FLASH

Cabinet approves transfer of about 35 ha land in Dwarka from DDT for developing Second Diplomatic Enclave

MIXED BUZZ

Customs - Cabinet okays pact between India and Uruguay

INSTRUCTION

F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC/Pt

Reduction of Government litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT regarding

DEPUTATION

Applications invited for post of Member, ARA

CASE LAWS

2017-TIOL-33-HC-MUM-ST

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT LTD Vs CST: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: December 20, 2016)

ST - Reserve price for e-auction of aircraft was fixed at 12.5 Million USD but the highest bid received was 2.65 Million USD - offer being lesser than the reserve price, it could not be accepted and the aircraft was not sold - affidavit filed by ST Commissioner praying for a fresh e-auction - SGI Commex Ltd. stated that they are still interested in acquiring the aircraft but due to reasons which were beyond its control, they could not participate in the e-auction and offer a bid for Rs.4.1 Million U. S. Dollars.

Held: Before the request of ST Commissioner is considered, authorities, who will now conduct the e-auction should submit a fresh valuation report in a sealed cover - valuation report would be an outcome of a fresh exercise - work entrusted to the existing agency, namely, M/s. CAV Aero services LLP - Matter listed on 19 January 2017: High Court [para 8, 10]

Matter listed

2017-TIOL-32-HC-DEL-CUS

VYNOVA BELGIUM NV Vs DESIGNATED AUTHORITY: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Cus - Anti-dumping duty - Petitioner companies had faced investigations for anti-dumping which culminated in final findings dated 04.04.2014 and the notification dated 13.06.2014 whereby all the four entities were treated as belonging to one group and anti-dumping duty at the rate of US$ 39.65 per MT was imposed - For the other manufacturers/importers to India, i.e. residual entities, the recommended and finally imposed rate of duty was US$ 189.99 per MT. Solvay SA, at the relevant time did not participate in the investigations which led to the final report and the notification and thus had to suffer a higher rate of anti-dumping duties for the exports to Indian markets - Petitioners had approached Court complaining that their application for apprising the Designated Authority about the name change pursuant to re-organization had been rejected.

Held: European Commission gave a green signal for the divestment of Solvay SA's shareholding in Inovyn JV entirely - As a result, having regard to the fact that the basic circumstances, i.e. market conditions under which the petitioner companies exported to India and the nature of injury caused by them has already undergone detailed investigation - Court is of the opinion that the Designated Authority should restrict its enquiry into the genuineness of the transaction whereby Solvay SA is said to have divested itself of the shareholding of the Inovyn JV resulting in restoration of status quo ante as it were on the date of rendering of submission of final report dated 04.04.2014, culminating in the notification dated 13.06.2014 - In case the authority concludes that Solvay SA has no shareholding any longer in the joint venture company which owned 50% or any such significant percentage of shareholding in the petitioner companies, it should proceed to grant the request for change of name in the notification and recommend to that effect to the Central government so that appropriate changes can be made by way of corrigendum - authorities should endeavour to pass final orders within two months - Petitions allowed in above terms: High Court [para 8, 9]

Petitions allowed

2017-TIOL-28-HC-MUM-CX + Story

ATLAS AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: December 20, 2016)

CX - Rule 57C of CER, 1944 - Goods which are being cleared under Chapter X procedure have not suffered any duty payment - MODVAT Credit taken on inputs in r/o such goods is incorrect and has to be reversed - There is no explanation provided, much less reasonable and plausible by the petitioners for the decision to initially reverse the MODVAT Credit, but later on shifting their stand and refusing to reverse it - when the impugned order terms this exercise of the petitioners as jugglery, then, that finding and remark is fully justified - impugned order does not suffer from any serious legal infirmity requiring interference in writ jurisdiction - Petition dismissed: HC [para 17, 22, 23]

Petition dismissed

2017-TIOL-44-CESTAT-MUM + Story

FUNSKOOL INDIA LTD Vs CCE & C: MUMBAI CESTAT (Dated: December 15, 2016)

CX - Clause (vi) of Notf. 67/95-CE mandates that benefit of captive consumption @ Nil rate of duty is available if obligation prescribed in rule 6 of CCR is discharged - rule 6(1) and rule 6(2) are alternative to each other - since appellant satisfies rule 6(1) inasmuch as they have not taken CENVAT credit on any inputs, finding of lower authority that rule 6(2) is not fulfilled is misleading and absolutely incorrect - Benefit of Nil duty for captive consumption is available in respect of packing boxes manufactured for exempted toys, games and puzzles etc. - Appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 4]

Appeals allowed