CESTAT held that Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
HC quashed the cancellation of GST registration order as no opportunity of hearing was accorded. Further, said that the denial of opportunity of hearing to the assessee as is mandated in the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) vitiates the proceedings as well as the orders cancelling the registration.
SC issued directives for the adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for Tribunals. Further, directed the extension of Legal Information Management & Briefing System (LIMBS) with the IT Systems to CESTAT, ITAT and other Tribunals.
CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty. Further, held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC.
CESTAT held that the adjustment of the tax demand from the unutilized cenvat credit lying as on June 30, 2017 can be carried forward to the GST regime by the Assessee.
Madras High Court held that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities.
CESTAT held that in a case where the assessee is a manufacturer of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods and it is impractical to maintain separate accounts of common inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods the only practical way of maintaining accounts is by corresponding credit and debit entries, reversing proportionate amount of cenvat credit.
Bombay High Court held that for an assessment to be reopened beyond a period of four years there must an omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and should not merely be the change of opinion of Assessing Officer (AO).
