NOTIFICATION

ctariff16_061

Exemption from BCD withdrawn on import of Technitium-99m

CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-3138-HC-P&H-CX

CCE Vs NOVA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: December 16, 2016)

CX - Clubbing of clearances and denial of SSI exemption, duty demand on clandestine removals - Tribunal holding that there was no mutuality of interest and therefore, clearances of one unit cannot be clubbed with the clearance of other unit; that activity of the appellants were in the knowledge of the department as they were registered with the Central Excise Department and units are located in the same range, therefore, extended period of limitation is also not invokable - Revenue in appeal before High Court.

Held: As the issue involved in the present appeals is pertaining to the rate of duty with reference to exemption under notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993, the present appeals are not maintainable before the High Court - appeals dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law: High Court [para 6, 7]

Appeals dismissed

2016-TIOL-3137-HC-AHM-ST

PR CST Vs ADANI PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD : GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: December 16, 2016)

ST - Whether the CESTAT has correctly accepted the plea of the assessee that they were entitled for input /capital goods Cenvat Credit used in the construction of "Jetty" which is an immovable property and the construction of port is an exempted service?

Held: Identical questions as involved in the present appeals is at large before the Supreme Court in the appeal arising from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHM-ST - Appeals are admitted since involve substantial questions of law - Registry to notify the Appeals for final hearing after the decision of the Supreme Court: High Court [para 1, 3]

Appeals admitted

2016-TIOL-3136-HC-AHM-CUS

SHREE ROYAL POLYPLAST INDUSTRIES Vs CC : GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: December 21, 2016)

Cus - Delay of 114 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal was sought to be condoned but application was rejected - appeal to High Court.

Held: Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the Appeal since there does not appear to be any deliberate delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant in not preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation - By not preferring Appeal within the period of limitation, the appellant-assessee was not going to be benefited - order passed by Tribunal quashed, delay condoned - Tribunal to decide and dispose of appeal in accordance with law: High Court [para 4, 5]

Appeal allowed

2016-TIOL-3135-HC-MUM-CUS

AGROCORP INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: December 20, 2016)

Cus - Petitioner seeking a Writ of mandamus, order or direction directing respondents to allow the application for amendment in Import General Manifest.

Held: It is entirely for the authorities to act in terms of the powers conferred by the Act of 1962 - The authorities cannot refuse to act merely because there is an allegation of a wrongful act or there is a protest raised - There is nothing in the Act of 1962 which would enable the authorities to adjudicate any civil dispute as if it is a Court of law and it is best left to a competent civil Court - More so, when on instructions, the petitioner's counsel states that they will indemnify the authorities against all claims which are raised by any party and particularly relating to the title to the goods in question - request cannot be kept in abeyance - authority concerned to consider the application for amendment or substitution to the Import General Manifest, provided, the petitioner executes an indemnity bond in favour of the authorities indemnifying them of the claims and protests raised by the private parties regarding the goods in question - Upon such an indemnity being executed and furnished, necessary orders be passed as expeditiously as possible and within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such indemnity - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]

Petition disposed of