CASE LAWS
2016-TIOL-2937-HC-DEL-CUS
LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: November 30, 2016)
Cus - Petitioner had imported mobile handsets including cellular phones and according to it had made excess payments under protest and complied with condition no. 16 of Notification No. 12/2012-Ex. - Petitioner claiming refund of additional customs duty made on import - adjudicating authority held that the petitioner could not establish its entitlement to CENVAT credit and, therefore, was ineligible for the refund - as Commissioner(A) too rejected the refund claim, petitioner before High Court. Held: Words 'if produced or manufactured in India' do not mean that the like article should be actually produced or manufactured in India - For the purpose of attracting additional duty u/s 3 on the import of a manufactured or produced article the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary - For quantification of additional duty in such a case, it has to be imagined that the article imported had been manufactured or produced in India and then to see what amount of excise duty was leviable thereon - exemption from CVD is on the condition that Cenvat Credit not taken - when the credit under the CENVAT Rules is not admissible to the appellant, question of fulfilling the aforesaid condition does not arise - appellant is entitled to exemption - in view of the above law declared in SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs = 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS , the petitioner's claim has to succeed - respondents to process the refund application and pass appropriate orders within two weeks - Writ petition allowed: High Court [para 4 to 6]
Petition allowed
2016-TIOL-2936-HC-KOL-CUS
HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD Vs JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (Dated: November 29, 2016)
Cus - Notification bearing No.43/2002-CUS., dated April 19, 2002, corrected by the Corrigendum dated November 29, 2002 & Notification No.93/2004-CUS., dated September 10, 2004 and the Corrigendum Notification No.605/50/2005-DBK - Corrigendum is issued for the correction of the original Notification and it relates back to the date of the Notification corrected - It ceases to be a correction if it is effective from the date of issuance and that, it becomes an amendment of the original Notification - Department cannot be allowed to take a stand contrary to that taken in respect of the same Corrigenda so far as other assessees are concerned – Impugned revisional order proceeding on the basis that the corrigenda are prospective in nature is quashed and authorities are directed to consider application of rebate made on behalf of the petitioner in view of the judgments in the cited cases – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6 to 10]
Petition disposed of
2016-TIOL-2935-HC-MUM-CUS
PR CC Vs INTERPORT IMPEX PVT LTD: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: November 25, 2016)
Cus - CHA - Tribunal came to the conclusion that though on merits the order of the disciplinary authority can be upheld, still insofar as the quantum of punishment goes, instead of permanently removing the CHA from the register, his licence would stand revoked up to 31st December, 2015 and he can operate as a CHA thereafter - Revenue in appeal before High Court. Held: Tribunal held that the appellant cannot be disabled permanently for the violations as that would deprive him of his source of livelihood as well as deprive his employees of their source of livelihood and it would meet the ends of justice if the License is revoked for limited period - In the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court does not find the Tribunal's discretion to be exercised either arbitrarily or capriciously; impugned order cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record either - there are no substantial questions of law arising from the impugned order - appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed - Notice of Motion does not survive and stands disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12]
Appeal dismissed
