CIRCULAR
it17cir05
Measures for reducing litigation - Clarification on Circulars 21/2015 and 8/2016 reg.
NOTIFICATION
cnt06_2017
CBEC notifies 40 officers, including four Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners, for grant of Presidential Award
CASE LAWS
2017-TIOL-162-HC-MUM-CX + Story
ACC LTD Vs UoI:
BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF (Dated: January 9, 2017)
CX Availability of an alternate equally efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - It is not a prohibition but a rule of caution and prudence Present petitions cannot be entertained on the ground that there are factual issues involved - mixed questions of fact and law are, therefore, capable of being properly resolved in the appellate remedies available to the petitioners under the scheme of the Central Excise Act Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 17, 18, 19, 21, 24]
Petitions disposed of
2017-TIOL-163-HC-MAD-CUS
CCE Vs Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd: MADRAS HIGH COURT OF (Dated:
November 30, 2016)
Customs - Imposition of Merchant Over Time charges for rendering supervisory services by Customs Officer during normal working hours at the factory of an assessee within the jurisdiction of such Customs Officer - Impermissible.
The question for determination is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in concluding that the Circular No.31/2003, dated 7.4.2003 is not enforceable in law as it is ultra vires Regulation (3) of the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998?
In an identical matter, the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-323-HC-DEL-CUS held: Where an Excise Officer/deemed Customs Officer provides supervisory services/functions at the factory of an assessee within the jurisdiction of such Excise Officers, the services are rendered within the range of such officer and since admittedly these functions were executed during "normal working hours", levy of Merchant Over Time charges is impermissible. In the light of the above cited judgment, the substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant. Thus the finding of the CESTAT that directive contained in the circular dated 07.04.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, is not enforceable one, as it ultra vires the Regulation 3 of the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 is confirmed. (Para 7-12)
Revenue appeal dismissed
2017-TIOL-214-CESTAT-DEL
SUNRISE TANKS PVT LTD Vs CCE & C : DELHI CESTAT(Dated: September 21, 2016)
Central Excise - Small Scale exemption Benefit of Notification No.8/2003 Common inputs of plastic granules used in the manufacture of branded and unbranded tanks - Appellant suo moto reversed credit attributable to inputs intended for the manufacture of unbranded tanks - Such reversal satisfied the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit entitling benefit of notification In view of the fact that for subsequent period the demand dropped, appeal allowed - Cross objections of Revenue disposed of . (Para 6, 7)
Assessee appeal allowed
