2020-TIOL-NEWS-204, Dated: Friday, August 28, 2020

ST - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is the case of the petitioner that when he availed of the Scheme by applying electronically, he had declared that the estimated amount of tax liability would be Rs.13,38,22,524/- and electronically he had been notified that he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,87,081/- (as per Annexure-F) – However, thereafter he was notified that the estimated amount of tax liability would be Rs.13,38,22,524/- and he would be liable to pay Rs.5,62,21,162/- by issuance of the Form No SVLDRS-2 – Inasmuch as it is contended that Cenvat credit of Rs.4,15,14,081/- claimed by petitioner in his declaration was disallowed by the Designated Committee by insertion of a column titled 'Remarks" in the Form No.SVLDRS-2 (vide Annexure-A) - The petitioner further contends that he exhibited disagreement to the said estimate and sought for personal hearing which was also granted to him, but thereafter, the Designated Committee proceeded to issue Form No.SVLDRS-3 which also indicated that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,62,21,162/- (vide Annexure-B) - In arriving at the said sum, the petitioner contends that the Designated Committee disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs.4,15,14,081/- - The petitioner is aggrieved by this action of the Designated Committee in disallowing the Cenvat credit and contends that the Designated Committee, under the Scheme, had no jurisdiction to embark upon any adjudication as to the entitlement or disentitlement of an assessee and Designated Committee was basically bound to merely verify the correctness of the declaration and assess the liability as per the declaration.

Held: Scheme is basically designed to ensure minimum interface between the assessee and the Department and is designed in such a way that the dispute is resolved by the assessee by filing a declaration electronically and his tax liability is also determined electronically - It is clear that the tax dues that the petitioner was liable to pay was not in dispute, by both the Revenue as well as by the petitioner - The only bone of contention between the parties is, as to whether the petitioner could contend that he was entitled to take advantage of Cenvat credit on input services amounting to Rs.4,15,14,081/- and consider the same as a pre-deposit under the scheme - It is not in dispute that after the SCN was issued, the petitioner had filed service tax returns and in the said returns, it claimed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.4,15,14,081/- - It is pertinent to state here that the Revenue does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to avail of this Cenvat credit - The contention, however, of the Revenue, is that the petitioner became disentitled to Cenvat credit for the reasons stated at paragraph 17.2 of the SCN - It is, therefore, clear (from the said paragraph) that one of the subject matters of the SCN was, as to whether the petitioner was entitled to Cenvat credit - As could be seen from paragraph 17.2, the Revenue contended that since the returns were not filed within the prescribed time and since the entitlement to avail of the input credit had lapsed, the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of the Cenvat credit - a reading of the Sub-clause (c) of Clause 10 of the Circular dated 27.08.2019 would clearly indicate that in certain matters when tax had been paid by utilizing the input credit and the matter was under dispute, the tax already paid through input credit should be adjusted by the Designated Committee at the time of determination of the final amount payable under the Scheme - Therefore, even if there was a dispute regarding the tax paid through input credit, the Circular mandated that the Designated Committee should adjust the tax already paid through input credit - It, therefore, follows that the Designated Committee cannot embark upon an exercise of adjudication and state that it was not permissible for the declarant to claim that he had paid the tax through input credit - it is clear that the tax paid by utilizing the input credit which was under dispute had to be taken into consideration by the Designated Committee while issuing Form No.SVLDRS-3 - Committee, in the guise of verifying the accuracy of the declaration, cannot adjudicate upon any of the contentious issues which existed between the Revenue and the Assessee before the Scheme was enacted - It is to be borne in mind that the Designated Committee created under the Scheme is only meant to verify the correctness of the declaration made - Designated Committee, in fact, while issuing Form No.SVLDRS-2, has created a 'Remarks' column which is not actually provided for in the prescribed statutory form - It is, therefore, clear that the action of the Designated Committee in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was disentitled to tax paid through input credit by inserting a remarks column in Form Nos.SVLDRS-2 and 3, was one which was totally without jurisdiction - The net result of this discussion would therefore be that Form No.SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-F would have to be accepted as final - petitioner is entitled to succeed and the writ petition is allowed - Designated Committee is directed to accept the declaration filed by the petitioner in Form No.SVLDRS-1 (Annexure-F) as final and issue a modified Form No SVLDRS-3 giving credit to the sum of Rs.4,15,14,081/- as deposit and collect the remaining sum as tax dues and on payment of the said dues, issue the petitioner a Discharge Certificate that the petitioner is entitled to under the Scheme: High Court [para 27 to 30, 33, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, 51, 53, 55]

ST - Mumbai Port Trust along with Central Excise authorities and Central Railway, was vested with the responsibility under Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965 to collect octroi on entry of goods for consumption and use in municipal area within their respective operational jurisdictions for which 3% of such collections was retained as recompense - The tax liability was computed on the retained amount of Rs. 186,11,14,303/- as the ostensible consideration for having rendered service, taxable under section 65(105)(zn) read with section 66 of FA, 1994 until 30 June 2012 and under section 66B r/w section 65B(44) of FA, 1994 for the period thereafter, to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) between 1st October, 2007 and 31st January 2013 - According to the adjudicating authority, octroi is not a collection envisaged in budget of Government of Maharashtra and hence, excluded from the privileges that are appurtenant. At the same time, the impugned order makes reference to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965; every levy does not have to necessarily pass through the annual budgetary exercise of a government - The adjudicating authority has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in re Municipal Board to cast the municipal authority as an industry and, hence, not deserving of any consideration as discharging sovereign functions - Not only is this contrary to the clarification issued by CBEC circular 89/7/2006-ST which acknowledges, without identifying a descending hierarchy, that organisations could be discharging statutory obligations but failed to take cognizance of a far-reaching change brought about by Constitution (Seventy third Amendment) Act, 1992 and by Constitution Act, 1992 incorporating Part IX and Part IXA widely known as the Panchayati Raj Institutions - These reforms provided for three tier third level institutions for governance in the country with independent State Election Commissions and State Finance Commissions-the one for constitution of these bodies and the other for appropriate financial devolution - Thus, the Constitution itself permitted the states to assign some of its taxing powers to these third level institutions - The adjudicating authority has erred in ignoring that the circumstances in which municipalities may have been perceived as industry had long since ceased to exist - The Tribunal, on examination of legal framework, finding it useful to restate the foundations - That levy and collection of tax is a sovereign privilege and must have authority of law enacted by the Union Parliament or the legislatures of constituent states is not in dispute - It is also not in doubt that List II of the Seventh Schedule in the Constitution of India empowers the legislatures of the constituent states to levy and collect tax on 'entry of goods' which is, essentially, what octroi is - The collection of octroi for the entry and consumption of specified goods in Greater Mumbai has been legislated under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and, in terms of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965, Mumbai Port Trust, a statutory authority established under law and subsequently incorporated within the ambit of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, was one of the three agencies of the Central Government empowered-and not by contract-to enforce collection - In this scheme, Tribunal fail to see the lack of any deviation from this charge of sovereign functions and in any way distinct from the empowerment of officers of central excise to collect service tax - Retention of a portion of such collection, as mere procedure of transfer, is not distinguishable from the allocation of estimates to the field formations of CBEC for meeting administrative expenses - The conclusion, inevitably, is that the collection of octroi by assessee is in pursuance of discharge of sovereign privilege - In view of the above, which rules out the invoking of Finance Act, 1994 against the amount retained by assessee, it does not found necessary to ascertain if the activity is taxable service under the scheme of enumerations or the negative list regime - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

ST - The assessee is engaged in providing assistance in online publishing and are conducting conferences for their clients - They are registered as service providers under the categories of "Business Auxiliary Service" and "Online Data Access and Retrieval Services" - A SCN was issued to both the assessees demanding service tax under the head "Business Support Service" invoking the proviso to Section 73 (1) of FA, 1994 - Interest was also demanded under section 75 and penalty was proposed to be imposed upon them under section 77 for not obtaining registration within the specified period, under section 78 for suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax - The assessee is not disputing the demand of service tax up to November 2011 as the services were rendered to a client based in Hyderabad and consideration for these services was received in Indian Rupees - They are only disputing the services rendered post November 2011 on the ground that the services were rendered to a foreign company and the receipts were in foreign currency - They now claim to have documents to show that remittances in respect of all these services were received by them in fully convertible foreign currency - He fairly admits that they were not able to produce these documents before the adjudicating authority - The Adjudicating authority must have an opportunity to consider all the evidence which the assessee now claims to possess and determine the service tax liability and penalties if any - Therefore, matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority without passing any remarks on the merits of the case, with a direction to give the assessee reasonable opportunity for being heard and presenting documents in their support: CESTAT

ST - Issues involved are (i) classification of service, whether in case of composite contract (involving material part and labour part), appellant is chargeable to Service Tax under Works Contract Service or under the other heads like Construction of Complex etc.? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for abatement of material component involved in the work done by them for the principal?

Held: In every case of composite contract, the same is classifiable under the head 'Works Contract Service' - In the absence of proposal for classification under the 'Works Contract Service' in the show-cause notice, said contracts cannot be taxed - Further, appellant is entitled for abatement of material component either on actual basis or as per the prescribed percentage, as per aforementioned Notification 01/2006-ST read with 18/2005-ST, as the case may be - Appeal is allowed by way of remand for a denovo calculation of the tax in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - Appellant is also directed to appear before the original adjudicating authority with a fresh reply to the show-cause notice along with calculation of tax and seek opportunity of hearing - Penalties are set aside: CESTAT

ST - Refund - Notification No.12/2013-ST - There is no finding in the order of Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority that the service tax has not been paid to the service provider - The legislature requires no service tax to be charged to a SEZ unit and hence procedural provisions needs to be interpreted considering spirit and intentions of the legislature - as the refund application has been filed within the end of the quarter from one year, such delay should be condoned and consequential refund allowed: CESTAT [para 6.4, 6.5]

ST - Refund - Notification No.12/2013-ST - Under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, the term 'authorized operation' has been defined to mean operations which may be authorized under Sec-section (2) of Section 4 and sub-section (9) of Section 15 of the said Act - Further, on cogent reading of these provisions, authorized operation means operations which a Development Commissioner authorized under Letter of Intent issued to a SEZ unit - Turnover of DTA sale shall be considered as part of authorized operation and forms an integral part of turnover of SEZ unit for the purpose of calculating proportionate refund of service tax used for the authorized operation - Lower authority has wrongly considered DTA sale from SEZ unit as part of DTA operation for the purpose of calculating proportionate service tax refund on common input services – impugned order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6.12 to 6.14, 8]

2020-TIOL-1295-CESTAT-DEL

Om Prakash Gupta Vs CC & CE

CX - Appellants are engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots - Department has alleged excess consumption of electricity and consequent clandestine manufacture and removal of MS Ingots without payment of duty - SCN dated 5th May, 2010 issued - out of the total demand of Rs.13.40 Crore, major amount of demand of Rs.11.94 Crores (based on excess electricity consumption) has been dropped by the adjudicating authority - However, separately the demand qua the alleged clandestine removal of manufactured MS Ingots based on third party evidence has been confirmed - Resultantly, the present appeal.

Held: Since the drop of demand qua excess electricity consumption has not been objected on the part of the Department, there is no appeal filed otherwise, the order under challenge to the said extent is upheld - With respect to the remaining part of the levy the case of Revenue is based upon the statement of the representative of M/s. Monu Steels i.e. the third party evidence and the documents recovered from their premises - Admittedly, no search or recovery got conducted in appellant's premises - The law i.e. as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established - It has been held in a plethora of judgments that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods - Any demand and the proportionate penalty on the Director of the manufacturer is not sustainable - Order under challenge is, therefore, held to suffer infirmity to this extent - Since the demand has been set aside, the question of imposition of any penalty on the Director of the company does not arise - appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1294-CESTAT-CHD

Saera Electric Auto Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The assessee filed a refund claim in respect of amount of Cenvat credit which they could not utilize by the time they closed the factory and surrendered their registration - The refund claim application was filed on 31.10.2017, more than one year after the date of surrender of central excise registration - Same was rejected - A plain reading of Section 11B shows that it provides for refund of excise duty paid - It does not provide for the refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit - The entire Cenvat credit is governed by CCR, 2004, which provide for availment/utilization of Cenvat credit - In some specific cases, refund of unutilized Cenvat credit in cash has also been provided under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - The assessee's case is not under this rule - The assessee has applied for refund under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 r/w Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 - This rule only provides for transfer of unutilized Cenvat credit but not encashment - The fact that they have subsequently come under GST regime makes no difference and the assessee cannot claim the refund under a legal provision which does not exist - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 provides for refund of Cenvat credit in case of export of goods or export of services if the assessee is not able to utilize the corresponding Cenvat credit - Earlier, prior to 01.04.2012, this Rule also provided the refund of Cenvat credit if the Cenvat credit could not be utilized for any other reason - In that context, the High Court of Karnataka in case of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd has held that refund of Cenvat credit is admissible under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 if the factory is closed - Subsequently, this rule has been amended and right now there is no scope of refund of Cenvat credit which has not been utilized at the time of closer of the factory - Assessee's request for cash refund of unutilized Cenvat credit cannot be admitted under any legal provision: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1293-CESTAT-DEL

Super Elements Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The issue arises for consideration is whether the demands alongwith interest under extended period of limitation under Section 11A of CEA, 1944 and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Act are sustainable under the extended period of limitation and whether elements such as fraud, mis-informations and suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty are present in this case - As far as the demand on Cenvat credit availed on freight from the factory to the buyers premises for F.O.R. supply is concerned, the issue has been settled only by the Apex Court judgement in ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX wherein it has been held that the cenvat credit on outward freight from the place of removal was not admissible - Therefore, though the demand alongwith interest is sustainable on this count however, the charges of wilful suppression are not sustainable against assessee - Accordingly, the penalty imposed on this issue is legally not sustainable as department already have knowledge of such facts - As regards the availment of credit of Rs.3283/- beyond six months is concerned, notfn 6/2015-CE NT was issued which extended the time limit to avail the cenvat credit on invoices from six months to one year - As per O-I-O, Cenvat credit on invoice has been taken on 01.03.2015 which was rightly availed in view of the amended notification - Thus, the demand alongwith interest and penalty is dropped on this issue - Regarding the other three demands i.e. on the issue of non-inclusion of certain amounts collected for Hummali/ Tulai, non-inclusion of value of recoveries made against debit notes on rate difference and incorrect availment of inadmissible Cenvat credit against Customs education cess and higher secondary cess, it was found that the assessee was responsible for discharging excise duty on correct assessable value and availing only admissible cenvat credit - The SCN which was issued on altogether different grounds than involved in the present proceedings was no bar to issue another SCN under extended period of limitation - The assessee could not show that he had any bonafide belief while not paying the proper excise duty on extra charges collected from the buyers or taking an inadmissible credit - The Commissioner (A) has already reduced the penalty to 50% by taking consideration of the fact that the transactions were reflected in their statutory records as admissible under the law - No legal infirmity found in the impugned order: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: DELHI CESTAT

Cus - High end wrist watches have been seized and are lying with the respondent No.2/DRI since 29th October, 2012 - Petitioner prays that a suitable direction be given to the respondents to provisionally release the goods which are detained by the respondent No.1 - Respondent No.1 had issued a show-cause notice dated 28.10.2013 in which the duty amount mentioned is Rs.52,19,582/- but the notice was not adjudicated upon by the respondents for several months - Petitioner submitst that Rs.27,50,669/- has already been deposited by them during the course of investigation and they are willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.24,68,913/- for the provisional release of the high end wrist watches, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the adjudication process of the show-cause notice - That along with high end wrist watches, gold ornaments i.e. stridhan/personal jewellery has also been seized by the respondent No.2 and also cash of Rs.59 lakhs and all these items may be provisionally released, subject to payment of the duty as stated - Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that a fresh application be moved by the petitioner for provisional release of the goods stating that the petitioner is willing to deposit the balance amount of the duty demanded, and the same would be decided by the respondent authorities.

Held: Keeping in mind the judgment and order dated 01.06.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CUSAA 229/2019, Bench directs the respondent No.1 to decide the application for the provisional release of the goods, in accordance with law - Petitioner is directed to prefer application for provisional release of goods within a period of one week and the respondent No.1 shall decide the provisional release application preferred by the petitioner u/s 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 within a period of two weeks - Petition disposed of: HC [para 11, 12]

Cus - Petitioner, who was the Chief Operating Officer of M/s KPMG during the period in dispute, has challenged a show cause notice dated 26th June, 2020 issued to him by the Customs authorities - The respondents have invited reply of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, as stated in para-10 therein -Respondents have the power, jurisdiction and authority to issue the aforesaid show cause notice for the alleged breach of Foreign Trade Policy and wrongly availing the benefits under 'Served from India Scheme' (SFIS), therefore, the contention about the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents is not agreed with - objections articulated by the petitioner are of a nature which can be taken before the authorities, and do not call for a departure from the general principle that a writ petition will not be entertained against issuance of a show cause notice - As the show cause notice is yet to be decided or adjudicated upon by the respondents authorities, Bench is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - The petitioner has to give reply of the show cause notice to the respondent authorities concerned and if the respondents decide any issue against the petitioner, the petitioner is not remediless - Suffice it is to say that this is a premature writ petition - Without entering into the merits of this case, as this is a premature writ petition, Bench is not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner - The petitioner may file a reply of the show cause notice and the respondents authorities concerned shall adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the facts of the case and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - Writ petition is dismissed: High Court [para 5, 6, 9, 10]

Cus - It is a settled proposition of law that it is the ratio decidendi of a judgment which forms a precedent - The facts of a case may differ from one precedent to another, which facts will not form part of the ratio decidendi - The facts of a case may be relevant only to ascertain as to whether a judgment is in personam or in rem - Thus, while a "judgment in personam" would be a judgment binding between the parties claiming right in form as well as in substance, a "judgment in rem" is one that is pronounced upon the status of some particular person or thing and which binds all persons - Writ Petition is maintainable: High Court [para 17, 19]

Cus - Regulation 2(1)(b), 5(5) and 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - The cause of action for the present writ petition arose when the petitioner had paid the delivery charges for the 1x40' container and the third respondent herein had insisted for payment of the detention charges and return of 2x20' containers covered under different bills of lading, as a pre condition for the issuance of a delivery order - Insofar as the outstanding due for the 1x40' container is concerned, both the parties admit that a sum of Rs.8,61,358.30 is outstanding - third respondent also claims to have granted waiver of the detention charges for the 1x40' container during the Covid- 19 lock down period, pursuant to the order of the Government of India, DGS and MOS Circulars, as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which is also not disputed by the petitioner - Thus, if the petitioner is granted liberty to settle the entire outstanding dues for the 1x40' container to the third respondent and thereby direct the third respondent to release the delivery order, the ends of justice could be secured - It is needless to point out that it is always open to the third respondent to ventilate their grievances in accordance with law, for any claim that may be due in connection with 2x20' containers - Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued, directing the third respondent to release/handover the delivery order vide Bill of Lading No.ACL/JEA/MAA-766/20, dated 02.03.2020 for the 1x40' container on receiving a sum of Rs.8,61,358.30 from the petitioner and consequently deliver the goods pertaining to this Bill of lading - Such an exercise shall be done atleast within a period of one week: High Court [para 20, 23, 24]

Cus - Writ petitioners had earlier sought provisional assessment in respect of the bills of entry in question and those writ petitions were disposed of = 2020-TIOL-1291-HC-DEL-CUS with directions to the respondents for passing a provisional assessment order under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Now, provisional assessment orders have been passed in all the writ petitions - Petitioners submit that as the goods (i.e. dry dates) are perishable in nature, it would suffice for the disposal of these writ petitions if the appeals to be preferred under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Commissioner (Appeals) are directed to be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the appeals - Petitions are, therefore, disposed of accordingly with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeals to be preferred by these writ petitioners within two weeks (outer limit) from the date of receipt thereof - If any request is made by the petitioners to store the imported goods (i.e. dry dates) in cold storage, the said request will also be appreciated by the respondent authorities concerned - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4, 6]

Cus - Action cannot be taken on a vessel imported in 2011 on the basis of a clarification issued vide Circular in 2012 - If the department can view the issue differently at different periods of time, the appellants also can understandably, entertain a bona fide belief on the taxability of the impugned vessel and the procedures to be adopted thereof - In any case, suppression of fact, etc. cannot be alleged, and extended period cannot be invoked: CESTAT [para 12]

Cus - Understandably, the work undertaken by the vessel is in the port premises and even going by the definition of the Territorial Waters as provided by the counsel himself, the work undertaken is within Territorial Waters - Appellants have not been able to provide any definitive proof to show that during the period in dispute the vessel did proceed to a place beyond Indian territorial waters for any purpose - Therefore, Bench is of the considered opinion that the appellants cannot take recourse to the definition contained in Section 2(21)(ii) of Customs Act, 1962, to claim that the impugned vessel is a foreign going vessel – Held that the impugned vessel cannot be treated as a foreign going vessel during the impugned period: CESTAT [para 6]

Cus - SCN was made answerable jointly and severally to the owners of the dredger - M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd., their disponent owners M/s. Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd. and M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd. and their agents M/s. Chellaram Shipping (UK) Ltd., M/s. Chellaram Shipping (Hong Kong) Ltd. and the agents in Cochin M/s. Parekh Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and the Indian charterers M/s. Dharthi Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad and M/s. AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai - Commissioner while passing the impugned order confirmed the duty of Rs.3,28,42,609/- jointly on the owner of the dredger 'MV Darya Manthan', M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd., Hong Kong and disponent owner M/s. Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd. and M/s. Samudra Dredgers Ltd., London, UK – Commissioner also confirmed duty of Rs.46,73,440/- jointly on the owner of the dredger 'MV Darya Manthan', M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd., Hong Kong and the disponent owner M/s. Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd. and M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd., London, UK - Such a joint confirmation has no sanctity of law, inasmuch as the exact amount payable by the individual noticees is not given - The order is not enforceable for the said reason also - Impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 13, 15]