2017-TIOL-344-SC-CX + Story
CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH Vs RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: September 12, 2017)
Prosecution - Charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty - Ingredient of the offence is evasion - Omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge - Prosecution cannot be deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence - In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted – High Court order set aside and order of trial court restored – Revenue appeal allowed: Supreme Court [para 6]
Appeal allowed
2017-TIOL-1870-HC-P&H-CX
CCE & ST Vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: August 01, 2017)
CX - the respondent-assessee is engaged in storage of non-duty paid petroleum products, and in clearing the same from bonded warehouse, on payment of duty on the value of the excisable goods to wholesale buyers as well as to their own depots for onward sale - The assessee charged duty on the entire quantity sold to the customers, including the quantity over and above the receipt - This included the quantity of HSD due to the temperature variations and other operations, and duty on such quantity had not been deposited - Revenue alleged that the assessee concealed facts regarding such sale of excess HSD - Duty demand with interest & equivalent penalty was imposed - The Tribunal set aside such demands, on grounds that they could only be imposed on manufacturers/producers of goods, while the assessee was merely a dealer, and if any duty was to be demanded for shortages and excess of the goods found at the assessee's premises, such duty ought to be demanded from the refineries.
Held - it was not found that the assessee had procured the goods clandestinely without payment of duty - Moreover since the assessee was neither a manufacturer nor producer of the goods, the duty demand was invalid - Hence impugned order was justifiably set aside by the Tribunal: High Court (Para 2,4)
Revenue's appeal dismissed
2017-TIOL-1869-HC-MAD-CX
KSM EARTH MOVERS Vs Dy. CCE : MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dated: August 16, 2017)
CX - the petitioner-assessee is a registered dealer and was availing Cenvat credit on inputs/input services - The revenue passed the impugned order disallowing an amount of credit as being ineligible - Duty demand for recovery of the same was imposed, with interest and equal penalty.
Held - the assessee had the efficacious alternate remedy of appeal to the Commr.(A) - The assessee alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, as the personal hearing afforded was not to the satisfaction of the assessee - However, whether or not this could be construed as denial of opportunity was factual in nature - Moreover, no mala fide was alleged against the impugned order to warrant invoking the extraordinary remedy of the High Court - Besides, the nature of the transaction and the validity of the documents relied on for claiming Cenvat credit, was again a factual matter, which could be better examined by the appropriate fact-finding authority, who could examine all evidence & take the appropriate decision - Present appeal not maintainable & assessee advised to approach the Commr.(A): High Court (Para 1,4,5,6,7)
Writ petition dismissed
2017-TIOL-1868-HC-KERALA-ST
KAIRALI HANDLOOMS Vs CCE, C & ST : KERALA HIGH COURT (Dated: July 12, 2017)
ST - an SCN was issued to the assessee, demanding an amount of service tax, for a particular period - During adjudication, the assessee deposited part of the amount demanded - Subsequently, duty demand of a considerably lesser amount was imposed - The assessee sought refund of the balance amount deposited, which was granted - The assessee then sought interest on the refunded amount - Such claim for interest was rejected, and the same upheld by the Commr.(A) & the Tribunal.
Held - arguments apart, the assessee did not show which provision of law enabled it to seek interest on the amount of duty refunded - Moreover, the amount refunded had actually been deposited voluntarily, in advance, in consideration of which no penalty was imposed on the assessee - Hence the assessee's claim for interest merits being rejected: High Court (Para 3,4)
Assessee's appeal dismissed
2017-TIOL-1867-HC-DEL-CUS
MITA INDIA PVT LTD Vs UoI : DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: September 6, 2017)
Anti-Dumping - the petitioner sought permission to inspect the public file concerning anti-dumping investigation on the imports of the subject goods imported from China PR - The petitioner sought from the Designated Authority (DA), a list of the interested parties in the case and their addresses, before it could file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - However, such request for information was made four months after the Notification was issued in this regard by the DA.
Held - the Notification issued by the DA having been gazetted was presumably known to the petitioner - Besides, the petitioner also knew about the provisional duty imposed during the investigation, as it had been in force for over a year - Hence the explanation presented by the petitioner was untenable and appeared to be an alibi to cover the fact that it missed its opportunity of appealing before the Tribunal within the correct time frame - Besides, the details of companies were not particularly difficult to obtain - No merit in appeal: High Court (Para 1,4,5,6)
Writ petition dismissed
