2016-TIOL-70-HC-MUM-ST
JETKING INFOTRAIN LTD Vs CST: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: January 4, 2016)
ST - Demand confirmed by adjudicating authority along with interest and penalty u/ss 76 & 77 of FA, 1994 but penalty u/s 78 dropped - In Revenue appeal, Commissioner (A) imposed penalty u/s 78 of FA, 1994 - appeals filed - Though it is stated that two Appeals were taken up together, the Tribunal does not indicate as to whether the Counsel appearing for the Assessee addressed on merits of the demand of Service Tax - clarification sought from Tribunal. Held: Tribunal has not applied its mind to the query raised - Rather, it has indulged in guesswork - Once the Tribunal now clarifies that it has dismissed the Assessee's Appeal on merits but the initial order is not indicating anything to that effect, Court is left with no alternative but to entertain the Appeal - Court is not satisfied with the approach of the Tribunal - In revenue matters, the approach as taken would not only entail in loss of revenue but precious judicial time and of the higher Court which the Tribunal ought to avoid in all circumstances - Order quashed and appeals restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in the matter: High Court [para 4, 5]
Matter remanded
2016-TIOL-69-HC-DEL-CUS
BIMLA INDUSTRIES Vs CCE: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: January 6, 2016)
Cus - Petition seeks mandamus for fixing the brand rate of drawback and also for release the amount of drawback so calculated. Held - Once it is the averment in the petition itself that M/s Bimla Industries has as far back as on 1st July, 2004 merged with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. and thereby ceased to exist, petition cannot, therefore, be filed in the name of M/s Bimla Industries and Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal cannot act as proprietor thereof - it is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of merger any such rights were vested in or remained in Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal - From the averment of merger, it has to be assumed that Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal settled all his claims as proprietor of M/s Bimla Industries with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. and thus Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal today is not entitled to receive any claims even if outstanding in the name of M/s Bimla Industries and the claim therefor would be of M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. only - it is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of merger any such rights were vested in or remained in Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal - Petitioner also has allowed the claim to become stale and though letters are stated to have been written but it is a settled principle of law that merely writing letters does not extend the period of limitation - Though no limitation is provided for preferring the writ petition but it is the settled principle that due regard has to be had to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 in this regard - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 11, 13, 14]
Petition dismissed
2016-TIOL-68-HC-DEL-CUS
T T LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: January 7, 2016)
Cus - FTP 2009-14 - Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme - Petitioner is in the business of trading in textiles both in domestic and international markets - Director General of Foreign Trade has issued Duty Credit Scrips for Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.1crore only as against the petitioner's claims of Rs.90,42,165/- and Rs.4,59,94,671/- - Petitioner seeking a declaration that the Notifications Nos. 43 and 44 dated 25.09.2013 are unconstitutional and also seeking a direction to the respondents to issue Certificate Credit Entitlement for the amounts claimed by the petitioner. Held: Amendments vide Notifications No.43 and 44 dated 25.09.2013 are only clarificatory and in no way affect the rights accrued to the petitioner to claim the benefit of Duty Credit - law is well settled that grant of concession or incentive being the privilege of the Government, the Government has a right to give retrospective operation or even to withdraw the same for justifiable reasons and in public interest - there is no substance in the contention that the amendment to paragraph 3.14.4 and 3.14.5 of FTP 2009-14 vide Notifications No.43 and 44 dated 25.09.2013 are unconstitutional - however, the petitioner's claims ought not to have been rejected without assigning any reasons as Clause (ii) requires the Regional Authority to pass a reasoned order on application of mind to the contents of the applications which fall under the said clause - Respondent No.2 DGFT to ensure that a speaking order is passed: High Court [para 16, 17, 18]
Petitions disposed of
