Judgements on Indirect taxation - 2018

26th July, 2018 : CESTAT Bangalore : Sree Rama Coffee Works Vs Commr of Customs : Whether coffee roasting machine is classifiable under 85167990 and exempted under Not No. 21/2002 or under CTH 84198190 without exemption.  Tribunal has held 85167990 applies only to domestic appliances.  This machince an industrial appliances would fall under 84198190.

20th July 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : Sukan Power Systems Ltd & Ors Vs CCE Delhi III: The Tribunal quashes Commissioner (Appeals) order as statement recorded during investigation cannot be admitted without observing the procedure in Sec 9D(1) (b) of CEA. The Tribunal relies on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Ambika International & ors. Vs. UOI.

17th July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Vs C.S.T. Delhi-IDuring audit it was observed the appellants outsourced 4 diagnostic services to 3 diagnostic centres. The Tribunal held "the arrangement vis a vis appellant and diagnostic centre is clearly an arrangement of Business Support System." The Tribunal set aisde the demands under Management Maintenance & Repair Services. Appeal was partly allowed.

13th July, 2018 : CESTAT Mumbai : Mahindra Engg. Vs CCE, Pune-I : The appellant refund claim was allowed but amount credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant had intimated on enquiry that the said amount was treated as expenditure in their P&L account accordingly the amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal held “The only possible way to pass the bar of Unjust Enrichment is that the disputed tax /duty is not expensed off in the accounts, but booked as ‘Receivables’.” Appeal dismissed.

 

9th July, 2018 : CESTAT Bangalore : Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain College Vs CC, Bangalore: It was alleged 200 PCs imported under Not. 51/96-Cus for reasearch in the field of agriculture, computers etc. were only used for their courses in microbiology, botany, biochemistry. The Tribunal held "Essentiality Certificate has been issued and Bangalore University is registered with the DSIR. Therefore, the importer is eligible ..as the conditions of the Notification have been satisfied..".  Appeal is allowed.

3rd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : Udaipur Treasure  Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Indore  : Appellant availed Cenvat Credit but provided no output service or paid service tax. The Tribunal rejected the appeal held "Credit... allowed to be taken contingent upon ...rendering output service which is chargeable to Service Tax..."

3rd July, 2018 : Elinjikal Foods & Beverages  & Ors  Vs CCE (Adj) etc.  : The appeal involves valuation where the buyer, Concept Sales was alleged to sell the goods at twice the purchase price. Investigation revealed interconnectedness, interdependence & inexplicable financial transactions. The Tribunal held "..under these circumstances, it has to be held that leave about mutuality of interest, all the companies were one and the same managed by Shri George Varghese; corporate entities are created as a façade."

 

2nd July, 2018  : Allahabad High Court : Hamdard (Wakf) Labs Vs Commr Of Commercial Taxes : The High Court upholds the Tribunal order and holds that "Sharbat "Rooh Afza" is not unclassifiable under Schedule-V of the Act and liable to tax @ 12.5%. It is neither fruit juice nor fruit drink nor processed fruit.

 

2nd July, 2018 :  Delhi High Court : JOYCE KAROUNG Vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU : Relying on the SC judgment in Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566 the High Court concluded the petitioner is not prima facie not guilty. Also, liberty of a citizen must be balanced with the interest of the society especially where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved. It is alleged that this is not the first offence.

 

2nd July, 2018 :  CESTAT Allahabad : Piem Hotels Ltd. Vs CCEST, Lucknow : The main dispute was over credit availed on invoices of Indian Hotels as "Management Consultancy". The dept disputed this saying it was "Franchisee Service" and hence truncated credit only to the extent of 20% should have been availed, not  100%. The issue since then is settled at Indian Hotels end in their favour. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to full 100% credit.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Allahabad : Alert Protection And Security Vs CCEST, Meerut-i : Details as per the bank statements and bills received from the customers did not match with the service tax returns. The appellant argued the balance sheet figures were lower. The Tribunal accepted the revenue’s argument and held that the balance sheet does not carry any weight.  Appeal is rejected.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Ahmedabad : Radha Trading  & Ors Vs CC-Kandla : DRI seized the goods on charges of under valuation alleging the goods were routed through SEZ units to actual importers. They relied on evidences and statements of persons indicating that the DTA buyers/ importers were negotiating directly with overseas suppliers etc. The appeal was against the harsh conditions of provisional release. Appeals were partly allowed.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : Pee Cee Cosma Sope Ltd. Vs CE, C & CGST – CCE & ST, JodhpurCenvat Credit on outward freight inadmissible. On time bar appeal rejected on grounds of suppression

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : CGST, C&CE, Alwar Versus M/s Krishi Icon: The issue was whether credit can be availed on "commission / brokerage on sale of flats" as sales promotion. The tribunal concurs with the lower authority and rejects the Dept. appeal.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : M/s .Wide Impex Vs CC, New Delhi The appeal was against the harsh conditions of the provisional release order i.e. almost 3 times value of the goods. The Tribunal reduces the BG amount to less than 50% and waives the condition requiring an undertaking by the appellant he will not dispute the value of good.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : Sainik Mining Vs. CST, Service Tax, DelhiThe appellant was alleged to provide site preparation and clearance service which Dept contended was not a mining activity. The appellant claimed de-pressurising water aquifer is a mining activity. The Tribunal accepted this and held a second agreement was entered into not for site clearance but as a part of mining activity.

 

2nd July, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : India Enggs & Suppliers Vs CCE&ST, Jaipur-I :  Whether services of installation, plumbing, drain laying for water supply from reservoir to water storage facility is ‘Works Contract Service’ or  exempted as “construction of canals/ pipelines....provided to Government/ Government undertakings as non- commercial, non-industrial purposes..". Tribunal allows the appeal.

 

28th June, 2018 : CESTAT Delhi : M/s. Jaideep Ispat & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C., Indore : The question is whether NIDB Data could be relied upon for customs valuation. The Dy. Commr had himself had appreciated that the NIDB Data for did not reflect the correct value as it reflects the prices after a lapse of more than a month from the current date. Complete reliance on NIDB Data for assessment of metal scrap is not proper.  Appeal allowed.

 

28th June, 2018 : CESTAT Dehi : M/s. Sairam Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs C.C.E., & S.T., Raipur Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made.  Without any corroborative evidence the demand based only upon the diary entries is not sustainable.

 

22nd June, 2018 : MP High Court : Star Automobile Vs Commr : Appellant was issued a notice for Rs. 26.61 lakhs and later confirmed in adjudication and both appeal stages. The appellant raised the time-bar issue before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal u/s 35G as "the appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law for adjudication by this Court and the proposed questions ....are purely factual.."

 

21st June, 2018 : Bombay High Court : Lloyds Steel Industries Vs CESTAT & Ors : The issue involved eligibility of cenvat credit on appliances/instruments used for maintenance. Tools or instruments must be demonstrated to be used during manufacturing process. The Court held the items do not qualify as capital goods and upheld CESTAT order denying credit.

 

21st June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : ARCL Organics Ltd Vs CCE, Kol V : The substantial question of law was: “Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit without considering merits? Though clandestine removal was raised, Tribunal did not go into the merits but dismissed merely on the ground that pre-deposit was not made.  If appellant makes the pre-deposit of 10% of the duty within 30 days, appeals will stand restored.

 

20th June, 2018 : Karnataka High Court : Principal Commr CE Vs  AZKO NOBEL : The Dept appeal was filed seeking an answer to a question of law already answered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee that the Amendment of Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was clarificatory and hence restrospective in nature. The Court uphold the decision of the cognate bench & dismissed appeal.

 

20th June, 2018 : CESAT Delhi : Satish Kumar & Co Vs CCE & ST Jaipur-I: Appellants claimed their activity was "Works Contract Service" taxable only from 01/06/2007. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro 2015(39)STR913(SC) & ruled WCS taxable from 01/06/2007. Also demands held as time barred.

 

20th June, 2018 : CESAT Delhi :  Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur : Appellant availed service tax on Banking and Financial Services after paying  under RCM and allocated part of it to their corporate office. Revenue demanded 50% reversal u/r 6(3B) as there was no separate accounts.  Tribunal ruled Rule 6(3B) applies only to a banking company & financial institution & not to the appellant.

 

20th June, 2018: CESAT Delhi : Bharat Oman Refineries Vs CCG&ST& Cus, Bhopal : Appellant claimed credit on goods purchased by contractor & appellant was shown as consignee. Tribunal held "Cenvat credit is not available to the contractor, "......what cannot be done directly is not to be allowed to be done indirectly. Appeals dismissed."

 

20th June, 2018 : CESTAT Del : Rahul Malt (P.) Ltd.  Vs. C.C.E & S.T., Jaipur-I  : The Tribunal allows the appeal and rules that the department wrongly invoked rule 8 of the valuation rules and wrongly calculated differential duty by double counting sale proceeds of sprouts which were already included in the total value.

 

20th June, 2018 :  CESTAT Delhi : Hotel Sonia (P) Ltd. Vs C.G.S.T. C.C. & C.E.,Dehradun : A notice as issued for difference between the receipts in balance sheet and ST-3 returns. The demand of Rs. 7,10,213.00 & Penalty @ 50%  Rs. 3,55,107.00 with interest was later confirmed. All demanded amounts were paid except Rs. 3,245/- (swimming pool service) and Rs. 34,350/- (Mandap keeper). The appellant's plea was the matter be remanded to rework the demand and penalty.  The Tribunal accepted the plea and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of reworking the demand.

 

8th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Limited. Vs Asst Commr of State Tax : A seizure order u/s 129(1) of the CGST Act for goods seized was challenged in the writ petition. The order was appealable but the petitioner claimed it was covered by the exception carved out in Sec 121, hence, writ petition was maintainable.  Revenue argued the exception relates to books of accounts, registers etc. where no statutory appeal is provided. The Court held :

"The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available. It would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal from the impugned order before the designated appellate authority...."

 

18th June, 2018 : Chattisgarh HC : Shrikishan & Co Vs Addl Commr Commrcl Tax : Whether bitumen emulsion should be assed under under residual category at % or 4% as per Entry-23 of Schedule-II of Part II of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act. Based on a detailed analysis, Hon'ble High Court sets aside revisional authority order and rules bitumen emulsion is covered by Entry-23 of Part II of Schedule-II of the VAT Act and rate of VAT would be 4% or applicable.

 

18th June, 2018 : Himachal Pradesh HC : The State of HP Vs Tritronics India :  The Court rejects Revenue plea to condone delay in Revision saying HP VAT Act, 2005 "is a complete code in itself....and as there is no provision contained in the Act, making the provisions of Limitation Act applicable.....this Court has no inherent power to condone the delay in entertaining a Revision Petition which stands filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Act."

 

15th June, 2018 : Bombay HC : Rajasthan Crane Service Vs UOI : The legality of the Settlement Commission's order rejecting the petitioner's application allegedly without considering their submissions was challenged.  Court observed, impugned order indicates petitioner was specifically directed to produce original record for verification, but record of proceedings, does not indicate this. Court set aside the order directing reconsideration of application after giving opportunity to the party.

 

13th June, 2018 : Hotel Southson vs CESTAT Chennai  : The petitioner’s  application for benefit of Voluntary Compliance of Excise and Service Tax Scheme was rejected as the service liability on renting of immovable property was discovered during audit also it continued even after the cut-off date. The Court dismissed the petition as the issued was discovered only in audit and the assessee was neither registered not paid tax.

 

13th June, 2018 : Madras High Court :  Amphenol Omni Connect India Pvt.Ltd., Vs STO, Chengalpattu :  The petitioner did not respond to the revision notices as GST came to be introduced. The Enforcement Wing collected cheques for Rs.50 lakhs from the appellants and encashed. As Rs.50 lakhs has been already recovered the Court granted one more opportunity to the petitioner file their objections.

 

8th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Gati-Kintetsu Express Pvt Ltd. Vs Asst Commr of State Tax : ThoughThe order was appeallable petitioner claimed it was covered by the exception in Sec 121, hence.  The Court held :
"The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available. It would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal ...."

 

8th June, 2018 : Kerala High Court : Magnum Steels vs CCEST : Petitioner sought a rectification of an order passed under the CEA. The application was rejected as the officer who passed the order was transferred. Court allowed the petition and ruled "The stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P3 application cannot be accepted..., the subsequent incumbent in the office has to exercise the statutory powers conferred on the officer."

 

7th June, 2018 : Calcutta HC: Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs UOI : The bail application was rejected by the Addl CJM, allowing investigating agency custodial interrogation in a case under Section 132(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. Since the custodial interrogation is yet to be done, the Court kept application is kept pending as deferred for a week.

 

6th June 2018 : Karnataka High Court : Gulf Oil Lubricants Vs GST Council & Ors : The writ petition was filed seeking the Court to issue directions to the respondents to  amend the Section 140(3) and 140(5) of KGST Act to permit transitional credit which is allowed in other states such as Kerala, Bihar and  Sikkim. The petitioner  subsequently sought leave & withdrew the petition to approach the Authority for appropriate relief.

 

6th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court :  Sukumar Chandra Saha Vs Dy Commr Commercial Taxes : The order passed by the revisional authority was challenged in the writ petition. The revisional authority sought certain clarifications on C – Forms. But before the clarifications were received from the purchaser, the revisional authority passed the order. The Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the revisional authority on the limited aspect of the clarifications.

 

5th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Ota Falloons Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI This judgement deals with a number of questions including (i) Can an appeallable order be challenged in writ petiton on grounds of jurisdiction ? (ii) Are the time limits in Regulation 22 & 20 mandatory or directory? (iii) Is the notice time barred ? (iv) If so, is the order vitiated by lack of jurisdiction? (v) If a wrong Regulation is cited will it vitiate an order? etc. After considering these issues in detail, the Hon'ble Court rejects the petition.

 

4th June, 2018: Calcutta High Court : Reliance Jute Mills Vs UOI  : Jute bags were exempted from central excise duty. The jute industry, DGS & D, Min of Commerce and Government undertakings of the States and Centre proceeded on the basis that no excise duty was payable on jute bags. However, since the plaintiff marked the jute bags as mandated by the Jute Commissioner, the Revenue considered them to be branded and hence taxable. Excise duty, penalty and interest were therefore imposed on the jute bags.

The plaintiff contended that the markings on the bags were compulsory. They did not enhance the value of the jute bags. Also there is no connection between the aforesaid products and the manufacturer. This contention has been accepted and settled in the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 13th February, 2018 (RDB Textiles Vs. CCE) Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court restrained the Revenue from realizing any excise duty, penalty, interest etc. on the jute bags.

 

4th June, 2018 : Bombay High Court : Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs. CBI & Ors  : In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that the CBI has no power to to impound the petititoner's passport and retaining it for a long period. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgement in Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Relevant portion of the judgement reads :

"Considering the observations of the Courts in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the power of impounding are vested with the Passport Authority. In the circumstances, the passport was seized by the respondents on 13th March, 2014. Retention of passport for such a long period amounting to impounding, which is not permissible in law. The illegality cannot continue in perpetuity. It is within the domain of the Passport Authority to initiate action under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act."

 

1st June, 2018 : Dehi HC : Rajesh Sharma Vs DRI : The petitioner sought interim bail for the purpose of medical treatment of his mother. She is about 70 years is ill and his wife had already sought divorce. After seeking independent medical opinion of a doctor the Court granted interim bail for a period of two weeks with conditions.

 

1st June, 2018 : Dehi HC : Agya Import Ltd Vs Jt Commr of Customs,ICD, Tughlakhabad : The petitioners imported on 24th February, 2016 goods from Germany but filed BoE for home consumption nearly 4 months later.  One of the directors of the petitioner, was arrested was in judicial custody for 2 months on import of similar goods seized by SIIB.  These goods were also seized on  the belief they were undervalued and notice was issued. Nearly 18 months after seizure, the petitioner requested provisional release which was granted under order dated 28th May, 2018.  The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed.  The Court declined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner can invoke the statutory appellate remedy.

 

31st May, 2018: Delhi High Court :  Santani Sales Organisation Vs CESTAT  : The Hon'ble Court set aside the stay order of the CESTAT under Section 35F requiring an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the confirmed demand after 2nd appeal. The petitioner had deposited  7.5% of the total duty and cess demand, and at the second stage made a further deposit of 2.5% of the duty and cess demand. Revenue demanded an addition 10% pre-deposit which will be a fresh and separate deposit. Therefore, cumulatively the pre-deposit should be 17.5% of the duty demand at the 3rd appeal stage.

The Court held : "12. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that a graded scale of pre-deposit has been provided. In case of first appeal, whether before the Tribunal or before the Commissioner (Appeals), 7.5% of the duty and penalty in dispute must be deposited. In case of second appeal before the Tribunal, the amount gets enhanced from 7.5% to 10%.....
24. Accordingly, we would allow the present writ petition and set aside the order and direction of the Tribunal that the petitioner must deposit additional 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute for the second appeal to be heard and adjudicated...."

 

31st May, 2018 :  Madhya Pradesh High :  Ramesh Chandra vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh : The High Court on an anticipatory bail application made by a Govt servant working in Commercial Tax Check Post, Navgaon  grant the bail with conditions. The allegation was he took the Form 49 and handed over the same to co-accused Sonu. The Court concluded : "that investigation has already been over and charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is a government servant and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering of evidence, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. "

 

31st May, 2018 : Delhi High Court : Farha Hussais Vs UOI & Ors. : Wife's petition to release the COFEPOSA detenue Mr Sharaft Hussain is granted by the Hon'ble high Court. The detenue was a CHA who was arrested on allegations that 33 importers had imported using fraudulent licences. The detenue on the other hand stated that he has bonafide purchased scripts/licenses from the various firms of Mr. Pathror against payments. The detenue learnt that these licences were fraudulent / tampered with later when the customs officials informed him. The High Court lists out several factors which wree not taken into account the most important being  "that the licenses for payment of duty was used by the G-Card Holder Mr Diwakar Sharma and not the Detenue.:"
The writ petition was allowed and the detenue ordered to be released forthwith.

 

25th May, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Pankaj Kumar Kedia Vs UOI : In this case, the petitioner had not yet filed the appeal u/s 35 and the time limit to file the appeal had already expired.  Also "even if judicial review is sought, the same cannot be decided by this Court as  the Court of the first instance in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors..."  The petition was accordingly dismissed.

 

18th May, 2018 : Rajasthan High Court: Hindustan Zinc Ltd & Ors Vs  State of Rajasthan & Ors  : The Hon'ble Court grants the petition directing  "the respondents stating are liable to issue `C' Forms in respect of the High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade."

 

17th May, 2018: Chhattisgarh HC : Hariom Ingots & Power P Ltd. & Ors Vs UOI : The issue before the Hon'ble Court was whether the Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The search conducted was on 7th/8th August, 2012, but the appellants/petitioners kept quiet for 5 years even after notice was issued on 6.5.2016.

The petitioners argued that in Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and Others1, Income-Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-B, Meerut Vs. Messrs Seth Brothers and Others Etc.2, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh3 and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another4 it was held that delay in filing the petition is not fatal considering the issue involved as search operations had inherent defects which are likely to be illegal.

The Court upheld the order of dismissal but allowed the petitioners to raise the issue regarding the legality of search before the appellated authority before whom the matter is currently pending.

 

17th May, 2018 : Chhattisgarh HC :  Kishan Lal & Co Vs Addl Commr of Commercial Taxes, Chhattisgarh : The Hon’ble Court sets aside the assessment orders for 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 on two counts.  Firstly, relying on the Supreme Court judgement in Commr of Customs Vs Toyo Engineering Ltd., the Court held that an order cannot traverse beyond the scope set out in the notices. Secondly, proviso (a) to Section 49(3) prohibits revision after three calendar years. Since the notices are dated 14-7-2015 and seek to revise the assessment orders dated 1-5-2009, 1-5-2010 and 22-1-2008, they were clearly beyond the prescribed time limit of three years.

 

17th May, 2018 : Chhattisgarh HC :  Commissioner, Central Excise Vs M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd.  "Whether …taking re-credit of CENVAT amount after the Revenue had already rejected his claim can be termed as a fraudulent….?”   Cenvat Credit was availed on input service tax attributable to generation of electricity partly used captively to manufacture final products and partly sold. On objections, regarding reversal under CCR Rule 6 (3A), they reversed credit of Rs.49,62,640/-.  But later took re-credit of the amount. The Department objected to the suo motu re-credit and issued a show cause notice. When notice was issued, the assessee reversed the credit and once again took credit after re-reversing the entry.
The Court considered the question and concluded : The assessee has not taken the re-credit of its own, but on the basis of its Auditor's objection. The issue concerning Cenvat credit is already under adjudication. There appears no mala fide or fraudulent act on the part of the assessee, more so, when the first proceedings are pending. (Ed. this is a case where re-credit was taken, twice. Maybe a case of defiance, but with the knowledge of the Dept, not fraud)

 

14th May, 2018: High Court of Chattisgarh : Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors - The petitioner claimed transitional input credit of Rs 1.17 Cr and entered the data, but due to glitches in the IT system it reflected as an error. The petioners contented that they cannot be denied legitimate input credit because of IT glitches. The Court sites the Govt Circular for grievance redressal for technical glitches and directs the petitioner to approach the AC State GST.

11th May, 2018 : The Supreme Court of India : Commissioner of CEx, Vs Grasim Ind : A five judge  larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently examined a reference regarding central excise valuation in general and the relationship between the nature of excise duty and the measure of the duty. This reference arose due to a perceived conflict between two judgements of the Apex Court  i.e. Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Ors. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. Acer India Ltd.

 

9th May, 2018 : Madhya Pradesh High Court : Prestige Polymers Pvt.Ltd. Vs CC. The Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal against an order granting provisional release while imposing certain conditions. The petitioner challenged the conditions. The Hon'ble Court also held that the adjudicating authority (a quasi judicial authority) is not bound to follow any conditions prescribed by DRI in their letter.

 

8th May, 2018 :  Calcutta High Court : Sadguru Forwarders Pvt Ltd. Vs CC (Port) Kolkata : If principles of natural justice were ignored, mere existence of an alternative statutory remedy can’t bar the High Court from intervening. It was held that since the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witness, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Accordingly, the order passed by Customs denying cross examination was set aside.

 

4th May, 2018 : Allahabad HC has passed the judgement on the three questions (mixed with questions of facts) which remained after the major issues in a batch of petitions were settled by the Supreme Court relating to vires of the UP Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act IOL Vs State Of U.P.

 

3rd May, 2018 : Supreme Court disposes off an appeal for exemption from State entertainment tax without going into the merits  as after GST, there is no entertainment tax. Exemption to be claimed from GST. State of Gujarat Vs Kiran Kumar Rameshbhai Devmani

 

3rd May, 2018 : Bombay High Court : Commr of Central Excise Mumbai III Vs. CEAT Ltd. 

 

2nd May, 2018 : UOI Vs Shree Alloys Industries Pvt. Ltd.

 

1st May 2018 : Calcutta HC : Kamarhati Co Ltd.  Vs. Senior Jt Commr Commercial Taxes Corp Divn : Court sets aside the Revisional Authority saying "the relevant ‘C’ Forms were not available with the petitioners, for no fault of the petitioners, at the time of the passing of the revisional order. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to have an opportunity to produce the relevant ‘C’ Forms..."

 

1st May, 2018 : Calcutta HC : Weaverly Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & anr.

 

24th April 2018 : Madras HC Metal Weld Electrodes, Chennai Vs. CESTAT, SZB & CCE, Chennai IV : The Hon'ble Court ruled that the pre-deposit order merges with the final order passed by the Tribunal. Hence there is no need to delve into the pre-deposit order. In short, the petitioner's appeal in CESTAT got dismissed for non-compliance and the petition against the pre-deposit order also got dismissed by Court. Tax payers should pay more attention to such avoidable risks!

20th April 2018 : MP HC: Gopal Ent vs. CEST

 

19th April 2018 : MP HC : Matrix Labs Ltd Vs AC Commercial Tax

 

18th April 2018 : Madras HC: Indo Shell Mould Vs CESTAT, Chennai & CCE, Coimbatore

 

17th April, 2018 : MP HC: Pankaj Gupta vs CCE

 

16th April 2018 :  Supreme Court : CCE Vs Madhan Agro Ind (I) Pvt. Ltd. Dissenting order by Supreme Court - "Parachute Oil" whether "coconut oil" or "Preparation for use in hair" Judges presiding on the classification of “Parachute Oil” have dissented in their conclusion in a judgement dated 13th April, 2018. Consequently, the matter has been referred to the CJI for further decision and orders.The product “Parachute Oil” is packed and marketed in unit containers of upto 2 Lt /500 ml. Two alternative classifications were being considered for the product - whether as “coconut oil” under Chapter Heading 1513 or as “Preparations for use in hair” under Chapter Heading 3305. 

 

16th April 2018 : Madras HC : Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. Vs. UOI & DC Customs 

 

28th March, 2018 : Punjab & Haryana High Court  : Carpo Power Limited Vs State of Haryana & Ors  “Natural gas” purchase eligible for concessional CST rate under “C” Form even after GST - has held that  the Petitioners will continue to be eligible for concessional CST rate under "C" Forms even after the introduction of GST on all their purchases of "natural gas" from M/s BPCL & M/s IOL in Gujarat.  The Court accordingly directed the respondents' to issue `C’ Forms.