Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Centaxonline's Tax Gazette – Where Complexity Meets Clarity.
Today, we draw the definitive line between being informed and uninformed, empowering you with the latest and most essential tax insights.
Statutory Scope
Applicability of ADD on import of cast aluminum alloy wheels from China extended for 5 years
CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The Finance Ministry of India has issued a notification providing the continuation of anti-dumping duties on imports of cast aluminum alloy wheels from China. The duty has been levied for a period of five years unless specifically revoked earlier. This measure aims to protect Indian manufacturers from unfair pricing and competition.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO 07/2024
Date of Statute: 15-05-2024
Updation of tariff value for import of specified products such as crude palm oil, gold, silver etc
CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The Ministry of Finance issued a notification updating tariff values for import of certain goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The notification updates the tariff value of the products such as crude palm oil, soya bean oil, brass scrap, gold, silver, and areca nuts. These changes come into effect on 16th May 2024.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO 35/2024
Date of Statute: 15-05-2024
Exemption from special additional excise duty on petroleum crude above Rs 5700 per tonne
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The Government has provided an exemption from special additional excise duty above Rs. 5700 per tonne on the petroleum crude. This exemption is applicable w.e.f. 16 May 2024. Earlier, such exemption was applicable for a rate above Rs. 12100 per tonne.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO 14/2024
Date of Statute: 15-05-2024
Case Chronicles
HC quashes demand as income from shares is not taxable under GST, citing non-taxability as per CBIC Circular
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Income from shares was not taxable and as such, demand could not be sustained in eye of law and same was quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Samarth Commodities Merchants (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, GST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 281 (Ori.)
HC held that GST reimbursement is available in view of the terms of contract even if it was commenced before GST
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Only because NITs were floated on different dates or letter of awards, or agreements were executed pre-GST regime, benefit of GST reimbursement on indirect transactions could not be denied to assessee firms.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 282 (Jhar.)
Recovery proceedings couldn’t be initiated before expiry of 3 months from date of service of order: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where pursuant to assessment order, amount of tax was debited from Electronic ledger of assessee before expiry of three months i.e. statutory period for filing appeal, by invoking section 78, since authority had failed to explain recourse of section 78, amount debited was to be refunded to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Cargotec India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 262 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter as appeal was rejected on ground that pre-deposit wasn’t made at time of filing appeal
GST ?|? CASE LAW
EXCISE/ST/VAT: Once pre-deposit had been made and same was already accepted, appeal of assessee could not have been rejected on ground of non-payment of pre-deposit at time of filing appeal.
Key Details: Case Name: Sumat Gupta & Co. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 267 (P&H.)
HC quashed order rejecting appeal since assessee had already paid tax which was in excess to pre-deposit amount
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Assessee had already paid tax which was in excess to demand amount therefore, order passed by Joint Commissioner rejecting appeal filed by assessee against demand was quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Trilok Industries vs. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 260 (Ori.)
Matter to be remanded since all issues had not been duly considered in order passed by AO: Madras HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where revenue failed to record any reasons for rejecting contentions of assesses against issues related to short payment of GST, mismatch in Returns and non-payment of GST on turnover from export servicesand since all said issues had not been duly considered in order issued by revenue, it was just and necessary that revenue reconsiders matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to assessee, therefore said order was to be set aside and matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Resulticks Digitals India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 257 (Mad.)
No penalty on CHA if he had no knowledge about attempt to export contraband items: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Customs House Agent (CHA) was not liable to penalty where investigation did not bring out their knowledge about attempt to export contraband items; CHA's G card holder was not liable to penalty where other than accepting documents and cartons, no positive act was established against him and he had no knowledge of contraband concealed in cartons.
Key Details:
Case Name: G. Seenivasan vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Aircargo)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 248 (Tri.-Mad)
Penalty rightly imposed on CHA who allowed misuse of his license resulting in filing of shipping bills: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where Customs House Agent (CHA) had blamed his ex-employee for misusing his signature/office seal, but no supporting document was filed in that regard, CHA had not discharged initial burden and was liable to penalty, especially as their license was suspended on earlier two occasions which should have acted as deterrent to prevented its further misuse.
Key Details:
Case Name: V. Thiruvalagan vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 252 (Tri.-Mad)
Penalty should not be imposed merely because importer’s classification of goods is different from that of officer: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: “Liable to†in Sections 111 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 means “likely to be†and not “shall beâ€; adjudicating authority, after finding that goods are liable to confiscation, can exercise discretion not to confiscate goods if violation was technical or minor, and person may be found to be liable to penalty and penalty not imposed; discretion to impose or reduce or enhance penalty has to be exercised responsibly and judicially.
Key Details:
Case Name: Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. N and N Traders
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 274 (Tri.-Del)
No recovery of interest paid on delayed refund of CENVAT credit if same was sanctioned by HC: Delhi HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Assessee having been refunded said amount after assessee found eligible by Tribunal for refund and further by this Court towards interest for delayed refund of CENVAT Credit, there is no ground to demand the same from the petitioner.
Key Details:
Case Name: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South Commissionerate
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 247 (Del.)
No service tax demand to be raised by merely relying upon balance sheet without any corroborative evidence: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Assessee liable to pay tax only on amount received, as income reflected in balance sheet was for income tax purposes and cannot be used for purpose of service tax without any corroboratory evidence.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.M. Manpower & Security Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 249 (Tri.-All)
Goods obtained by breaking up of old & used ships/vessels can’t be classified as scrap without verification: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Since classification of batteries obtained by breaking up of old and used ships/vessels done without appreciating nature and characteristics of batteries in question, matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Key Details:
Case Name: Triveni Shipbreakers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 250 (Tri.-Ahmd)
No service tax on corporate guarantee issued to group companies without any consideration: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Corporate guarantee given for subsidiary company without consideration is not liable to service tax.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Mumbai East
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 251 (Tri.-Bom)
Writ petition can’t be filed against mere issuance of SCN unless it is a nullity and issued without jurisdiction: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Summons though issued by Sr. Intelligence Officer, DGCEI, show cause notice makes it abundantly clear that assessee is required to show cause to Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax 1, Commissionerate, Bengaluru which is Competent Authority to determine service tax liability of assessee; Impugned order affirmed insofar as jurisdiction is concerned.
Key Details:
Case Name: Xylem Resources Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Director Directorate General of Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 254 (Kar.)
Corporate guarantee executed for securing loans is not liable to service tax under ‘business support services’: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Execution of corporate guarantee by assessee being merely an act of providing an instrument for securing loans and not even fundamentally connected to services described under "business support services", commission received on such corporate guarantee not eligible for taxation under section 65 (104c) of 1994 Act.
Key Details:
Case Name: Essar Power Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-I
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 273 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Activity of allowing sponsors to display their name on boxes in stadium not taxable as sale of space for advertisement: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Amount received towards for sponsorship of boxes in pavilion of stadium of assessee engaged in conducting cricket matches allotted to it by BCCI not taxable for period 1-10-2007 to 20-09-2008 under 'sale of space for advertisements'.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tamilnadu Cricket Association vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 278 (Tri.-Mad)
As we conclude this issue of Tax Gazette, we hope you've gained clarity and insights on the critical legal and tax matters that shape our world. Remember, with Centaxonline. You're not just informed. You're insightfully empowered.
Centaxonline.com provides authentic, reliable resources related to Foreign Trade Policy. Join the Centaxonline.com network and leverage our resources and tools to empower your practice and research.
???????? ??????????????????
? Access Essentials – Your Gateway to FTP, Handbook of Procedures, Aayat Niryat Forms, and more
? Stay Updated with the Latest in Circulars, Notifications, etc.
? Research Powerhouse of over 6,000 Case Laws
? Precision Tools to Help You Filter with 15 Parameters for Targeted Results
? Expert Summaries – Concise Insights with Single and Three-line Summaries & Professionally Drafted Head Notes
? Trustworthy Content that is Current and Authoritative
? Ever-Growing Library that Features Continuously Updated Statutory Content and Extensive Case Law Database
???????????????? ????????????????
? Expert Articles for Insights from Industry Leaders
? Ease of Use
? Search Excellence – Find What You Need with an Advanced Search Engine
? Newsletter Customisation – Stay Informed Your Way with a Customisable Newsletter
Join the Centaxonline.com Network! https://centax.one/p8NA
?????????? ????????????????????????.??????:
Established in the early seventies by the late Shri R.K. Jain, Centax Law Publications has steadfastly committed to providing publications and software of exceptional credibility and authenticity. Recognised and respected by Courts, Tribunals, and Tax Professionals, our offerings have consistently maintained a distinguished presence in the industry.