2021-TIOL-795-HC-MAD-CUS

Newsun Innovaation Vs Asstt. Commissioner

Cus - The petitioner had been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.9,88,569/- towards duty of Drawback amount - Interest and penalty was also imposed - Since the petitioner had not questioned the order, the Customs authority proceeded to enforce the same and effected attachment of the petitioner's bank account with the third respondent and issued the impugned communication which is challenged in this writ petition - Stand of the petitioner is that the impugned Order-in-Original was never served on the petitioner.

Held: Bench notes that the counsel for Revenue has produced convincing materials to show that the Order-in-Original was despatched to the petitioner on 16.10.2020 and it was returned with the endorsement "No such person" - Bench also observes that Order-in-Original has been despatched to the correct address only - Petitioner would however state that due to business loss, he had left the said premises and that he is presently residing in "No.7/203-A, Guruvayurappan Nagar, Iyyan Thottam , Periya Bommanaiken Palayam , Pooluvapatty , Tirupur-641 602; that the intimation regarding change of address was given to the Postal Department - Bench is not impressed with the said statement inasmuch as the petitioner should have written to the second respondent about the change of address and requested the second respondent to send communications in future to the said address - Therefore, the petitioner has to be necessarily put on terms - Bench directs the third respondent to withdraw Rs.98,857/- from the petitioner's bank account and remit the same to the second respondent - This amount will be adjusted towards pre-deposit that the petitioner has to make for filing the statutory appeal - The petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of sixty days and the appellate authority will entertain the appeal without raising the question of limitation - impugned communication attaching the petitioner's bank account with the third respondent is, therefore, quashed - Petition allowed in above terms: High Court [para 7, 9, 10]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-790-HC-MAD-CUS

Ahamed Kuthoos Vs CC

Cus - The petitioner is an Indian National and Resident of UAE since 2000 and landed in India on 23.09.2020 at Madurai Airport - The petitioner was carrying with him four mobile phones - Same were detained by customs authority on the ground that the import of mobile phones is in excess of permissible limit - Thereupon, the petitioner made a request vide representation for re-export - The specific objection is that the petitioner, having failed to make a declaration under Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962 and having been intercepted when he was passing through the green channel, cannot maintain the writ petition - In this regard, he would place reliance on the decisions reported in K.R. Ahmed Shal and Ramasamy 2016-TIOL-3119-HC-MAD-CUS - The court wanted to know from the petitioner as to whether a specific averment has been taken either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition that immediately on landing, the petitioner did make a declaration under Section 77 of the Act - The petitioner is unable to draw attention to any such averment either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition - Therefore, the court is not in a position to grant the relief as sought for - Unless the person has legal right to seek consideration of one's representation, he cannot maintain a writ of mandamus - No ground found to grant relief - However, the jurisdictional adjudicating authority is directed to conclude the adjudication proceedings on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Synthesis Healthcare Services LLP Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The issue arises for consideration is whether the appellant is correct in its claim for interest under Section 11 BB of CEA, 1944 on the refund sanctioned by authority - Common facts which are not disputed by either side, are that the appellant is engaged in "Business Auxiliary Services" to foreign clients - The refund in the case on hand was sanctioned by sanctioning authority after considering the facts and documents available as on the date of such sanction - So, there was no issue made out while sanctioning the refunds; the interest on the said refund which is a consequence of refund, cannot be denied on flimsy grounds - This aspect when considered in the light of dictum of the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. , leaves no room for any doubt as to the eligibility of claimant, especially when the refund is sanctioned - The appellant shall be granted interest, however matter remanded to the file of the Asst. Commissioner/sanctioning authority to workout appropriate interest and sanction the same to the appellant without any further delay, within a period of 3 months: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Syncom Formulations India Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of P.P. medicaments (pharmaceuticals) - During the period November, 2015 to Jan., 2016, they purchased corrugated profile sheets, prefabricated modular - cealing panel/wall panel/PVC conduits/wall to ceiling coving/wall to wall coving/single doors/double doors/locks and these were used for creating 'Clean Room' - Admittedly, the appellant have used the disputed inputs for fabrication of clean room, which is essential for manufacture of their dutiable goods, as such clean room is necessary for maintaining proper temperature and hygiene as well as keeping the RH factor in control and without it manufacture of dutiable medicines is not possible - Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on the items in dispute as inputs - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT