Assessee Entitled To Cash Refund Of Cenvat Credit On Amount Of CVD And SAD Paid After 01.07.2017: CESTAT

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the assessee is entitled to a cash refund of CENVAT credit on the amount of cash of countervailing duty (CVD) and special additional duty (SAD) paid even after July 1, 2017.The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant/assessee has paid the CVD and SAD for the period prior to July 1, 2017, even though the payment was made...

Assessment Based On Best Judgement Basis , Non-Filing Of Returns After Receipt Of Order, Fatal For Assessee: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the non-filing of returns even after receipt of the assessment order is fatal for the assessee.The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that it may be true that the respondents did not issue a formal notice as required under Section 62(1) of the Income Tax Act before completing the assessment on a best judgment basis under the said provision, but the fact remains that the appellant could have obtained a...

Black Sand Not A By-Product, Just A Waste; CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clearly erred in fastening the appellant with duty liability on black sand, which was not manufactured. The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees vs. Collector of Central Excise, in which it was held that in order to constitute goods, twin tests have to be satisfied, namely, the process constituting...

Decision By Income Tax Officer Who Did Not Hear The Case; Kerala High Court Quashes The Order

The Kerala High Court has held that if the income tax officer who hears the case does not render the decision, it would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.The bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman has observed that the doctrine 'he who heard must decide or he who decides must hear' applies to statutory authorities. Section 148A of the Income Tax Act provides for the opportunity to be heard by the assessee. The petitioner/assessee has filed this writ petition challenging...

AAAR & AAR Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024

AAARNo GST Payable By Fair Price Shop Selling Kerosene Oil To Ration-Card Holders: AAARAppellant's Name: Chanchal SahaThe West Bengal Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that no GST is payable by fair-priced shops selling kerosene oil to ration-card holders.AARE-Commerce Operators Liable To Collect TCS For Providing Platform For Selling Digital Gold: AARApplicant's Name: M/S. Changejar Technologies Pvt. Ltd.The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that...

CESTAT Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024 - PART II

CESTAT Allows Refund Of Service Tax Paid On Cancelled Bookings Of FlatsCase Title: Kanakia Spaces Reality Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Cgst & Central Excise, MumbaiThe Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the refund of service tax paid on cancelled bookings of flats.Freight/Insurance Amount Is Not Includible In Assessable Value Of Goods For Charging Excise Duty: CESTATCase Title: Panama Petrochem Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.E. &...

CESTAT Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024 - PART I

Information From ITR/26AS Can't Be Sole Basis For Service Tax Demands: CESTATCase Title: M/s GopiChenna Versus Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GSTThe Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax demand was made on the basis of third-party data, i.e., amounts reflected in income tax returns and in Form 26AS, which is not sustainable.Balloons Used For Decorations Outside The Purview Of Requirement To Satisfy BIS Registration,...

Non-Filing Of GST By Supplier Can't Be The Reason For Reopening Assessment After 4 Years: ITAT

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no reopening can be done after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and wholly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The bench of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessment was already...

No Material To Prove Cheque Paid For Donation Has Been Ploughed Back By Way Of Cash: ITAT

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed deduction to the assessee as there was no material to prove that the check paid for donation has been ploughed back by way of cash.The bench of Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) has observed that the AO has not brought any material to disprove the evidence furnished by the assessee with regard to the donations it has made to the institutions. There is also no proof to show that the check...

CENVAT Credit Can Be Availed On Input Services Of Commercial And Industrial Construction: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT credit can be availed of on input services of commercial and industrial construction, fabrication and erection, manpower supply for construction, and Goods Transport Agency for construction materials, etc.The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the period of dispute is from April 2008 to March 2011, and hence, the definition of...

Deduction Can't Be Availed On Expenditure Incurred For Overseeing Project Of Holding Company: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that deductions cannot be availed on expenditures incurred for overseeing the project of holding a company.The bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty has observed that, as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the prerequisites for allowing deduction are that the expenditure should have been incurred in respect of a business carried on by the assessee and should be spent wholly and exclusively for its own business. The bench...

Breakwater-Wall For Ship-Safety Not 'Plant And Machinery', GAIL Subsidiary Not Eligible For ITC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the breakwater wall or accropode that are essential certainly do not qualify as plant and machinery. The breakwater wall can hardly be called “plant or machinery." Accropodes lose their identity when a breakwater wall is constructed using accropode.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that Explanation to Section 17 also provides that “plant and machinery” should be used for making outward supply of goods or services. The...