2016-TIOL-1502-HC-DEL-CUS + Story
MS Shoes East Ltd Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 20, 2016)
Cus – On the basis of "draft" order signed by adjudicating authority, certified copies of final orders cannot be issued – It's high time department ceases such a practice - An AA who makes corrections to a draft order is statutorily obliged to ensure that he or she signs the final order and it is only thereafter that any other officer attest a copy of the said order to be the true copy of the original order - draft order dated 20th August 2002 has no legal status and cannot be held to be a valid order disposing of the Petitioner's revision application – revision application has to be treated as still pending adjudication and disposal - Since nearly 14 years have elapsed, incumbent Joint Secretary to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard prior to passing a fresh order, within a period of eight weeks – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 14]
Petition disposed of
2016-TIOL-1501-HC-DEL-CUS
Nanki Fashions Vs CC: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 20, 2016)
Cus – Refund - Petitioner had deposited Rs.10 lakhs when the appeal was pending a decision in the CESTAT – Petitioner succeeding before CESTAT which delivered an order in their favour on 08.03.2016 and thereafter requesting department on 21.04.2016 and 20.05.2016 to refund the amount – however, since refund not given, petition filed.
Held: Respondent is directed to decide the applications/representations made by the Petitioner within four weeks - It is made clear that the refund should be given together with any interest that is due, in accordance with law – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4]
Petition disposed of
016-TIOL-1500-HC-DEL-CUS
Asia Huayu Metal Wire Mesh Products (P) Ltd Vs Principal CC: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 13, 2016)
Cus – Foreign supplier offered the petitioner two consignments of wire mesh, which had been imported by two different parties, who had abandoned the goods and had not taken the delivery - foreign supplier on 30th November 2015 supplied to the petitioner the invoice, the packing list and the bill of lading - A no-objection was issued by the previous consignee, however, when the petitioner requested the Dy. Commr (Import) for amendment in the bill of lading they learnt that an alert had been issued by the DRI - letter of Customs advised CONCOR to put on hold the two containers till further orders and that the containers should not be released without NOC from the Deputy Director DRI DZU, New Delhi – petition, therefore, filed before High Court.
Held: A difficulty has arisen as a result of DRI not categorically communicating to the Customs that it has lifted the alert issued in respect of the two containers - Without the lifting of the alert, it is not going to be possible for the Customs to proceed with the assessment - Likewise, even as regards CONCOR, unless the 'hold notices' issued by the DRI in respect of the containers are withdrawn, the physical inspection and thereafter the removal of the goods is not possible - demurrage charges have been mounting, and for no fault of the Petitioner, it is unable to proceed with the assessment of the goods by the Customs and the ultimate clearance of the goods; therefore request of Counsel for Revenue for more time for seeking specific instructions is unreasonable - Court proceeds on the basis that the letter written by the DRI on 4th January 2016 to the Customs requesting the Customs to go ahead with the assessment subject to the requests made by the DRI in para 5 of the letter, should be taken as the DRI lifting the alert in respect of the said two containers – Writ Petition disposed of by issuing directions: High Court [para 10, 11]
Petition disposed of
2016-TIOL-1499-HC-ALL-CX
CCE Vs L G Electronics (India) Pvt Ltd: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: July 20, 2016)
CX - CENVAT - whether GTA outward service is an 'input service' - sales of finished goods are on FOR destination basis and transport and transit insurance is arranged by assessee - cost of transportation on FOR basis is integral part of price charged from customer and risk of damage to the goods or loss of goods during transit is of assessee - Tribunal opined that if this claim of assessee is correct, then the GTA outward service may be covered by definition of ‘input service' and thereafter remanded the matter - Revenue in appeal before High Court. Held: It would not be appropriate to answer the substantial question of law formulated and instead let the matter be decided by competent authority as per remand order passed by Tribunal after recording factual findings - question left open - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
Appeal disposed of
