2021-TIOL-484-HC-MUM-CUS

Boxster Impex Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - IGST/GST Refund - Grievance had been expressed by the petitioner that since the year 2018 the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen; besides refund claim of IGST had not been entertained for more than one year - That apart, an alert has been put on the IEC of the petitioner as a result of which its business has come to an standstill - Bench had by order dated 22.09.2020 [ 2020-TIOL-1645-HC-MUM-CUS ] directed Respondents to unfreeze the bank account of the petitioner with IDFC Bank, Andheri (E) Branch forthwith; to complete the investigation into the allegations against the petitioner within a period of three months - Applicant, Commissioner of Customs seeks extension of time for further six months from the date of expiry of the stipulated period on 29.12.2020 to complete the investigation.

Held: Direction No.(ii) at paragraph 37 in the judgment and order dated 22.09.2020 stands extended by a further period of six months upon expiry of the initial period of three months - Interim application is disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Application disposed of :BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-482-HC-MAD-CX

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Short issue which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal had exceed its jurisdiction in making certain observations with regard to the validity of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 qua the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and proceeding to direct the original authority to issue a show cause notice to the appellant/assessee as regards its very entitlement for CENVAT credit.

Held: Firstly, the appeal was filed by the assessee and not the Revenue - The Revenue did not prefer any cross appeal/objection, therefore, the assessee cannot be worse off in its own appeal before the Tribunal - Further, the Tribunal has not recorded as to who had advanced such submission - In the absence of any such observation, Bench is compelled to observe that it is suo motu exercise by the Tribunal, which is uncalled for and without jurisdiction - Allegation in the show cause notice, which gives the cause of action for the entire matter, is that the assessee availed service tax input credit based on ineligible documents, therefore, the Department can never proceed beyond such allegation and if done so, it would be wholly without jurisdiction - In other words, the Tribunal cannot sustain the case of the Revenue against an assessee on a ground not raised by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or in the order in original passed by it - Observation made by the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction and was beyond the scope of the appeal before it - Order set aside: High Court [para 11, 12]

-Appeal allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-481-HC-AHM-ST

Selan Exploration Technology Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax Division

ST - Writ applicant challenges the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Division Gandhinagar, confirming the demand of service tax and imposing penalty and interest - Principal argument of the writ-applicant is that royalty is not a payment in respect of any taxable service; that Section-6A of the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 and Rule-14 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959 provided for payment of royalty on petroleum; that it has been paying royalty to the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act under Rules and there is no element or provision of any service by the State in this respect and the levy of service tax is clearly ultra vires the Act, 1948 - Petitioner further informs that identical issue is being considered by this Court in a batch of writ-applications being a Special Civil Application No.4603 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.4606 of 2017 ; that in these matters, the levy of service tax is under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; that the matters have been admitted vide order dated 19th September 2018.

Held: Notice to be issued to the respondents returnable on 19/04/2021 - to issue ad-interim order in terms of Para-6(b) - To be heard along with the Special Civil Application No.4603 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.4606 of 2017 : High Court [para 4 to 6]

-Notice issued : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-480-HC-AHM-ST

Chansma Taluka Sarvoday Mazdoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandali Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Writ-applicant is a registered cooperative society and a Government approved contractor involved in the activity of supply of manpower, transport and labour - So far as the present litigation is concerned, the manpower was provided to the ONGC - SCN came to be issued demanding service tax of Rs.5,42,23,301/- for the period Oct, 14 to June, 17 and the petitioner has replied to the same on 7th October 2020.

Held: Bench would ordinarily have not entertained this writ-application as the impugned order is appealable under Section-107 of the Act - However, Bench would like to seek the response of the respondent no.2 as regards the case put up by the writ-applicant that the service recipient being ONGC Ltd. and ONGC having deposited the requisite service tax, the liability could not be fastened upon the writ-applicant once again towards the service tax - Notice to be issued to the respondents returnable on 8th March 2021: High Court [para 7, 8]

-Notice issued : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-478-HC-AHM-CUS

Bombardier Transportation India Pvt Ltd Vs DGFT

Cus - Writ-applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting metro coaches from India - The writ-applicant was contracted for the supply of 450 coaches to Australia under a project called Queensland New Generation Rolling Stock (QNGR) - The writ-applicant appointed Geodis, a company engaged in the business of providing transport and logistic service, for providing services in relation to customs clearance, customs duty payment, statutory documents management vide Contract dated 30.11.2015 - From 13.10.2016 onwards, the Geodis regularly filed shipping bills after marking 'Yes' in the reward column, based on which the writ-applicant availed the MEIS benefits - However, for the Period 13.07.2017 - 24.07.2018, the writ-applicant realised that it did not receive the MEIS benefits on export of metro coaches to Australia - Upon inquiry, the Geodis informed the writ-applicant that it had filed checklist on ICEGATE portal with reward column marked 'Yes', however, the print outs of the Relevant Shipping bills did not reflect such declaration - Writ-applicant produced a list of the shipping bills erroneously marked as 'N' instead of 'Y' - Writ-applicant promptly approached the Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide letters dated 10.8.2018; 23.8.2018 and 27.8.2018 seeking a manual amendment to the relevant shipping bills and on 9.10.2018, the respondent no.4 amended the relevant shipping bills by changing the "MEIS SCHEME - NO" to “MEIS SCHEME - YES" - Even after submitting the said amendment certificate and regular follow up with the concerned respondents, the MEIS benefits were not granted to the writ-applicant on the pretext that the MEIS benefits for EDI shipping bills will not be granted where the rewards column has not been marked/ticked as "Yes", therefore, the present writ petition - It is further submitted that the issue in the present writ-application is no longer res integra - Various High Courts including this High Court have already permitted the amendment of shipping bills that have been erroneously ticked as 'No' instead of 'Yes' in the MEIS benefit column.

Held: Decisions rendered by various High Courts have not been appealed before any higher forum by any of the respondent till date - Writ-applicant submits that as per its understanding, the EDI system, which is an electronic system developed and managed by the respondent no.3 with an objective to digitalize transmission of shipping bills between Respondents, suffers from lacunae that it does not permit amendment, which is specifically permitted in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to be carried electronically through EDI system - It is a settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system - A reference is also made to the decision in the case of Darsh Pharma Chem Pvt Ltd. = 2020-TIOL-693-HC-AHM-GST wherein this Court, having regard to the fact that the TRAN-1 could not be filed on account of technical glitches in the electronic system, directed the respondents therein to permit the writ-applicant therein to file form in TRAN-1 - Present writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed - The respondents nos.1 and 2 are directed to grant the benefits of the MEIS to the writ-applicant within a period of four weeks: High Court [para 22 to 25]

-Petition allowed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-477-HC-MAD-CUS

Seeni Ismath Khan Vs Pr.CC

Cus - The present petition is filed against a Revision order - Since an order has been passed against the order which is sought to be implemented in the present writ petition, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition - Hence petition is dismissed as infructuous: HC

-Writ petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-476-HC-AHM-CUS

Radhika Traders Vs UoI

Cus - Sec 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to allow clearance of used MFDs imported by the petitioner vide Bills of Entry all dated 09.09.2019 by assessing / provisionally assessing the bills of Entry in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962 - On appeal, the High Court observed that the issue at hand was also at large before the Supreme Court, in another matter - Hence the rights and liabilities of the writ applicant would be governed accordingly by the final verdict of the Supreme Court - It also directed that the Revenue look into the application filed by the assessee & take an appropriate decision accordingly regarding the provisional release of the goods - The Court directed that Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 be kept in mind while deciding upon the application.

Held - It appears prima facie that the Joint Commr. concerned is in contempt of this Court - The Joint Commr. should not ave sat in appeal over the order passed by this Court - If there was any doubt as regards the correctness of the order of this Court, then the ASG should have been consulted & who in turn could have preferred an appropriate application before this Court seeking review or modification of the order - However, the Joint Commissioner on his own could not have taken the view that the goods cannot be released - An explanation must be tendered in this regard - Notice be issued to the parties: HC

-Case deferred : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-475-HC-KAR-CX

Karnataka Pressure Vessels Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee-company filed the present appeal to contest findings of the Tribunal in rejecting the interest claimed u/s 11BB of the CEA 1944, when the refund sanction order had attained finality - The assessee claimed to not have been issued any notice to consider the refund sanctioned as being erroneous, in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Held - The issue involved in the present appeal is rendered academic in view of the judgment passed in ITA No. 19/2017 - Hence the appeal is disposed off accordingly: HC

-Assessee's appeal dismissed : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT