2021-TIOL-769-HC-MAD-CUS
CC Vs Maharaja Cargo
Cus - The Revenue is in appeal against Final Order in 2015-TIOL-2506-CESTAT-MAD passed by Tribunal - On instructions, the appellant submits that the CHA licence granted to the respondent has not been renewed beyond 21.6.2015 - The said submission is not disputed by respondent - Rather, it has been added that the proprietor of respondent passed away - Nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal: HC
- CMA disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-767-HC-MAD-CUS Maruvur Arasi Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against order dated 16.10.2020 = 2020-TIOL-1779-HC-MAD-CUS passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant should invoke the appeal remedy available under the Statute.
Held: Contentions advanced are not pure questions of law - There are several factual allegations, which have been set out in the show cause notice as well as in the Order-in-Original - This aspect of the matter had been noted by the Single Judge and it was observed in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that it would not be proper for the Writ Court to go into the disputed questions of fact and that this has been best left for the Appellate Authority for a decision - Bench fully endorses the view taken by the Single Judge and finds no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order - Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed - However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file a regular appeal before the Appellate Authority - The time limit stipulated for filing the appeal shall enure in favour of the appellant and the appellant is permitted to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-766-HC-MAD-CUS
Alba Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - SCN dated 02.01.2020 was issued to the petitioner's company and its directors proposing to levy duty with interest and penalty for diversion of due free imported capital goods, for which benefit of exemption under EOU scheme was availed - First respondent informed the petitioners to make available copy of the applications allegedly filed before the settlement commission and finally on 04.01.2021, the first respondent informed the petitioners that unless the petitioners forward copy of the applications filed before the settlement commission on or before 15.01.2021, the case will be decided ex- parte - Petitioners submitted their reply dated 13.01.2021 informing the first respondent that they had already paid the duty liability amount of Rs.97,53,462/- and the interest amount would be paid shortly - Grievance of the petitioners is that without giving them reasonable time, the impugned orders dated 29.01.2021 came to be passed.
Held: Court has to take notice of the fact that the petitioners had paid the entire duty liability amount - Covid-19 was prevailing and the impugned orders have also been passed without hearing the petitioners herein - Some more time could have been granted to the petitioners herein - Even now, the petitioners state that within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioners would pay the interest amount as quantified by the authorities - Orders impugned are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed - The petitioners are directed to pay the interest amount as quantified by the respondents 1 to 3, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Thereafter, the petitioners will immediately move the Settlement Commission: High Court [para 4, 6]
- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
