SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

India-Ghana Joint Trade Committee meeting held in AccraGhana agrees to activate UPI links in 6 monthsGST - Record does not reflect that any opportunity was given to petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details - In such scenario, proper officer could not have formed an opinion - Matter remitted: HCED seizes about 20 kg gold from locker of a cyber scammer in HaryanaGST - Mapping of PAN number with GST number - No fault of petitioner - Respondent authorities directed to activate GST number within two weeks: HCGST - Circular 183/2022 - Petitioner to prove his case that he had received the supply and paid the tax to the supplier/dealer - Matter remitted: HCGST -Petitioner to produce all documents as required under summons -Petitioner to be heard by respondent and a decision to be taken, first on the preliminary issue raised with regard to applicability of CGST/SGST: HCGST - s.73 - Extension of time limit for issuance of order - Notifications 13/2022-CT and 09/2023-CT are not ultra vires s.168A of the Act, 2017: HCSun releases two solar storms - Earth has come in its wayRequisite Checks for Appeals - RespondentInheritance Tax row - A golden opportunity to end 32-years long Policy Paralysis on DTCThe Heat is on: Preserving Earth's Climate in the Face of Global WarmingVAT - Timeline for frefund must be followed mandatorily while recovering dues under Delhi VAT Act: SCIndia, Australia to work closely for collaborative projectsCX - All the information was available to department in 2003 itself, therefore, SCN issued four years after gathering information is not sustainable and is highly barred by limitation: HCPowerful voices of amazing women leaders resonated at UN Hqs75 International visitors from 23 countries arrive to watch world's largest elections unfoldCentre asks States to improve organ donation frequencyCus - Revenue involved in the appeal filed by Commissioner is far below the threshold monetary limit fixed by the CBEC, therefore, department cannot proceed with this appeal - Appeal stands disposed of: HCAdani Port to develop port in PhilippinesUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awarded
 
CX - ROM filed seeking consideration of case law cited - As the decision was already examined,it cannot be reconsidered : CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 03, 2017: THE CESTAT had in this case while allowing the appeal partly had held thus -

CX- CENVAT - Denial of CENVAT credit in respect of services provided to SEZ for authorized operations - Rule 6(6A) of CCR, 2004 was not introduced by way of substitution but it was a new sub-Rule inserted in the CCR, 2004 hence there are no grounds to presume that the said insertion is clarificatory in nature - in view of FA, 2012, Eighth Schedule, retrospective effect of said sub-rule is only from 10.02.2006 - no basis for extending benefit for period prior to 10.02.2006 - Appeal partly allowed, consequently penalty and interest reduced: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

While reporting this decision 2017-TIOL-3226-CESTAT-MUM we had pointed out that the dates mentioned ought to be 10.02.2006 and 28.02.2011 respectively in place of 10.02.2008 and 20.02.2011 respectively as mentioned in the order. The headnote mentions the correct date of 10.02.2006 .

Apparently, the appellant noticed the same and has made an application for rectification of mistake in the subject order dated 17.08.2017 to the extent of seeking a correction of the date mentioned in the order as 10.02.2008 . The latter date viz. 20.02.2011 , in any case, did not make any impact to their case, so nothing is claimed in this regard.

Along with the above, the appellant states that the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products - 2011-TIOL-1173-CESTAT-BANG  &  2013-TIOL-1128-HC-AP-ST has not been correctly appreciated in the Tribunal's order.

The Single Member Bench extracted the amendment brought in Rule 6(6)(A) of the CCR by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2012 and agreed that the date ought to be 10.02.2006.

So, the Bench held -

"In view of above, in para 6 and 7 of the Tribunal's order is corrected and the date "10.02.2008" is replaced by 10.02.2006" wherever it appears."

As regards the second plea of the appellant that the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products had not been considered in proper perspective, the CESTAT observed that the decision was examined in para 5 of the impugned order and moreover in Rectification of Mistake jurisdiction, the said matter cannot be considered by the Tribunal. The said claim was dismissed.

The Rectification of Mistake application was partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-4256-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST