CASE LAWS
2016-TIOL-1568-HC-DEL-CX + Story
SML ISUZU LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 22, 2016)
CX - It is now well settled that the legislature can enact laws to operate retrospectively and enforce an earlier invalid legislation - Rule 57F(4A) of CER, 1944 which provided for elapsing of credit was a limb of rationalization of CE duty structure and provide flexibility in the use of credit by lapsing the accumulated credit which was admittedly a product of the earlier duty structure - making of Rule 57F(4A) was not irrational or unreasonable so as to fall foul of the Constitution of India – Petitions dismissed: High Court [para 22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46]
Petitions dismissed
2016-TIOL-1567-HC-AHM-CX
DIC FINE CHEMICALS PVT LTD Vs UoI: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: July 1, 2016)
Central Excise - SEZ unit refund claims - Competent authority - Absent special mechanism to consider refund claims under the provisions of the SEZ Act, held the authority under the Customs Act/Central Excise Act has to consider refund claims - SEZ unit in question is located within the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bharuch Division - Said authority declined to consider refund claim for want of jurisdiction is unsustainable - Assistant Commissioner directed to examine the refund claim and determine petitioner's entitlement on merit. (Para 9, 10)
Writ allowed
2016-TIOL-1566-HC-MAD-CX
SULZER FRICTION SYSTEMS INDIA LTD Vs PR CCE: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: June 30, 2016)
Central Excise - Operation of Order of CESTAT with reference to the issue in question for earlier period granting waiver of the total demand and stayed recovery proceedings was neither challenged by the Revenue nor reversed /modified / stayed – Writ Petition seeking directions to keep the issue in callbook for subsequent period - Held: The Court would not issue mandamus to the first respondent, forbearing him from performing their statutory duties – However, to strike a balance, demand for subsequent period though allowed to be raised but department precluded from enforcing the same till disposal of pending appeals – Writ petition disposed of. (Para 4, 5)
Writ allowed
2016-TIOL-1565-HC-KERALA-ST
BIJU DANIEL Vs CCE: KERALA HIGH COURT (Dated: July 5, 2016)
Service Tax - Short payment - Simultaneous penalties under sections 76 and 78 not permissible - Appeal preferred though barred by limitation, material on record indicated that petitioner's entitlement for exemptions rejected in gross violation of natural justice principles - Petitioner thus is entitled for a fresh opportunity to defend the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice issued against him - Authority directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for a hearing and by providing an opportunity to file additional documents. (Para 4-6)
Writ allowed
2016-TIOL-1564-HC-AHM-ST
EXPRESS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT LTD Vs CCE & C: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: June 22, 2016)
Service Tax - Rent a Cab service - Legislation makes no distinction between “renting" and “hiring" for the purpose of levy of service tax - Rent-a-Cab Scheme operator therefore is liable to pay service tax - CESTAT reading the terms 'rent' and 'hire' as interchangeable, justified - No interference warranted - Appeal hence is dismissed. (Para 6)
Assessee appeal dismissed
2016-TIOL-1563-HC-AHM-ST
QUIPPO ENERGY LTD Vs UoI: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: July 13, 2016)
Writ - Maintainability - Efficacious alternate appeal remedy - Writ challenging confirmation of service tax demand by Commissioner on ‘supply of tangible goods service' without preferring statutory appeal remedy before CESTAT, dismissed.
Merely because the petitioner argues that not service tax but value added tax would be leviable since the title in the property does not pass on to the lessee would not be a ground to hold that the tax authorities cannot examine and entertain such a contention thus rendering them wholly without jurisdiction. The competent authority, in the impugned order, has observed that the petitioner has voluntarily paid value added tax which would not automatically mean that service tax, if otherwise payable, cannot be recovered. Whether the petitioner has paid such tax voluntarily or upon coercion of the department are the issues which can be gone into in statutory appeals, if so filed. Writ petition thus is not entertained leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy. (Para 8, 9)
Writ dismissed
2016-TIOL-1562-HC-MAD-CUS
SEA CORAL CLEARING AND FORWARDING Vs CC: MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: July 13, 2016)
Customs - Customs Broker Licence - Suspension - Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, Regulation 19 - Mere failure to quote regulation or quoting wrong regulation does not curtail the statutory power conferred on Commissioner to order suspension of Customs House Agent (CHA) license on receipt of offence report - Typographical error in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner instead of mentioning Regulation Nos.19 & 20, it has been mentioned as Regulation Nos.20 & 22 - Inconsequential.
Writ dismissed
