2021-TIOL-761-HC-MAD-CX

Bonfiglioli Transmissions Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, therefore, the present appeal.

Held: It is the duty of the appellant to have brought to the notice of their counsel about the orders passed by the Department that the appellant's case has been accepted and they have received the copy of the order - Thus, there is a clear failure on the part of the appellant to give full and sufficient instructions to their counsel – Bench is not inclined to accept it to be an inadvertent mistake, but a sheer case of irresponsibility on the part of the appellant in not placing the full facts before the Court - In the light of the above, while admonishing the appellant for their conduct and directing them to be extremely careful while dealing with Court matters and not to come to any adverse notice of this Court on any future occasion, Bench refrains from imposing costs or making any other strong observation against the appellant -Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Single Bench is confirmed - It is open to the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal and if the same is done, then the Tribunal, while computing the period of limitation, shall exclude the period from the date of filing the writ petition, i.e. 24.02.2017, till 15 days from the date on which the certified copy of this judgment is received by the appellant: High Court [para 7 to 10]

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-178-CESTAT-CHD

Krishan Kukreja Vs CCE

CX - M/s. Nagahia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. is the manufacturer of filter cigarettes - An Intelligence gathered that two persons were evading central excise duty by way of clandestine removal of filter cigarettes - Acting on said intelligence, the officers of DGCEI detained a consignment of 100 bags at New Delhi Railway station - The panchnama revealed that the consignment was booked by one Sh. Kishan Kukreja, the appellant - On being asked, he stated that the consignment of 100 bags was booked by his employees - That he was not having invoices in respect of consignment and that the goods have been brought to parcel booking office by an employee of buyer for booking of the same by his employees - On being asked about the description of goods declared by his employees, the same was stated to be as pan masala - He further stated that such types of consignments were also booked at earlier instances as he was receiving Rs.100 per bag in cash, over and above the freight in lieu of booking and he was not maintaining any records - Neither Revenue nor the appellant having knowledge of description of goods and the goods in question are not duty paid - Further, the appellant is only a booking agent who facilitates the persons coming to the Railway counter for booking and charging Rs. 100/- for booking and assistance - The appellant nowhere had opportunity to know about the description of goods or duty paying character of the goods - In the absence of such element of knowledge, provisions of Rule 26 of Rules cannot be attracted - Without establishing knowledge of appellant about the character of non payment of duty and description of goods, penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not imposable - Further, the manufacturers, who were implicated in the case and the SCNs have been issued have already be exonerated - The impugned order qua imposing penalty on appellant is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-177-CESTAT-CHD

Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant imported mini booster pumps and plastic fittings and filed bills of entry which were cleared by loading value and allowed clearance - Thereafter, the appellant sought order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 and after passing of substantial time, the appellant made a grievance in 2018 and the appellant received a letter dated 28.05.2018 that on the basis DOV data of contemporaneous import of similar goods and loading value was accepted by CHA - In view of this, the enhanced value of imported goods has been accepted and the request for a speaking order at this stage does not merit consideration - The said order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that assessment of impugned bills of entry was done in March 2015 and the present appeal which in fact challenges the assessment having filed in 2018 is barred by limitation - In case of assessment done under Section 17(4) of Customs Act, 1962, wherein the re-assessment has been accepted by appellant importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the reassessment within 15 days on the date of re-assessment of the bills of entry - Admittedly, no speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed till date - The appellant initially waited for the order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Later on, made a protest or grievance before the authorities below and the said request was rejected - In that circumstance, when no order has been passed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962, which is mandate in law that a speaking order is required to be passed in writing within 15 days of the reassessment of bills of entry, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not barred by limitation - Further, the order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 is required to be passed by the assessing officer - In the absence of order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962, adjudicating authority is directed to pass a speaking order for re-assessment in writing within 15 days: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHANDIGARH CESTAT