2017-TIOL-09-SC-ST

TT LTD Vs PR CST: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 3, 2017)

ST - While setting aside Tribunal order and allowing Revenue appeal, High Court held that to say that notification is clarificatory, there should be something enunciated in the original or base notification itself; inasmuch as services added to refund Notification 41/2007-ST by subsequent notifications cannot be given retrospective effect - appeal to Supreme Court.

Held: No merit in petition, hence dismissed: Supreme Court [para 1]

Petition dismissed

2017-TIOL-08-SC-CUS

PRASHRAY OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs CC : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 3, 2017)

Cus - CVD - Notification 30/2004-CE - Madras High Court while allowing Revenue appeals inter alia held that in cases where the exemption Notification stipulates two conditions, namely that the inputs should have suffered duty and that no CENVAT credit should have been availed, then the benefit of the Notification will be available only if both conditions are satisfied; that an importer will never be able to satisfy both these conditions and hence, he cannot claim the benefit - appeal to Supreme Court - Petitioner arguing that matter is squarely covered in their favour by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of   M/s. SRF Ltd. vs. Comissioner of Customs, Chennai" - 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS and that High Court was mainly influenced by the fact that Review Petition was filed by Revenue in the said case, however, review petition has also been dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2016.

Held: Issue Notice, notice to indicate that the matter shall be disposed of finally on the next date of hearing. [para 3, 4]

Notice issued

2017-TIOL-07-SC-CX

SAMTEL INDIA LTD Vs PR CCE: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: January 5, 2017)

CX - Special Leave Petition is dismissed and High Court order is upheld - Costs imposed on the respondent of Rs.15,000/- for the delay in filing restoration application in High Court - Costs to be paid to petitioner within four weeks, before matter is taken up for consideration by High Court: Supreme Court [para 3]

Petition dismissed

2017-TIOL-44-HC-DEL-CUS

CC Vs PI LOGISTICS INDIA PVT LTD: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: December 23, 2016)

Cus - CBLR, 2013 - Customs broker licence - Commissioner urging that Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter once it found fault with the procedure adopted and it held that without affording an opportunity DA/AA could not have revoked the licence.

Held: Show-cause notice was issued on 16.04.2015; the enquiry officer's report was made on 30.06.2015; the Disciplinary Authority's order was made on 06.10.2015 and the impugned order of the CESTAT is of 28.04.2016 - even if the technical breaches alleged against the respondent are held well founded, they are of no such magnitude as to deprive it of the CHA licence, altogether - Since the revocation operated for over six months, in the larger interest of justice, remitting the matter is not warranted - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]

Appeal dismissed

2017-TIOL-43-HC-DEL-CUS

THREEPENCE CRAFT Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: December 23, 2016)

Cus/CX - Pre-deposit - s.35F of CEA, 1944/129E of Customs Act, 1962 - Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Apparels Pvt. Ltd. [ W.P.(C) No.11264/2016 dated 28.11.2016 ] has clarified that if a company and its directors are held jointly and severally liable, one set of pre-deposit is sufficient for hearing the appeal - Following the same, it is directed that separate pre-deposit amount in respect of petitioners and directors is not essential - 7 ½ % of basic duty drawback amount be accepted as pre-condition of hearing - subject to compliance with the same, Appellate Commissioner to decide appeals before him accordingly - Writ Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 2]

Petition disposed of

2017-TIOL-58-CESTAT-MUM + Story

GEMINI INSTRATECH PVT LTD Vs CCE: MUMBAI CESTAT (Dated: December 6, 2016)

CX - Anchor rings, Load spreading plates and Wind-mill doors/Tower Doors are parts of Wind-Operated Electricity Generator ( WOEG) & entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE – Impugned orders set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 2.1, 2.2, 3]

Appeals allowed