2021-TIOL-466-HC-MP-CUS

Sedna Implex India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - The assessees imported 100% Polyester Knitted Fabrics, upon obtaining the necessary permissions - Subsequently, the goods were seized and the assessees approached the High Court - It was stated that an order was passed u/s 110A, against which the assessee was required to file appeal u/s 129A of the Customs Act 1962 - The assessee claimed before the High Court, that the imported goods were deteriorating and that the assessee was incurring demurrage rent liability - Hence provisional release of the goods was sought for. Held - In case there is no statutory provision for obtaining a report from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, then there is no justification in not deciding the application submitted by the assessee for provisional release of the goods - Besides, the DRI has already submitted its report - Hence the authorities concerned are directed to decide upon the assessees' application for provisional release of the goods, within 10 days, by means of a speaking order: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-114-CESTAT-MUM

Usha International Vs CC

CUS - Clubbing of connected appeals - Bench fails to understand as to why the department brings out their argument in piece-meal - It is their responsibility to bring to the notice of the Bench the number of appeals arising out of the same order pending - However, Revenue has not brought the same to the notice of the Bench at the beginning of the hearing, but raised only during the course of hearing, that too when the Advocate for the appellants has concluded his side of argument - In normal course, Bench would not have allowed such plea by Revenue for adjournment for listing of connected appeals - However, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice that all pending appeals arising out of the same order need to be heard together, Bench directs the Registry to list all the appeals together for hearing on 7 th January 2021: CESTAT [para 4, 5]

- Matter adjourned: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-113-CESTAT-MUM

Integra Solutions Vs CC

Cus - Since the issue involved does not relate to classification or value of the goods and the amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs,  the appeal is required to be listed before the Single Member : CESTAT [para 3]

- Appeal listed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-112-CESTAT-DEL

Rail Land Development Authority Vs CST

ST - The appellant is engaged in providing taxable service pertaining to commercial development of vacant rail land by construction of multifunctional complexes - During inquiry, the Department observed that despite appellant is rendering taxable services, they have not got themselves registered with Service Tax department and thus, they failed to file periodic ST-3 returns - Accordingly vide SCN, demand was raised towards service tax liability of appellant for providing taxable service under category of 'renting of immovable property service' - Interest at the appropriate rate and respective penalties were also proposed to be levied - It is submitted by appellant that they had awarded as many as 13 projects for redevelopment of vacant land of railways for construction of multifunctional complexes on long term lease for a period of 45 years except in one case for Sarai Rohilla Railway Station it was for 90 years in favour of M/s. Parsavanath Developers - It is further submitted that except four out of thirteen of these projects are either terminated or are under litigation - The project of Sarai Rohilla Railway Station has been terminated on 6.8.2015 - The termination was challenged under arbitration proceedings - Arbitration Award dated 25 November, 2017 was decided against appellant - The appeal thereof so filed in High Court was dismissed - Review petition thereafter was also dismissed - It is also submitted that order under challenge was announced on 27.3.2015 while the termination of Development Agreement with respect to Sarai Rohilla Railway Station happened on 6.8.2015 - Thus, the adjudicating authority had no opportunity to take into consideration the said termination - The matter is remanded back to the respective adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the issue after taking into consideration the termination of said Development Agreement and subsequent proceedings: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

CCE Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

CX - There was a dispute relating to input credit by M/s. IOCL, which had received the input namely MT HDT Feed from M/s. Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd for manufacture of HSD (High Speed Diesel) - The assessee had availed Cenvat credit - The demand was confirmed disallowing the Cenvat Credit and penalty of Rs.10.00 Lakhs was imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Revenue have preferred this appeal on the grievance that penalty should have been imposed 100% under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC as there is element of suppression on the part of assessee as they have not come out with full and proper details before the Revenue authority at first instance - It was one of the defence of assessee that HDP Feed cannot be classified as HSD even if it conforms to the specification laid down under IS 1460: 2000 as the said specification is obsolete and replaced by IS 1460: 2005 - It was further contended that HDP Feed is not marketable as such and HDP Feed is an intermediate input/product which is further processed for producing HSD as per specification IS 1460: 2005 - Under the Essential Commodities Act, a specification of HSD prescribed by Notification, issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas shall prevail - It was also contended that the SCN is bad for relying on a stale specification and not placing reliance on the current specification - No case of imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is made out - Further cogent explanation given by the assessee have not been found wrong in the impugned adjudication order: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT