Genus Electrotech Ltd Vs ACST

Whether it is fit case for remand where an assessment order has been passed without due application of mind and without granting opportunity of personal hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-2142-HC-DEL-CX

ABC Vs UoI

CX - Miscellaneous - Reward - Petitioner had supplied certain intelligence input to the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, which was found to be true and correct - Consequently, the said intelligence resulted in recovery of huge amount of tax, penalty etc. in terms of order-in-original dated 30.06.2016 - Grievance of the petitioner is that as per the reward policy floated by the respondents, the reward as stipulated has not been paid to him - They have, therefore, filed a petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to consider the representation dated 15.07.2019.

Held: Bench directs the petitioner to furnish the details along with the representation filed to the counsel who is appearing for respondent No.1, in a sealed cover - Revenue counsel, in turn, shall supply the said details to the respondent authorities concerned in a sealed cover and the representation will be decided by the respondent authorities concerned in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case and on the basis of materials on record, as expeditiously as possible and practicable - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 5]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1685-CESTAT-CHD

Modern Dairies Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Interest on delayed refund - The appeal was finally disposed of on 05.07.2018 by setting aside the impugned order and the pre-deposit made as per the directions of t Tribunal on 15.05.2013, became refundable to the assessee - But the adjudicating authority held that the said amount is refundable to the assessee but appropriated the said amount against interest and penalty which was already set aside by order dt. 05.07.2018 and started another round of litigation - The said act of adjudicating authority shows the high handedness by not to refund the amount to the assessee - The same is in contravention of speech given by Finance Minister on 08.11.2019 where the Finance Minister has said that the Revenue Officers are facilitators for the tax payer; whereas in this case, the act of Revenue Officer does not seem to be a facilitator for the tax payer - Therefore, as held by Tribunal, assessee is entitled to claim the refund of Rs. 15 lacs - Furthermore, it came to the knowledge of Bench that the assessee filed the appeal against order of adjudicating authority appropriating the amount of refund claim before Commissioner (A) and intimated to the Commissioner (A) vide letter dt. 12.06.2019 that this Tribunal has allowed the refund to the assessee on 21.05.2019 - Instead of taking note of the said fact, the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal filed by assessee without taking note of decision of Tribunal on 22.07.2019, whereas the order of Tribunal was uploaded on website itself on 01.07.2019 - The act of the Commissioner (A) cannot be appreciated - The assessee is entitled to refund of pre-deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest on delayed refund from 19.02.2019 the day on which the refund claim was allowed till its realization: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of : CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1682-CESTAT-DEL

MM Brothers Vs CCE & C

ST - ROM application is filed against order in 2019-TIOL-969-CESTAT-DEL - It is submitted that in aforesaid final order the demand on "shifting of overhead cables/wires" is set aside - However, it is typed that "the order to that extent is upheld" the same is impressed upon to be a typing error and, accordingly, is prayed to be rectified - The very perusal makes it ample clear that once an activity is not taxable, the order confirming the tax liability cannot be passed and thus is an error - Thus, it should be read as "the order to that extent is hereby set aside" - With respect to the remaining mistakes as pointed out by assessee, from the settled position of law it becomes clear that anything to become the subject matter of rectification it has to be self evident, obvious and palpable mistake which do not require any further deliberations - Coming to the calculation error as pointed out since the same involves a long drawn procedure of verifying the record which otherwise is out of the scope of Tribunal - The mistake as alleged is, therefore, not at all self evident, hence cannot be called as error apparent on record - As far as the plea of cum-tax-benefit is concerned, the plea has not been raised in grounds of appeal - The allegation that the same was not considered by Tribunal despite been submitted is, therefore, not sustainable - The remaining grievances of assessee are held absolutely out of the scope of rectification of mistake - The remaining request is accordingly hereby rejected: CESTAT

- Application partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1681-CESTAT-DEL

Seville Products Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee is a limited company incorporated in Dubai, UAE - By way of impugned orders, penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs and Rs. 23 lakhs respectively have been imposed under Section 112A of Customs Act, 1962 alleging that assessee company is an exporter of confectionary items from Dubai, has colluded with the importers in India by providing them with two different invoices for the imported goods and thereby abetted the importer in evasion of customs duty by causing mis-declaration - The assessee heavily relied on the decision of Hl Lingos to say that the Customs Act having force only within whole of India and with no provisions incorporated therein to invest any extra territorial jurisdiction, and with codified law of the Indian Parliament having applicability only within India, the powers of the Collector exercising his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, would not stand extended to impose any personal penalty on the party/ firm/ company who are beyond the Indian territory - The said decision has been affirmed by Apex court - Further, in assessee's own case, after considering the decision of Hl Lingos the comissioner has imposed penalty on the assessee - There are contrary decision on this issue - Therefore, matter is referred to the Larger Bench of Tribunal to decide the issue; whether penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed during the period 2012-13 to an exporter who has mis-declared the goods located in Dubai, UAE - The Registry is directed to place the matter before President with a request to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the said issue: CESTAT

- Case deferred: DELHI CESTAT