2016-TIOL-05-SC-NDPS
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs YUSUF @ ASIF: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 18, 2016)
NDPS - Conviction quashed by High Court - High Court order set aside and matter remanded to High Court. High Court has acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has not proved that the seized articles were in fact sent for chemical analysis due to the discrepancy in Seal number. It is trite law that while reversing the Judgment the reasons given by the trial court ought to have been taken into consideration along with the entire evidence in that regard. Same has not been done by the High Court. As such without commenting on the merits of the case, the judgment and order of the High Court held to be unsustainable. Same is quashed and case remitted to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law duly considering the reasoning employed by the trial court and the entire evidence.
2016-TIOL-112-HC-AHM-ST
RAVAL TRADING COMPANY Vs CST: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: January 7, 2016)
Service Tax – Penalty - Whether simultaneous penalty under Section 76 and 78 can be imposed for the period prior to the amendment of Section 78 with effect from 16.05.2008.
Appeal disposed of
2016-TIOL-111-HC-AHM-ST
CCE Vs DASHION LTD: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: January 8, 2016)
Service Tax – CEVNAT Credit - Input Service Distribution – Revenue in appeal against the order of Tribunal allowing the credit – Contention that credit has to be distributed on pro rata basis among various unit of the assessee and also the office has not obtained registration as Input Service Distributor.
Appeals dismissed
2016-TIOL-110-HC-DEL-CUS
LIFELONG INDIA PVT LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated : January 12, 2016)
Cus - Petitioner importing raw materials at ‘Nil' rate of Customs duty and ‘Nil' rate of Additional duty under four Advance Authorisation licences - for failure to fulfil the export obligations Customs Department demanding a sum equivalent to the bank guarantee amount as Customs Duty/Additional Duty of Customs together with interest - subsequent to Adjudication Order dated 31st March 2014, Petitioner received the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) issued by the DGFT on 30th October, 2014 and 30th March, 2015 respectively - Petitioner seeking setting aside of the order of Adjudicating Authority with a direction to to take these facts into account and decide the issue afresh. Held: Matter remanded for a decision afresh - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7 to 9]
Matter remanded
2016-TIOL-215-CESTAT-MAD
TOP VICTORY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD Vs CC: CHENNAI CESTAT (Dated: December 10, 2015)
Cus - Whether assessment of imported monitors LCD/LED is under Section 3(2) (b) r/w Section 4A of CEA, 1944 under MRP basis or under normal transaction value for purpose of CVD - Assessee imports LCD/LED Monitors and Television sets of various sizes falling under CTH 85285100 of CTA, 1975 and claimed full exemption from BCD under Notfn 24/2004-Cus and indicated MRP/RSP on packages - Bill of Entries were assessed for CVD @ 12% on MRP based assessment claiming 35% abatement in terms of Section 3(2) of CTA r/w Section 4A, and notfn issued there under - They have been regularly importing said items prior to 2003 and clearing goods on payment of CVD as per transaction value - From 24.12.2008 to 10.05.2012, department continued assessment and same was accepted under MRP and CVD was paid and the goods were cleared without any dispute on MRP assessment - Customs raised the objection on MRP assessment only from 10.05.2012, when abatement percentage was increased from 20% to 35% on said goods - Held: Once the goods are covered under LMA, as a packaged commodity, they are required to be cleared on retail sale price on packages as per provisions of Section 4A, assessment shall be on MRP basis - Monitors with brand name meant for sale to brand owners are eligible for assessment under Section 3 (2) (b) of Customs Act r/w Section 4A and notfn issued there under MRP/RSP based assessment and eligible for abatement as per notfn - Accordingly, impugned orders demanding differential duty is liable to be set aside: CESTAT
Appeals allowed
