2021-TIOL-440-HC-MUM-CUS
Vinit V Dhoopiya Vs UoI
Cus - Import & export of diamonds - Petitioner apprehends that if he responds to the summons, he might be subjected to interrogation and forced to give false and incriminating statement(s); therefore, the present petition seeking relief viz. presence of Advocate and a request to complete investigation in a time bound manner - It is stated in their common reply affidavit filed through Principal Commissioner of Customs that customs department has no objection to permit presence of advocate at visible but not audible distance and to allow videography of the proceeding at the cost of the petitioner.
Held: In view of the statement made by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, the apprehension and grievance expressed by the petitioner has been redressed - Accordingly, Bench directs that in the event of petitioner being subjected to interrogation by the respondents, he shall be allowed to have an advocate at a visible but not audible distance and the process of interrogation shall be videographed at the cost of the petitioner - writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-439-HC-KAR-CUS
CC & ST Vs Krishna Sales Corporation
Cus - Following substantial questions of law are before the High Court viz. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that as the amount in interest cannot be quantified and hence penalty equivalent to duty and interest cannot be imposed under Section 114A?; Whether the Circular No. 61/2002 issued by CBEC is not binding on the adjudicating authorities working under the CBEC? And Whether the terms (conjunctions) 'or' used in Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 has to be read as 'and' for the purpose of imposing penalty under the said Section?
Held:
+ Solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to interpretation of provisions of Section 114A of the Act.
+ From perusal of the relevant extract of Section 114A, it is evident that the language employed by the legislature is plain and unambiguous and the provision contains a positive condition with regard to levy of penalty equal to duty or interest and does not contain any negative condition.
+ The expression used is 'or' which is disjunctive between duty or interest and further use of expression “as the case may be” clearly suggest that aforesaid provision refers to two different persons and two different situations viz., one in which a person will be liable to duty and in other he may be liable to pay interest only and provides that in both the situations the person liable to duty would be liable to penalty equal to duty and person liable to interest would be liable to penalty equal to interest. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Constitution bench of Supreme Court [Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal And Others, AIR 2020 SC 1496], the word 'or' cannot be interpreted as 'and'.
+ Clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs [Circular 61] dated 20.09.2002 cannot be contrary to the plain language of the provision.
+ Substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent - Revenue appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 3]
- Appeal dismissed : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-438-HC-MUM-CX
CCT & CE Vs CEAT Ltd
CX - Revenue in appeal against the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by CESTAT holding that the refund claim (of Rs.39,65,041/-) filed by the assessee is neither hit by time bar nor by unjust enrichment - Counsel for appellant Revenue submits that he has instructions to withdraw the appeal because the amount involved in the appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit.
Held : Respondent has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the appeal, therefore, appeal is allowed to be withdrawn - appeal disposed of: High Court [para 5, 7]
- Appeal disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT |
