment - Assessing Officer invoked the principle of best judgment assessment on the ground that the appellant failed to furnish the VAT audit report in Form No.41-A and determined the turnover by making additions to the declared figures and imposed VAT at the rate of 13% and 5% on various components - Appellant contended that the invocation of best judgment assessment was unjustified as the appellant had maintained regular books of accounts reflecting the true nature of transactions - HELD - The Authorities found that the appellant had failed to maintain correct accounts o... [Read more]

M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Best Judgment Assessment - Assessing Officer invoked the principle of best judgment assessment on the ground that the appellant failed to furnish the VAT audit report in Form No.41-A and determined the turnover by making additions to the declared figures and imposed VAT at the rate of 13% and 5% on various components - Appellant contended that the invocation of best judgment assessment was unjustified as the appellant had maintained regular books of accounts reflecting the true nature of transactions - HELD - The Authorities found that the appellant had failed to maintain correct accounts of sales and purchases and did not produce the audit books of accounts to establish its claims. Under Sections 39 and 20 of the MPVAT Act, every dealer must maintain a correct account of sales and purchases, and if he fails to do so, the Assessing Officer has the power to pass a best judgment order under Section 20(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had the power to pass the best judgment order, and the finding that the appellant's accounts were not reliable was a concurrent finding of fact by the Authorities – Further, the Authorities found that the appellant failed to produce reliable documentary evidence to substantiate its claim regarding the alleged lower turnover taxable at 13%. The burden of proof lies on the appellant to establish the correctness of its returns and classification of goods, which it failed to discharge. The findings of the Authorities regarding the incorrect maintenance of accounts and the application of tax rates were concurrent findings of fact based on an appreciation of the evidence, which are not liable to be interfered with in an appeal under Section 53 of the VAT Act - The VAT appeal is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Summary assessment order, Bonafide of suppliers - Assessing authority had observed that the petitioner availed input tax credit from bogus suppliers, one of which had its GST registration cancelled - Whether the petitioner's additional documents, which demonstrate that the supplies were genuine, should be re-considered by the assessing authority – HELD - The additional documents produced by the petitioner, which purportedly establish the genuineness of the suppliers, should be examined by the authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority and produce any other materials to substantiate its cla... [Read more]

GST - Summary assessment order, Bonafide of suppliers - Assessing authority had observed that the petitioner availed input tax credit from bogus suppliers, one of which had its GST registration cancelled - Whether the petitioner's additional documents, which demonstrate that the supplies were genuine, should be re-considered by the assessing authority – HELD - The additional documents produced by the petitioner, which purportedly establish the genuineness of the suppliers, should be examined by the authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority and produce any other materials to substantiate its claim that the suppliers were genuine and the ITC availed was in order. The question of the genuineness of the documents produced is a matter for enquiry by the authority – The impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted for reconsideration of the application for withdrawal of summary assessment order – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Liability to collect Tax Collection at Source (TCS) on supplies made through e-commerce portal, Applicability of Section 17(2) and Section 52 of CGST Act, 2017, Invocation of Section 74 – DGGI issued a show cause notice under Section 74 alleging violation of Sections 52 and 17(2) of the CGST Act and proposed tax demand – Applicability of Section 52 of CGST Act - Whether the petitioner, being an e-commerce operator, is liable to collect TCS under Section 52 of the CGST Act – HELD – In terms of Section 52, the TCS obligation arises only when the e-commerce operator collects payment/consideration with respect ... [Read more]

GST – Liability to collect Tax Collection at Source (TCS) on supplies made through e-commerce portal, Applicability of Section 17(2) and Section 52 of CGST Act, 2017, Invocation of Section 74 – DGGI issued a show cause notice under Section 74 alleging violation of Sections 52 and 17(2) of the CGST Act and proposed tax demand – Applicability of Section 52 of CGST Act - Whether the petitioner, being an e-commerce operator, is liable to collect TCS under Section 52 of the CGST Act – HELD – In terms of Section 52, the TCS obligation arises only when the e-commerce operator collects payment/consideration with respect to supplies made through its platform. Section 52 which provides for the e-commerce operator to collect TCS would not apply unless payment / consideration is collected. The petitioner does not collect any payment/consideration with respect to the supplies in question and hence, the provisions of Section 52 are not applicable to the petitioner – Further, there is no provision in the CGST Act to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default and also, there is no provision to issue a notice to the person who has not collected the tax to pay such tax. The impugned SCN alleging that the petitioner had violated Section 52 of the CGST Act, since they failed to collect TCS @ 1% of the net value of the taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the operator is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the CGST and the same is quashed – The writ petition is allowed - Promotional activity vs Exempt supply - Applicability of Section 17(2) of CGST Act - Whether the petitioner has violated Section 17(2) of the CGST Act by failing to restrict availment of ITC – HELD – The Section 17(2) restricts exempt supplies which would cover only services attracting nil rate of tax or are wholly exempt from tax. Doing promotional activities which benefit the petitioner and other suppliers cannot be construed or treated as exempt supplies and consequently, in the absence of any specific exemption or the services being levied with “nil” rate of tax, the same cannot qualify as exempt supply leading to the sole conclusion that Section 17(2) would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case - The activities undertaken by the petitioner, i.e., promotion of its own platform along with the services provided therein, are not 'free supplies' and are undertaken for the benefit of the petitioner's own business. The mere non-charging of consideration to enhance footfall on the online portal cannot be construed as 'free or non-taxable or exempt supplies' so as to attract Section 17(2) – The provisions of Section 17(2) would be applicable only to a registered person using goods or services or both partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero rated supplies and partly for effecting exempt supplies. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is partly effecting taxable supplies and partly effecting exempt supplies, Section 17(2) has no application. The impugned show cause notice alleging violation of Section 17(2) is illegal and without jurisdiction - Whether the impugned show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act is valid and maintainable – HELD - The foundational jurisdictional facts to trigger/invoke Section 74 of the CGST Act, i.e., existence of wilful suppression to evade/avoid payment of GST, are not satisfied in the present case. In the instant case, Section 74 could not have been invoked for any non-compliance of Section 52 as the transactions on which demand is sought to be raised are not the supplies of the petitioner. It is the sellers / service providers who undertook such supplies that are required to discharge GST - Mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not amount to wilful suppression, in the absence of any intention to evade payment of tax. Further, when the facts are known to both the parties and the issue of classification itself is in a state of flux, the assessee cannot be attributed with any suppression or misstatement of facts with intent to evade duty. The impugned show cause notice fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements and parameters for invocation of Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice is quashed. [Read less]

GST - Penalty under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, Waiver of pre-deposit of 10% of penalty under Section 107 - Petitioners were alleged to be involved in circular trading and have availed ineligible input tax credit – Imposition of penalty equivalent to the Input Tax Credit availed on circular trading – Petitioners contend that the maximum penalty that could have been imposed could only be restricted to Rs.10,000/- and the impugned orders imposing penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and Section 122(1)(vii) is unjustified - Whether the penalties imposed on the petitioners under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) ar... [Read more]

GST - Penalty under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, Waiver of pre-deposit of 10% of penalty under Section 107 - Petitioners were alleged to be involved in circular trading and have availed ineligible input tax credit – Imposition of penalty equivalent to the Input Tax Credit availed on circular trading – Petitioners contend that the maximum penalty that could have been imposed could only be restricted to Rs.10,000/- and the impugned orders imposing penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and Section 122(1)(vii) is unjustified - Whether the penalties imposed on the petitioners under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) are justified or disproportionate – HELD - The language of Section 122(1) does not give any discretion to the Assessing Officer to levy lesser of the amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- as the expression used is “whichever is higher” - The impugned Orders cannot be found fault as adequate reasons have been given and shows application of mind by the Assessing Officers while passing the impugned Orders - The decisions relied upon by the Petitioners, which dealt with different statutory provisions, are distinguished as the present case is governed by the specific language of the GST Enactments. The impugned orders have adequately reasoned and recorded the Petitioners' involvement in circular trading and availing of ineligible input tax credit to boost their business turnover - The Petitioners cannot short-circuit the statutory appellate mechanism prescribed under the GST Enactments by directly approaching the High Court. The petitioners are granted liberty to file appeals before the Appellate Authority - Since pre-deposit of huge penalty as prescribed under Section 107 of the will cause undue hardship to the petitioners and make the appellate remedy illusory, the pre-deposit of 10% of penalty is dispensed with at the time of filing the appeals before the Appellate Authority - The writ petitions are dismissed with the liberty granted to the petitioners to file appeals before the Appellate Authority without pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty – Ordered accordingly [Read less]