RBI NOTIFICATION
DCM (Plg) 3107/10.27.00/2016-17
Removal of limits on withdrawal of cash from Saving Bank Accounts
CASE LAWS
2017-TIOL-280-HC-KOL-CUS
CONFEDERATION OVERSEAS CLEARING Vs CC:
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (Dated: January 24, 2017)
Cus - Suspension of CHA licence - Appellate authority has held that suspension is bad, however, authorities have not restored the same.
Held: Respondents have not obtained any order of stay of the order of restoration CHA licence passed by the Appellate Authority - In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to restore the licence of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
Petition disposed of
2017-TIOL-279-HC-P&H-CX
CHIRAG ELECTRONICS Vs CCE:
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: January 30, 2017)
CX - Maintainability - Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Assessing Authority clubbing the clearance values and denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification and also on the ground of usage of brand name of others - appeal filed on the ground that Tribunal had decided appeal without notice of final hearing - Counsel for respondent Revenue raised preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable as substantial question raised is whether the clearance made by various units was liable to be clubbed for the purpose of deciding eligibility under the notification SSI notification 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
Held: Division Bench in the case of CCE , Panchkula Vs. M/s Special Machine, Karnal - 2009-TIOL-450-HC-P&H-CX , held that since the matter relates to determination of a question having relation to the rate of duty of excise, therefore, for determination of such question, remedy of appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the CEA, 1944 - since Court is bound by this judgment, appeal is, therefore, not maintainable - It would make no difference if the impugned order is challenged on a different basis - An order may be appealable on various grounds, it may suffer from several infirmities, however, the maintainability of an appeal under Section 35L depends upon the order impugned and not upon the grounds on which it is challenged or upon the infirmities that resulted in the order being passed - A view to the contrary would lead to considerable difficulty in the operation of section 35L of the Act - It would then require an appeal on certain aspects pertaining to the order to be filed before the Supreme Court and in respect of other aspects before other Courts and this was not the intention of the legislature - appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable: High Court [para 9, 11, 12, 14]
Appeal dismissed
2017-TIOL-278-HC-ALL-CX
CCE Vs SHYAM DYERS :
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: December 1, 2016)
CX - Question of law referred by department is whether deemed credit is admissible on inputs ‘Grey fabrics' although grey fabrics is not a declared input under notfn. 6/2002-CE(NT).
Held: This very question had been sought to be answered and the Delhi High Court has in the case of M B Dyers 2010-TIOL-160-HC-DEL-CX come to the conclusion that the processed fabrics are the final products containing yarn/fabric and, therefore, it fulfils the requirements of Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - requirement of Rule 11 of the aforesaid rules since satisfied, the authority has allowed the Cenvat credit - question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue: High Court [para 5, 6]
Appeal disposed of
2017-TIOL-372-CESTAT-MUM + Story
SRI WARANA SHAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK PRAKRIYA SANGH LTD Vs CCE: MUMBAI CESTAT (Dated: January 24, 2017)
CX - CENVAT - Rule 7(1)(b) of CCR, 2002 - M/s Lotus paid differential duty alongwith interest before issuance of SCN - in terms of s.11A(2B) of CEA, 1944, no SCN should have been issued - penalty imposed u/s 11AC dropped by Commissioner(A) and order accepted - Supplementary invoice issued even for extended period is, therefore, valid document for taking credit: CESTAT [para 5]
Appeal allowed