2021-TIOL-297-HC-MUM-ST  

Suyog Telematics Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Designated Committee rejected the said declaration filed under SVLDRS, 2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remark that "investigation was still going on as per DGGI report" – Petition filed seeking quashing of order - Petitioner submits that going by the averments made in the reply affidavit of the respondents themselves it is an admitted position that in his statement recorded before the service tax authorities on 24th November, 2016 and 11th May, 2017 Director of the petitioner had admitted service tax liability of Rs. 12,24,99,843.00 - This is admissible quantification under the scheme and which quantification was prior to the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019; that this being the position, respondents could not have declared the petitioner as ineligible to file the petition under the scheme.

Held : Issue raised in the present writ petition i.e. eligibility of the petitioner or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of "investigation, enquiry or audit" on the ground that quantification of the service tax dues of the petitioner for the related period was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019, is no longer res-integra - It is evident from the decisions in Thought Blurb 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST , G.R.Palle Electricals 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST & Saksham Facility P Ltd. 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit - During the course of investigation, the Director had confessed in his statement recorded on 24th November, 2016 and 11th May, 2017 that petitioner had evaded service tax payment and that the service tax liability stood at Rs. 12,24,99,843.00 - Such admission was clearly prior to 30th June, 2019, the cut-off date - It is another matter that in the declaration, petitioner had quantified the duty payable at a slightly lesser amount which in any case would not affect either the tax relief provided under the scheme or the tax dues of the petitioner to be paid under the scheme after availing the tax relief - On a thorough consideration of the matter, Bench sets aside the order dated 10th February, 2020 and remands the matter back to the designated authority to consider the declaration of the petitioner in terms of the scheme as a valid declaration under the category of "investigation, enquiry and audit" and thereafter, grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner - While doing so, respondents shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass a speaking order with due intimation to the petitioner - The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks - Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent: High Court [para 16 to 18, 20, 21]

- Petition allowed: MUMBAI HIGH COURT

CCE Vs Sree Aravind Steels Ltd

Cus - The appeals are of the year 2007 and Bench finds that the order of direction issued by the Tribunal impugned has been given effect to and the Department had issued Show Cause Notices to both the companies dated 24.07.2007 - Due to efflux of time, Bench is of the view that it may not be necessary to adjudicate these appeals and decide the substantial question of law as the department has availed the opportunity granted by the Tribunal in the impugned order and issued Show Cause Notices afresh, which are slightly different from the Show Cause Notices, which have ultimately culminated into the impugned order - Therefore, the best course open would be is to direct the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli , to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee and take a decision in the matter - Directions issued accordingly - Appeals are disposed of: High Court [para 4, 6, 7]

- Appeals disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

MGG Trading Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CC

Cus - Demurrage charges - Handling of Cargo under Customs Area Regulations, 2009 [HCCAR] - The language of the regulation is simple and plain - When the goods remain seized or detained by the Customs authority and the petitioner is not able to clear them, he should not be charged any rent or demurrage for the said period - Bench respectfully disagrees with the view taken in Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. = 2014-TIOL-468-HC-DEL-CUS : High Court [para 10] Cus - It is beyond dispute that seizure was effected on 24.09.2019 and the proceedings got concluded only on 19.02.2020 - Petitioner, therefore, cannot be made liable to make any payment towards detention or demurrage for the period up to 19.02.2020 - Madras High Court decision in Isha Exim - 2018-TIOL-197-HC-MAD-CUS relied upon - It is the second respondent who has to blame himself for the delay - However, it cannot be disputed that the second respondent has also been put to difficulty and hardship - The second respondent has not committed any fault at all - The petitioner's counsel after getting instructions submitted that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards demurrage charges and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards detention charges - Since the petitioner has made out a case, Bench directs the first respondent to issue detention certificate as sought for - Such certificate will be issued within a period of twelve weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 11, 13, 14]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Haresh S Bhanushali Vs UoI

Cus - Court had issued notice on 02.12.2020 noting the grievance of the petitioner that his vehicle continued to remain under seizure without any show-cause notice being issued for more than one year thus being violative of section 110(2) of the Customs Act - Therefore action of issuing corrigendum to the petitioner after the High Court had taken cognizance of the grievance of the petitioner has rendered such action highly questionable - It is clearly discernible that there is a clear distinction between the conveyance used to transport the seized goods and the action of the importer which will be the subject matter of investigation - Both the issues relate to two different parties - It prima facie appears that though the petitioner's vehicle was hired for transportation of the seized goods, petitioner had no direct or indirect role in so far as the tampering and removal of goods was concerned - The entire tampered goods have been subsequently recovered and seized following disclosure made by Kanhaiya Hurbada , employee of the clearing house agent, who owned up the mischief - In the light of the above, the grievance of the petitioner expressing hardship on account of availing bank loan for purchase of the seized vehicle; that he is paying monthly EMI of Rs. 33,437.00 to the bank; since 04.11.2019 his vehicle is lying stationary and not in use; it was his only source of income and he has no connection with the importer needs consideration -the impugned action of seizure of the petitioner's vehicle No.MH-46-H- 1284 as well as the order for provisional release of the vehicle calls for interference - Provisional release order dated 14.07.2020 is modified - Petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating authorities as and when required - Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms: High Court [para 18 to 22] - Petition allowed: MUMBAI HIGH COURT

021-TIOL-290-HC-MUM-CUS

Shine Star Exports Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioners are aggrieved by seizure memos dated 31.10.2020 and 02.11.2020 whereby declared quantities of cut and polished diamonds of the petitioners sought to be exported vide different shipping bills were seized - Respondents have filed affidavit justifying the seizure. Held: Bench is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if a direction is issued to the Commissioner of Customs to act in terms of section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Bench directs the Commissioner of Customs to pass order(s) for provisional release of the exportable goods of the petitioners in accordance with law within seven days: High Court [para 5, 8]

- Petition disposed of: MUMBAI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-76-CESTAT-MUM

Karanja Terminal And Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt Commissioner

ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein their refund claim was partly rejected - The assessee is the service recipient, who has paid service tax against the invoices issued to them by the service providers - The service providers have in turn collected the service tax and deposited the same as per the assessment made by them in their ST-3 return - These ST-3 returns which are self assessed have been filed by service provider and there is no appeal filed by any person aggrieved by said self assessment order - The CENVAT credit was available in book of accounts of assessee and had been carried forward by them to the GST regime, in manner as provided under the GST Law - The assessee for the processing of refund claims have not debited the CENVAT account, but have debited the amounts from their Input Tax Credit Ledger - Hence, there is no case for cash refund of the amounts debited from the Input Tax Credit Ledger - Refund claims are not maintainable, matter is remitted back to the original authority for considering the re-credit of the amounts of ITC Credit debited by the Appellant for the processing of these refund applications, if permissible under the GST Law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT