2021-TIOL-84-SC-NDPS-LB
Sheru Vs NCB
NDPS - The appellant claimed to have been in custody for over 8 years and that the appellant's case had not reached hearing stage despite earlier directions of the Supreme Court to treat the case at priority.
Held - There is no doubt that the rigours of Section 37 would have to be met before the sentence of a convict is suspended and bail granted and mere passage of time cannot be a reason for the same - However, in these unusual times where the Covid situation permeates - Moreover, this Court had passed orders for release of persons on bail to de-congest the jail but that is applicable to cases of upto seven years sentence - In light of the facts & circumstances the appellant merits being released on bail: SC LB
- Bail application allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-217-HC-MUM-ST
Joseph Daniel Massey Vs UoI
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21st February, 2020 passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to accept the said declaration of the petitioner as a valid declaration and thereafter, issue necessary discharge certificate.
Held:
+ Issue raised in the present writ petition vis-a-vis maintainability of the declaration of the petitioner or eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, inquiry or audit on the ground that quantification of the service tax dues for the related period was post 30th June, 2019 is no longer res-integra. [Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India - 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST , M/s G.R.Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India - 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST & Saksham Facility Private Limited Vs. Union of India - 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST relied upon] [para 14]
+ All that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. [para 18]
+ It is evident that petitioner in his letter dated 22nd May, 2018 addressed to respondent No. 3 had specifically mentioned that the service tax amount due to be paid by the petitioner was Rs. 40,95,110.00. In his declaration in terms of the scheme he mentioned the duty payable as Rs. 40,91,524.00 which amount corresponds to the quantification arrived at by respondent No. 4 post 30th June, 2019 at Rs. 40,91,524.00.
+ When petitioner had admitted duty liability of a slightly higher figure much before the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019, it would be too technical and narrow an approach to reject the declaration of the petitioner on the ground that the said figure was arrived at by the respondents after 30th June, 2019.
+ Such an approach would defeat the very object of the scheme which is liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax so that trade and industry can move on while at the same time the administrative machinery can fully focus in the smooth implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST). [para 19]
+ Impugned rejection of the declaration of the petitioner is devoid of any reason. Having regard to the principles of natural justice petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before rejection of the declaration. [para 20]
+ Order dated 21st February, 2020 is set aside and the matter is remand back to respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to consider the declaration of the petitioner in terms of the scheme as a valid declaration under the category of investigation, inquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner. [para 21]
+ Above exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks. [para 22]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-216-HC-AHM-CX
Cebon Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - Appeal filed by assessee against order by which the Tribunal quashed and set-aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of passing a fresh order - Controversy involved in the present litigation is with respect to the fact, whether actual export had taken place of the goods or not.
Held:
+ Plain reading of the order passed by the appellate tribunal would indicate that the appellate tribunal disagreed with the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority that the appellant had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Notification No. 42/2001-CE (N.T.) . [para 10]
+ The appellate tribunal took the view that the appellant was obliged to follow the simplified procedure as prescribed in the circular referred to in the order passed by the Tribunal and the said procedure had in fact been followed. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that as such no dispute had been raised as regards the actual export of the goods. However, the Tribunal thought fit to remand the matter directing the adjudicating authority to take into consideration the documents evidencing actual export of goods. [para 11]
+ Controversy involved in the present litigation is in a very narrow compass. Bench is of the view that there was no good reason for the appellate tribunal to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Bench takes notice of the fact that during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings certain information was called for by the Deputy Commissioner from the Superintendent, Central Excise Range-I, Navsari. [para 14]
+ Superintendent has, in no uncertain terms, stated in his report that the goods were actually exported and the same is evidenced by the documents in the form of shipping bills and BRC for the entire period covering the show-cause notice. The goods were exported under the drawback scheme and focus license. [para 16]
+ Bench is of the view that the appellate tribunal, on its own, could have looked into the report instead of remitting the entire matter to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of passing a fresh order, more particularly, being convinced as regards the export of goods. [para 18
+ In such circumstances referred to above, Bench is of the view that the remand of the matter would be an empty formality, more particularly, when there is evidence on record in the form of the report of the Superintendent that the export of goods had actually taken place. [para 19]
+ Appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal to the extent it remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority, is quashed and set-aside. Rest of the order passed by the appellate tribunal stands affirmed.
- Appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-215-HC-AHM-CUS
Balkrishna Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appeal by the importer is against the order of Tribunal remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority.
Held: For the purpose of considering the case-law referred to in para-4 of the impugned order of CESTAT, the matter should not have been remanded – Bench is of the view that the Appellate ribunal, on its own, should have looked into the matter on its own merits - Appeal succeeds and is hereby partly allowed - The impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal is hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for being considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law: High Court
- Appeal partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-62-CESTAT-MAD
Seshasayee Paper And Boards Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of paper and paper boards - During the process of manufacture, intermediary called "Black Liquor" is produced - The appellants subjected this black liquor to a treatment for recovering caustic soda - As a result of this process, lime sludge was obtained as residue which was disposed of by appellants by way of sale - The department views that the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the lime sludge as it is classifiable under CETH 3825 - SCNs were issued proposing to demand duty along with interest and also imposing penalties - It is not the case of department that the appellant has manufactured lime sludge - It is only generated in the process of manufacture of paper - The Tribunal in appellant's own case 2017-TIOL-1520-CESTAT-MAD has held that lime sludge is not subject to excise duty - Following the said decision, the demand cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-61-CESTAT-MAD
Hanil Automotive India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of automotive parts for Hyundai cars since 2002; they have been importing 15% to 20% parts required for manufacture from M/s. E-Hawa Co. Ltd., Korea who have become their principals in 2007 - Before the appellants have become a subsidiary of foreign supplier, department have been accepting the pricelists declared by appellants as transaction value - On the appellant becoming of its subsidiary, the appellant importer and foreign supplier have become related parties in terms of Rule 2 (2) (i) (iv) and (xi) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - The original authority concluded that though the foreign suppliers M/s. Hanil E-Hwa Company Limited, Korea and M/s. Hanil Interior Company Limited, Korea and the importer- appellant M/s.Hanil Automotive India Private Limited are related in terms of Rule 2 (2) (i) (iv) of CVR, 2007; declared value of imported goods shall continue to be accepted as transaction value under Rule 3(3) (a) of CVR, 2007 with the usual additions under Rule 10 (2) ibid - The reviewing authority did not spell out the grounds on which it could be held that order of original authority is not proper and legal - Neither the reviewing authority nor the Commissioner (A) has cited proof whatsoever to indicate either that the prices declared by appellants were influenced by their relation or that there was a certain amount of flow back to the foreign supplier in one form or the other - It is a settled principle of law that the authority making the allegations has to prove with sufficient evidence - In the instant case, leaving alone the evidence, even reasons to entertain such a belief have not been properly brought forth or established - Under the circumstances, neither the reviewing authority nor the Commissioner (A) has made out a case for striking down the order of the original authority - Therefore, the impugned order does not stand the scrutiny of law - Declared prices cannot be reviewed without any evidence to the effect that the relation between the appellant and the foreign supplier has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was a flow back of money from the importer to the related foreign supplie - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
