2016-TIOL-274-HC-MUM-CUS
Atul Chamanlal Mehta Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 9, 2016)
Cus - In matters of import of consignments/goods attracting the customs duty and liability to pay the same, the release of such goods for home consumption are all matters within the purview of the customs and once they take the precautionary measures and satisfy themselves about the compliances under the Customs Act and Rules framed thereunder, then, the consignments deserve to be released - Merely because they are released on passing on an assessment order does not mean that the powers under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 cannot be exercised by the State Excise - That is a distinct matter and covered by distinct enactment – No justification for insistence on intervention by the State Excise to the effect that the Customs should not to release the goods unless the State Excise license or No Objection Certificate is produced – Revenue counsel assures that the requisite orders would be passed and duly communicated within a period of one week - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]
Petitions disposed of
2016-TIOL-273-HC-MAD-CX
Vishnu Paper Products Pvt Ltd Vs CESTAT: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: January 28, 2016)
CX - Original authority confirming demand of Rs.16,82,086/- on the ground that assessee had availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on capital goods as well as claimed depreciation of the said amount under Income Tax law - Commissioner (A) observing that the assessee had filed revised IT returns for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and the original return for 2002-2003 reversing their claim of depreciation under the IT Act, 1961 and, therefore, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority while at the same time denying credit of Rs.1,97,241 and penalty of Rs.98,620/- where simultaneous cenvat credit and depreciation was claimed - Revenue went in appeal before CESTAT on the ground that there was no such necessity of remand - Tribunal observing that the order was passed by Commissioner (A) without any discussion and that in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court, made in Suprajit Engineering Ltd. [ 2010-TIOL-272-HC-KAR-CX ], when an assessee had claimed depreciation and had also availed Modvat Credit, it would not be eligible to avail credit, thus upholding the order of the original authority - assessee in appeal before the High Court.
Held: Tribunal had decided the matter, exparte - although the order of the Tribunal had been passed, on merits, Court is of the considered view that a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant assessee to put forth its contentions before the Tribunal - Order set aside and matter remitted to the Tribunal for passing appropriate order, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after permitting the appellant assessee as well as the respondent department to raise all the grounds available to them - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 2.4, 4]
Appeal disposed of
2016-TIOL-272-HC-P&H-CX
Ruchi Infotek Systems Vs UoI: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: February 10, 2016)
CX - In the matter of SCN dt. 28.01.2011 calling upon petitioner to show-cause in respect of the alleged fraudulent availment of refund of duty amount of Rs.14,27,88,976/-, request made by petitioner for cross examination disposed of by order dated 28.01.2016 observing that the request for cross-examination "is too big and too vague and hence cannot be acceded to" - Petition filed.
Held: It is difficult to assume that the Competent Authority has outrightly rejected the petitioner's request to cross-examine the witnesses - What it appears is that the Authority is yet to form a definite opinion in respect of the statement(s) to be relied upon by it and there is no reason to doubt that as and when such an opinion is formed, the Competent Authority is fully aware of the law and procedure including the principles of natural justice, to be observed by it before passing a valid order - Writ Petition disposed: High Court [para 6, 7]
disposed of
