GST Migration Not Taxpayer's Burden: Delhi HC Directs CESTAT To Hear Appeal After Pre-Deposit Was Made Under Excise Head Due To Portal Failure

The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a writ petition ...

GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised...

Appeal On Taxability Including Point Of Limitation Doesn't Lie Before HC U/S 35G Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that such an appeal, even on a limited point of limitation, will not lie before the High Court under Section 35G. It observed,“Even if the question of limitation has been raised, the Court has to go into the merits of the matter after a...

Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit. The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules. In this case, the adjudicating...

Vos Technologies Judgment On Time Bound Adjudication Of SCNs Applicable To Recovery Proceedings U/S 11A Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus held that the High Court's judgment in M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) is...

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT,...

Show Cause Notice U/s 37C Of Central Excise Act Issued At Wrong Address Cannot Be Proceeded: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently held that the recourse to Sub-Clauses (b) & (c) of Clause 37C (1) of the Central Excise Act, is not permitted if the show cause notice was not sent at the proper address of the registered taxpayer.The High Court also clarified that Sub-Clause (b) and Sub-Clause (c) of Section 37(C)(1) of the Act of 1944 can only be pressed into service, if the service of notice under Sub-Clause (a) cannot be affected.As per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any...

Direction For Payment Of Mandatory Pre-deposit Doesn't Constitute 'Order' Within Meaning Of Sec 35G of Central Excise Act: Calcutta High Court

Taking note of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, the Calcutta High Court clarified that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from “every order” passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, though the maintainability thereof would be dependent on certain statutory limitations. As per Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order...

Gauhati High Court Directs Assistant Commissioner To Release Amount Of Interest On Delayed Excise Duty Refund To GAIL

The Gauhati High Court has directed that assistant commissioner to release the amount of interest on delayed excise duty refund to GAIL India.The bench of Justice Devashis Baruah has observed that the Division Bench writ petition, while disposing of the writ petition, held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not exclude a claim of refund made in terms of the notification dated 08.07.1999. The Division Bench observed and directed that the petitioners would be entitled to interest...

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.Section 33A of the Central Excise Act provides that opportunity of hearing be given to a party in a proceeding under the Act, if desired by them. Further, it lays down the procedure for granting adjournment in adjudication proceedings to either of the parties on the condition that a...

[United Provinces Excise Act 1910] Cancellation Of License Can't Be Due To Suspicion, Must Be Based On Cogent Material: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cancellation of license under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 cannot be based on suspicion. The Court held that without there being any cogent material or evidence such harsh penalty of cancellation of license must not be invoked.Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 provides for cancellation of any license granted under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue or...

[Central Excise Act] Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 35F For Filing Appeal Before CESTAT Can't Be Waived In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for filing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be waived under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Alternatively, petitioner prayed for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central...