2021-TIOL-759-HC-MAD-CX

Adsorbent Carbons Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Petitioner, 100% Export Oriented Unit, is a manufacturer of Granulated Activated Carbon(GAC) - Petitioner was served with a bunch of show cause notices proposing to levy excise duty equivalent to customs duty together with penalty - Though in the show cause notices, the proposed amount leviable was indicated at Rs.55,96,99,274/-, in the impugned order, it was restricted to Rs.3,10,70,480/- - Penalty to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- was also imposed by the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 - Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed - It is the case of the petitioner that the authority has not proposed to levy duty based on the actual manufacture or removal, instead, have chosen to apply a formula and work out the output and levied tax on that basis.

Held: In the case on hand, there is no allegation against the petitioner that they had indulged in clandestine removal - Therefore, Bench is of the view that the order impugned in the writ petition which rests on formula given by the Coconut Development Board, cannot be sustained - In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside - The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent - The first respondent shall verify the records and revisit the issue and levy duty based on actual production / removal of the goods in question - Writ Petition is allowed: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-758-HC-MAD-CUS

Bhuvan Shipping Services Vs CC

Cus - CBLR, 2013 - Petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 31.1.2017 issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the license issued to the petitioner should not be revoked and the security deposited by the petitioner should not be forfeited and/or penalty should not be imposed under Regulation 20(1) read with Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.

Held: Admittedly in this case, the 90th day from the date of offence report dated 7.9.2016 would have expired on 06.12.2016 whereas the impugned show cause notice is dated 31.11.2017 - It was thus beyond the limitation prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 - Since the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond 90 days, the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed - Present writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Petition allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT