|
SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-82-HC-MAD-ST Ahlers India Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner
ST - Petitioner was issued SCN to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be made liable to pay service tax as the service provided by the petitioner was neither in the negative list nor exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST - Petitioner submitted that they are a multimodal transport service provider and that in terms of Circular No. 197/7/2016-ST dated 12.8.2016 it has been clarified that the service provided by the petitioner was not liable to tax - Before the adjudicating authority, the petitioner submitted a copy of the multimodal certificate issued by the Director-General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Directorate General of Shipping - however, it appeared that the certificate forwarded was the certificate of renewal effective from 25.06.2014 and the adjudicating authority dropped the demand partly and imposed penalty and interest - it is the case of the petitioner that they were holding a certificate of registration as a Multimodal Transport Operator all through the period of demand and that there was a mistake on the part of its consultant in enclosing the original certificate only for the period commencing from September 2014 and, therefore, the order passed by the respondent Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2016 required rectification - An application for rectification of mistake was filed on 08.02.2017 but since no orders were passed, the present Writ petition is filed.
Held : It is noticed that the petitioner was issued with a certificate of registration as a multimodal transporter under the provisions of the Multimodal Transport Operators Rules, 1992 with effect from 28.9.2005 - The respondents have also not denied the same except to state that the said certificate and the subsequent renewal obtained by the petitioners were not filed before the respondent and therefore the Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2016 and the subsequent rejection of the application u/s 74 of the FA, 1994 vide Order-in-Original dated 21.4.2017 cannot be faulted - The fact remains that the petitioner has been given partial relief on the strength of the renewal is a certificate for the period after September 2014 - Since there is a bona fide mistake and but for the non-filing of the original certificate of registration issued to the petitioner for the earlier period, the demand would not have been confirmed - Bench is therefore convinced that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought - Merely because renewal certificate for the earlier period was not produced earlier cannot mean that the order cannot be rectified u/s 74 of the FA, 1994 - Ultimately, it is the duty of the respondent to pass a fair order and it is no part of the duty to deny the benefit which was legitimately available to the petitioner if materials were brought to the knowledge of the respondent though subsequently - both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed to the extent they confirm the demand - while quashing the impugned orders and allowing the writ petition, liberty is given to the respondent to call upon the petitioner to pay the tax for services, if any, which are outside the purview of the Circular No. 197/7/2016-ST dated 12.8.2016 after due notice to the petitioner - This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months - Writ petition stands allowed with the above observation: High Court [para 12 to 16]
- Petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2020-TIOL-78-HC-CHHATTISGARH-ST Pawan Engineering Works Vs CC, CE & ST
ST - Jurisdiction - After having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner / Adjudicating Authority without any protest, it is not correct or proper for the Appellant to take a 'U-turn', when the decision has gone against him - It is settled law that the power conferred upon the competent authority with reference to 'territorial jurisdiction' is not an instance of total lack of jurisdiction, so as to make the order null and void - In the said circumstance, the contention now put forth by the Appellant is without any pith or substance and is repelled accordingly: High Court [para 6]
ST - Activity being pursued by the Appellant in the premises of M/s. L&T involving fabrication, commissioning and erection is by making use of the raw materials supplied by the service recipient / M/s. L&T - There is no case for the Appellant that the Appellant was owner of the raw materials, which were put into the alleged manufacturing activity, to give rise the products - There is no instance of any sale and the products cannot be called as goods, having no independent marketability, as tailor-made, subject to the specifications given by the M/s. L&T / service recipient - Tribunal has rightly held that the activity of the Appellant was a 'service' coming within the purview of relevant provisions of the Statute as mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 13 - No tenable ground is raised or substantiated to take a different view - It is nothing but a 'service', the Appellant admittedly having no ownership over the materials supplied by the M/s. L&T or on the products: High Court [para 7]
ST - Explanation offered by the Appellant that they had not taken registration and were not satisfying the service tax, despite the liability to satisfy the same, merely on the basis of instructions / advice stated as given by the service recipient / M/s. L&T can never be accepted as any explanation, much less, anything reasonable or satisfactory - Ignorance of law is no excuse: High Court [para 8]
ST - Tribunal has clearly held in paragraph 17 that non-registration of the Appellant, in the given circumstances, definitely will amount to suppression of the relevant facts, which came to the notice of the Department, only later, on the basis of some intelligence gathered by the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise - This being the position, it squarely comes within the purview of 'sub-Clause (d)' under the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence it was open for the Department to have invoked the extended period of 'five years' for issuing the show-cause notice - Bench is of the view that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is well supported by the reasoning and hence it warrants no interference: High Court [para 10]
ST - Penalty - Course and conduct pursued by the Appellant is not liable to be branded as innocent or bona fide, insofar as the necessity to have taken registration was well known to the Appellant, who, in fact, had taken registration in respect of the sister concern belonging to the very same Appellant as Proprietor, which was being run under the name and style as M/s. M.R. Engineering Works, providing necessary services to the very same service recipient / M/s. L&T - Penalty cannot be waived u/s 80 of the FA, 1994 - No tenable ground to interdict verdict passed by the Tribunal - no substantial question of law arises - appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of merit: High Court [para 12, 13]
- Appeal dismissed : CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-77-HC-MAD-ST
Popular Maruthi Painting Works Vs Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
ST - Order in original dated 22.01.2018 was accepted by the assessee and 25% of the penalty was paid within 30 days period thereby giving a protection to the assessee in terms of Clause 2 of second proviso - enhanced demand of service tax confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.09.2018 has been accepted by the assessee and the same was confirmed - It is true that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the CESTAT as against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 28.09.2018 but the assessee chose to file a writ petition challenging the manner in which the show cause notice was issued and contending that there is a serious flaw which would render all subsequent proceedings as untenable - Single Bench was right to an extent that such a plea could not be raised by the assessee at this distance of time especially when the assessee accepted the order in appeal dated 28.07.2016, participated in the de novo proceedings which resulted in order in original dated 22.01.2018 - Though the appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the order in appeal dated 28.09.2018 in its entirety, Bench restricts the relief only to that of penalty as quantified in the said order to the tune of Rs.4,77,542/- and the said penalty stands deleted – Bench is of the considered view that enhanced penalty cannot be demanded from the appellant/assessee - In all other aspects, the order in appeal dated 28.09.2018 stands confirmed - finding should not be treated as precedent but had been rendered based on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case: High Court [para 10 to 15]
- Appeal partly allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT 2020-TIOL-81-CESTAT-MAD
Modfurn Systems India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
ST - The appellants are traders in furniture items and are registered with the department under GTA Services - They were engaged in providing Modular Kitchen in the premises of customers and the department was of the view that such activity would fall under category of 'Completition of Finishing Services' - The matter reached upto the Tribunal and vide Final Order dated 04.07.2018, the Tribunal set aside the demand observing that the said activity does not attract levy of service tax - Meanwhile, after the O-I-O was passed, the assessee had deposited the entire amount of service tax along with interest and also the penalties - Consequent to the final order passed by Tribunal, assessee filed refund claim for refund being the tax paid along with interest and 25% penalty - The said refund claim was rejected alleging that the assessee has not produced evidence to show that the tax burden has not been passed on to another - It is undisputed fact that the appellants are traders and this being so, it is not possible for them to collect service tax by issue of invoices - The Chartered Accountant's Certificate has categorically certified that the burden has not been passed on to another - These documents show that VAT has been collected - There is no collection of service tax - All these facts establish that the burden of tax has not been passed on to another - For these reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below that the appellant has not passed the test of unjust enrichment cannot sustain: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-80-CESTAT-AHM
Lucy Electric Manufacturing and Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - The assessee-company received reimbursements towards service of manpower supply and other miscellaneous costs incurred on behalf of the overseas group company in connection with the supply of goods by Indian companies to their group companies - The Revenue claimed that the reimbursements received by the assessee from its group companies is towards manpower supplied by overseas company to the assessee & so the same is taxable u/s 66A of the Finance Act and under the reverse charge mechanism - Duty demand was raised - Hence the present appeal.
Held - An identical issue was resolved in the assessee's own case for a previous period - It was held therein that from perusal of Section 66A and Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of Service Tax Rules 1994, it is absolutely clear that the service tax liability under the above provision is only on the recipient of service in those cases when the Indian person is receiving the service from abroad and the service provider is not having any office in India - It was also held that since the appellant are not receiving any service, on the contrary, they are providing services to overseas group companies, the provision of Section 66A and Rule made there under is absolutely not applicable, therefore, the demand raised therein is not maintainable - In light of such decision, the demands raised in the present case are unsustainable and the O-i-A merits being set aside: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-80-HC-KERALA-CUS Harikrishnan R Vs Chief Commissioner of Customs
Cus - Petitioner had imported synthetic waste during the period of few months of the year 2016 - Custom Officers permitted clearance of goods under provisional assessment, in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner further submits that on 11.08.2016, the staff of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, searched office and business premises of the petitioner and even the residence of Director of the petitioner - The alleged reason of search as informed by the authorities was that the petitioner has mis-declared description and value of imported goods at the time of filing aforesaid Bills of Entry and had short paid duty as compared to their actual liability, although custom duty liability had already been finally assessed by the custom authorities on the basis of Test Reports received from official laboratories - Primary arguments of the petitioner is that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has no jurisdiction to draw the samples after clearance of goods in view of the mandate of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner has inter alia prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash panchnama dated 11.08.2016, whereby, respondent No.2 has seized imported stock of the petitioner - It is further prayed that respondent No.2 be directed to un-conditionally release the aforesaid material of the petitioner lying in their factory.
Held : In the present case, at the time of clearance of imported goods, provisional assessment was framed as the declared description of imported goods was in doubt - The Proper Officer in terms of the provisions of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, drew samples, while permitting the clearance of goods, after provisional assessment u/s 18, against a bond supported with a bank guarantee - Subsequently, upon receipt of the test report(s) from official laboratories vindicating the description of goods as disclosed by the petitioner in his Bill of Entry, the Proper Officer framed final assessment in terms of the declared description and valuation of goods and the customs duty already paid by the petitioner - Consequently, the Proper Officer cancelled the bond and returned the bank guarantee furnished earlier for securing the additional demand, if any - The positive case of the petitioner is that once the goods were cleared and had reached the premises of the petitioner, it gets mixed with the other goods, therefore, once all the transactions/goods cleared from custom area, were between January 2016 to April 2016, the action to draw fresh samples on/after 11.08.2016 from the factory premises, is totally without jurisdiction, unwarranted and is in violation of Section 144 of the Act - The action of the respondents, vide which, two panchnama(s) dated 11.08.2016 whereby, the respondents seized the entire goods (lying in the factory premises) is also consequentially without jurisdiction, moreso, when after the receipt of Test Reports from the official Laboratories, the final assessment of custom duty was framed - provision of the statute i.e. Section 144 clearly refers to the intention of the framers of the statute - In Section 144, it has been clearly provided that the proper officer may, on the entry or clearance of any goods or at any time while such goods are being passed through custom area, take samples of such goods for examination thereof and once imported goods stand assessed to custom duty and removed/cleared from the custom area, no fresh samples of such imported goods can be redrawn from any other area - after the release of imported goods approximately by April 2016 from the custom area, there was no power with the authorities, much less under Section 144 of the Act, to draw samples at a subsequent stage i.e. on 11.08.2016 from the factory premises - writ petitions deserve to be allowed with directions (release the seized material of the petitioners and also return the resumed documents) and failure to comply with the same, the Competent Authority shall be made liable for being hauled up in contempt proceedings and imposition of exemplary costs: High Court [para 9 to 13]
- Petitions allowed : KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-79-HC-P&H-CUS
Raghav Woollen Mills Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner had imported synthetic waste during the period of few months of the year 2016 - Custom Officers permitted clearance of goods under provisional assessment, in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner further submits that on 11.08.2016, the staff of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, searched office and business premises of the petitioner and even the residence of Director of the petitioner - The alleged reason of search as informed by the authorities was that the petitioner has mis-declared description and value of imported goods at the time of filing aforesaid Bills of Entry and had short paid duty as compared to their actual liability, although custom duty liability had already been finally assessed by the custom authorities on the basis of Test Reports received from official laboratories - Primary arguments of the petitioner is that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has no jurisdiction to draw the samples after clearance of goods in view of the mandate of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner has inter alia prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash panchnama dated 11.08.2016, whereby, respondent No.2 has seized imported stock of the petitioner - It is further prayed that respondent No.2 be directed to un-conditionally release the aforesaid material of the petitioner lying in their factory.
Held: In the present case, at the time of clearance of imported goods, provisional assessment was framed as the declared description of imported goods was in doubt - The Proper Officer in terms of the provisions of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, drew samples, while permitting the clearance of goods, after provisional assessment u/s 18, against a bond supported with a bank guarantee - Subsequently, upon receipt of the test report(s) from official laboratories vindicating the description of goods as disclosed by the petitioner in his Bill of Entry, the Proper Officer framed final assessment in terms of the declared description and valuation of goods and the customs duty already paid by the petitioner - Consequently, the Proper Officer cancelled the bond and returned the bank guarantee furnished earlier for securing the additional demand, if any - The positive case of the petitioner is that once the goods were cleared and had reached the premises of the petitioner, it gets mixed with the other goods, therefore, once all the transactions/goods cleared from custom area, were between January 2016 to April 2016, the action to draw fresh samples on/after 11.08.2016 from the factory premises, is totally without jurisdiction, unwarranted and is in violation of Section 144 of the Act - The action of the respondents, vide which, two panchnama(s) dated 11.08.2016 whereby, the respondents seized the entire goods (lying in the factory premises) is also consequentially without jurisdiction, moreso, when after the receipt of Test Reports from the official Laboratories, the final assessment of custom duty was framed - provision of the statute i.e. Section 144 clearly refers to the intention of the framers of the statute - In Section 144, it has been clearly provided that the proper officer may, on the entry or clearance of any goods or at any time while such goods are being passed through custom area, take samples of such goods for examination thereof and once imported goods stand assessed to custom duty and removed/cleared from the custom area, no fresh samples of such imported goods can be redrawn from any other area - after the release of imported goods approximately by April 2016 from the custom area, there was no power with the authorities, much less under Section 144 of the Act, to draw samples at a subsequent stage i.e. on 11.08.2016 from the factory premises - writ petitions deserve to be allowed with directions (release the seized material of the petitioners and also return the resumed documents) and failure to comply with the same, the Competent Authority shall be made liable for being hauled up in contempt proceedings and imposition of exemplary costs: High Court [para 9 to 13]
- Petitions allowed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT 2020-TIOL-79-CESTAT-MUM
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX- Appellants, engaged in the manufacture of yarn and manmade fabrics, have been claiming partial duty exemption under notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004in respect of goods cleared for exports; they were also availing total duty exemption under notification 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 - the duty exemption under 30/2004 was subject to the condition that no cenvatcredit is availed of the duty paid on the inputs after the issue of Board's Circular 845/3/2007-CX dated 1.2.2007 - appellants have taken the credit after a gap of 2 years – SCN issued to disallow the credit which was confirmed vide impugned order, penalties imposed – appeal to CESTAT.
Held: Appellants have availed credit of inputs immediately after the circular 845/3/2007-CX dated 1.2.2007 - the department attempts to interpret this circular to be prospective only - such an argument is not fair - the initial wordings of the circular itself say that different representations have been received from the Trade and they have been examined; even a plain reading of the circular one gets understanding the circular is trying to clarify a situation which was already existing; it does not in any way create situation and clarify for future –as clarified by the Board's circular in the year 2004 795/28/2004- CX dated 28.6.2004], the appellants were not eligible to avail credit and the admissibility of the credit where both notifications are availed was clarified only in 2007 - it is not understood as to how the appellants could have taken credit before 2007 – moreover, if the credit can be taken immediately at the end of the month, it can be taken at the end of the year or at the end of 2 years for that matter - taking credit after 2 years is not barred either by Cenvat Credit Rules or by the Circulars - therefore, in view of the submissions of the appellant and the ratio of the cases cited therein, no infirmity found in the action taken by the appellant - in view of the above, the appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para 6, 7]
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-78-CESTAT-CHD
Pensla Exports Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The original authority disallowed cenvat credit and directed recovery of the same with interest - Rebate of duty on goods exported was also disallowed and was directed to be recovered with interest - Penalties were imposed on the assessee-company and on its MD - On appeal, the Tribunal directed the assessee to pre-deposit part of the duty demanded and towards penalty - The assessee appealed to the High Court against such findings of the Tribunal - The High Court directed the assessee to deposit a higher amount and also furnish bank guarantee - As the assessee failed to comply with the High Court's directions, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal - The assessee filed an SLP to the Apex Court which directed the assessee to comply with the High Court's directions - Hence the assessee deposited the duty and furnished bank guarantee - The Tribunal then recalled the order dismissing the assessee's appeal and restored the same - Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by setting aside the O-i-O - The refund sanctioning authority allowed refund of the pre-deposited amount and also directed that the bank guarantee be released, but rejected the assessee's claim for interest - Such denial of interest was sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.
Held - The sole the issue in the matter is whether the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit till its realization of the amount - The issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case M/s. Fujikawa Power and other vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I wherein the court had held that as the provisions of section 243 Income Tax Act, 1961 and section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944, were in pari materia , therefore, following the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. and Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd. the appellants therein were entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date its refund - As the issue has been decided by this Tribunal, the assessee in the present case is entitled to claim interest from the date of payment till its realization - Hence the assessee is entitled to claim the interest on delay refund from the date of deposit till its realization - The interest on the refund be payable @ 12% per annum: CESTAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-77-CESTAT-DEL
Keihin Automotive Systems India Pvt Ltd Vs PR CC
Cus - The assessee has imported fuel pump unit assembly, classifying the same under chapter heading 84099199 - During random check, the department formed an opinion that the goods imported are rather classifiable under chapter heading 84133090 - Apparently, 54 bills of entry have already been cleared under classification of 84099199 seeking an exemption of 50% BCD furtherance of notfn 85/2004 denying the applicability of said notification upon the assessee for the goods imported being classified under 8413 to which the notification is not applicable, that the benefit of exemption is denied and recovery to the extent of Rs. 38393215/- has been confirmed which has been challenged by assessee - A conjoint reading of description of goods for tariff item 8413 and 8409 makes it abundantly clear that all pumps meant for fuel lubricating or cooling medium for internal combustion piston engines are classified under 841330 and all other pumps for internal combustion piston engines for other than lubricating or cooling medium are classified under 84133090 - Thus, the tariff Act itself gives a clear cut distinction between a good which is merely a part or the part which can, specifically, be classified as a pump - It becomes clearer that the items which are specifically included in CTH 8413 are clearly excluded from CTH 8409 irrespective they are used solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 and 8408 - The fuel injecting pumps are neither an accessory not the spare part of engine of a motor vehicle - These pumps are classifiable only under heading 8413, the parts of these pumps are classifiable only under heading 841391 - Support drawn from the decision of Tribunal in case Monitor Enterprises wherein it was held that fuel injection pumps for ignition engine are excluded from heading 8409 as per explanatory notes volume 3 at page 1152 of HSN explanatory notes - Notfn 85 of 2004 has no such entry which includes items of chapter 8413 - The assessee has wrongly availed the benefit of exemption of 50% BCD of products imported by him by wrongly classifying them as the parts solely and exclusively used with the engines ignoring the specific entry for classification of pumps - There is no denial that the goods which are classified by him as parts are actually meant to function as pumps - Accordingly, no infirmity found in the order-under-challenge - The assessee has wrongly classified his goods classifiable under CTH 831330 intentionally under CTH of 840991 with an intend to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption of 50% of BCD - It is worth taking a note of the fact that the bill of entry was filed under self-assessment regime and the importer need to be doubly sure that what they are claiming is legally correct - The department has committed no error while holding such an act on the part of assessee as an intentional misrepresentation, which the section note 2 to section 16 of Customs Tariff specifically provides a methodology of classification of pumps and parts of engines - Classifying the product under a wrong entry continuously for as many as more than 50 bills of entry cannot be an act of ignorance - Hence, department has committed no error while invoking the extended period of limitation and therefore, the SCN cannot be held to be barred by time: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-76-CESTAT-MAD
Sea Queen Shipping Services Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The only issue is, whether the Revenue was justified in imposing penalty under Sections 112 (d) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on assessee who was only a Customs Broker and not the importer - The findings recorded by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (A) are more or less reiteration of allegations contained in SCN - Further, it is not even established that the assessee had handled the work of clearance with any mala fide motive or any motive to make abnormal gain - It is also not pointed out anywhere in impugned order as to the nature of act undertaken by assessee and how the assessee knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, before fastening with the liability under Customs Act, which is over and above the punishment prescribed for a Customs Broker under CBLR - The assessee has performed its duties as per CBLR in terms of licence granted to it - A perusal of impugned O-I-A makes it evident that the assessee did advise the importer as to the requirement of import licence, which appears to be a sufficient compliance insofar as Regulation 11 (d) is concerned because, getting the required licence was, in any case, the duty of the importer - Further, violation of Regulations 11 (d) and 11 (n) ibid would, in nutshell, require the exercise of due diligence by a Customs Broker which is akin to Regulation 13 (o) of CHALR Rules, 2004, which Regulation was the subject matter of appeal before the High Court of Delhi in case of Shiva Khurana - 2019-TIOL-178-HC-DEL-CUS - In view of the said decision, it becomes incumbent on Revenue to establish that the assessee had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods in respect of which it had undertaken customs clearances processes were liable for confiscation, to justify impugned penalties under Customs Act - Further, from a bare reading of Section 114AA, it is evident that the said Section could be invoked only on establishment of the fact that the declaration, statement or document made/submitted in transaction of any business for purposes of the Act is false or incorrect and therefore, without establishing that such declaration, statement or document was false or incorrect in any material particular, this Section cannot be invoked - The Revenue has not been able to clearly establish either the active role or even the passive role or any deliberate or mala fide act - It is clear that the Bill-of-Lading itself which was uploaded by shipper had given a different description of goods with the assessee being nowhere in picture and he is only responsible for filing the Bill-of-Exchange as per the description given in Bill-of-Lading; the shipper is allowed to go scot free - The Revenue has not been able to establish the mala fides which is quintessence of Sections 112 (a) and 114AA ibid and therefore, the impugned penalties are required to be deleted - Consequently, the impugned order which has confirmed the penalties questioned herein is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT | |
