2016-TIOL-1412-HC-AHM-ST
Oswal Prints Pvt Ltd Vs UoI: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: June 17, 2016)
Service tax - Appellate jurisdiction -OIO passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax contested on the ground that the adjudicating authority has not considered the submissions that the permission to cross-examine the witnesses was not granted and in any case, the petitioner had no liability to pay the service tax.
SCA disposed of
2016-TIOL-1411-HC-MAD-CX
Karan Traders Vs JCCE: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: June 16, 2016)
Central Excise - Cross examination - Duty demands confirmed on the basis of valuation in terms of statements of individuals (job workers) recorded during proceedings - Appellant sought cross examination of individuals prior to adjudication, but was denied the same - In the first round of litigation, Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to original authority with clear directions to allow cross examination of witnesses, which was again not complied with in the de novo order, the same is impugned herein.
Matter remanded
2016-TIOL-1410-HC-KAR-CX
CCE Vs Lotus Power Gears Pvt Ltd: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (Dated: June 10, 2016)
Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – Dispute raised by Revenue in the instant case is whether the amendment to Rule 6(6) by Notification No.50/2008-CE dated 31.12.2008 pertaining to obligation of manufacturer using credit availed goods for SEZ clearances, is clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective.
Appeal dismissed
2016-TIOL-1409-HC-AHM-CUS
Om Vir Singh Vs UoI: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: May 3, 2016)
FTP - EPCG - Petitioners are Directors of the firm granted EPGC license for importation of high speed circular knitting machine, with the condition that the company shall earn foreign exchange towards its export obligation within the period of five years - Four machines were imported at concessional rate of duty, but the export obligation could not be met due to various reasons - DGFT initiated proceedings under Section 8(1)(a) (b) of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act; adjudicated recovery of interest and penalty;same upheld by first appellate authority, and agitated herein
WP Allowed
2016-TIOL-1408-HC-MAD-CUS
Meenakshi Impex Vs CC: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: June 20, 2016)
Customs & Central Excise – Service of SCN –instant writ petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the second respondent by which the drawback filed was set aside and the petitioner was directed to effect payment along with applicable interest - The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that it has been passed without issuing a show-cause notice.
WP Allowed
2016-TIOL-1407-HC-MAD-CUS
Srinithi Corporates Vs CC: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: June 10, 2016)
Customs - Release of goods - the petitioner filed BE for clearance of a remote control for Home Theatre, Home Automation etc. - The Original Authority raised a query with regard to the classification of the items, directing them to submit the Equipment Type Approval from the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination Wing of the Ministry of Tele-Communications, Government of India, in respect of one of the items viz. Crestron MTX-3 Panel System - Subsequently, the Original Authority held that there is a contravention of prohibition imposed under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933; confiscated the said item under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, without giving the option for redemption; and imposed a penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Commissioner (Appeals), took into consideration the facts pleaded and allowed their Appeal, holding that the product viz. Crestron MTX-3 Panel Systems does not require any clearance/licence from the wireless Planning and Co-ordination Wing of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and that it can be imported freely - Petitioner sought assessment and clearance of goods in terms of the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), which was not complied with, culminating in the instant petitions.
Held: Taking into consideration the fact that the departmental appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been presented before the CESTAT within the period of limitation and the appeal having been numbered, the respondents should be given a reasonable time to move the Petition for Stay before the CESTAT, failing which the goods should be released in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - the respondents are directed to release the goods in question by assessing the Bills of Entries in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), after a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - This time is granted to the Department to enable them to move the Petition for Stay before the CESTAT, if so advised in the interregnum - If the respondents are unable to obtain any orders of stay from the CESTAT, they shall, on expiry of the 30th day from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, assess bills of entries in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and release the goods within a period of two days therefrom. [Para 9, 10]
WPs disposed of
