BUDGET ANALYSIS
NPS Trusts - Amendment proposed to ensure parity between individual & employee
Finance Bill proposes centralised issuance of notice u/s 133C
CASE LAWS
2017-TIOL-243-HC-ALL-CX
CCE Vs KISSAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: December 20, 2016)
CX - While filing the monthly returns for the period September, 1991 to January, 1993, the assessee had collected central excise duty @ Rs.85 per quintal on 84890 quintals of VP Sugar amounting to Rs.72,15,650/- from the buyers but had deposited the Central Excise duty @ Rs.52/- per quintal on the said quantity - It is clear that the assessee had retained certain sums with them, which they had collected in excess - Apex Court has held that under the incentive scheme the Government order does not permit the assessee to collect more than what they have to pay to the Government - If the assessee has collected excess excise duty, then it is bound to deposit such excess amount with the Government in view of the provisions of Section 11D of the CEA, 1944 - questions of law are, therefore, answered in favour of the department and against the assessee: High Court [para 3, 4, 6]
Revenue Appeal allowed
2017-TIOL-242-HC-ALL-CX
STERN LEATHER EXPORT Vs CCE: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: November 10, 2016)
CX - High Court had passed an order on 05.02.2002 disposing of the writ petition by directing the Adjudicating authority to decide the SCN - AA passing order by denying request for cross-examination - appeal to High Court. Held: AA has completely misread the directives of the High Court - it could never have been the intention of the High Court to deprive any party of a proper opportunity of hearing, which includes in it the right to cross-examine the necessary witness - Such a denial no doubt leads to arbitrariness and consequential injustice and that cannot be countenanced by any Court - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to give a proper opportunity of hearing after giving to the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
Matter remanded
2017-TIOL-241-HC-AHM-CUS
LILADHAR T KHUSHLANI Vs CC: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: January 25, 2017)
Cus - CESTAT dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the same was preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing the original order - Tax Appeal filed before High Court - It is the case of the appellant that from the date of service of notice of the order, which was sought to be rectified, within six months the rectification application was filed, however, the CESTAT dismissed the said application considering the starting point of limitation of rectification as the date of the order sought to be rectified. Held: Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D. Saibaba Vs. Bar Council of India AIR 2003 SC 2502, period of limitation shall commence from the date of dispatch of the order and not from the date of actual passing of the order - CESTAT has, therefore, committed a grave error in rejecting the rectification application on the ground that the same has been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act – Order of CESTAT quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded – Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 2.3, 3]
Matter remanded
2017-TIOL-240-HC-ALL-CUS
CC Vs JIBRAN OVERSEAS: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: December 20, 2016)
Cus - Tribunal has recorded a clear finding with regard to the item, which is sought to be imported by the assessee, that it is not a waste tyre rather it is a re-usable tyre, which falls within the exclusion clause of the entry - In the SCN in paragraph no.4 (iv) the authority noted that the tyres can be re-used and have a minimum residual life of about 45-55% of the new tyres - Tribunal, therefore, has rightly come to the conclusion that the imported goods were not hit by the mischief of hazardous waste and could not be defined as hazardous waste and, therefore, their import did not require the permission of the MOEF – view taken by the Tribunal is correct - questions of law are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department – Appeal is disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
Appeal disposed of
