2021-TIOL-154-SC-CUS

UoI Vs S S Overseas

Cus - The petitioner, a partnership firm is engaged in import of "Dry Dates" from Pakistan for sale in domestic market - It's one of such consignments of goods from Pakistan had entered the territory of India and the bill of entry with prescribed rate of duty was electronically generated before notification enhancing the duty @ 200% was issued in late evening on the same date - The prayer in this petition is for release of imported goods upon payment of rate of duty assigned in bill of entry instead of subsequently enhanced duty @ 200% in view of judgment passed by this Court in M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1950-HC-P&H-CUS - The court is not inclined to accept the hyper-technical objections raised on behalf of respondents - The petitioner would be entitled to same relief as in case of M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. as also in view of the interpretation of provision of Section 15 of Customs Act, 1962 - Accordingly, the Respondents were directed to forthwith release the goods as directed by Tribunal - It is further ordered that the Custom department would immediately issue detention memo so as to facilitate early release of the goods.

Held - In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in Union of India vs G S Chatha Rice Mills , the present SLPs are dismissed: SC

- Revenue's SLP dismissed :SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-153-SC-CUS

CC & ST Vs Sahuwala High Pressure Cylinders Pvt Ltd

Cus - Differential duty has been demanded from the appellant in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 alleging that appellant is liable to pay duty at the rate prevailing at the time of import/procurement of the goods, whereas appellant paid the duty at the rate prevailing at the time of debonding of the unit – appeal before CESTAT, which held that said issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case in its order passed in the matter of appeal no. C/1412/2011 - 2020-TIOL-426-CESTAT-HYD ] and where it is held that for imported/indigenous capital goods, the appellant is liable to pay duty at the rate prevailing on the date of debonding; that no interest payable in view of notification 132/2004-Cus(NT) ; that Revenue is directed to calculate the duty at the rate prevailing on the date of debonding and if any amount is payable by the appellant, the same is required to be paid within one month – Appeal was disposed of.

Held - Notice be issued to the parties, returnable in 12 weeks' time - Counter affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of service of the notice: SC

- Notice issued :SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-152-SC-ST

Supreme Motors Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Present petition has been filed for quashing of letter dated 28th August 2020 issued by Designated Committee as bad in law - Vide the said letter, the Petitioner's application under SVLDRS, 2019 has been treated as lapsed for failing to make payment by 30th June 2020 in terms of Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws ordinance, 2020 - Petitioner submits that though the petitioner had made the required payment on 19th March 2020, yet the same was reversed to his bank account to due to some internal banking error and that the petitioner had no reason to suspect that such an error had occurred; that a certificate to this effect dated 05.12.2020 issued by the bank is enclosed - That petitioner immediately upon knowledge of such inadvertent error, voluntarily submitted a demand draft of Rs.97,555.70 in favour of 'DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, NORTH DELHI COMMISSIONERATE SVLDRS' in discharge of the liability determined in the demand/statement issued in FORM SVLDRS 3 under the Amnesty Scheme explaining the inadvertent error, however, his application was treated as lapsed without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing - Later, the High Court held that the error is at the end of the petitioner's agent i.e. petitioner's bank and no fault can be attributed to the respondent no. 3/Designated Committee - Accordingly, the decision taken by the Designated Committee is in accordance with Section 127(5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws Ordinance, 2020 - If the petitioner has any grievances with its bank, it shall be at liberty to proceed against the same in accordance with law - Petition dismissed.

Held - Notice be issued to the parties, returnable within four weeks - Liberty is granted to serve on the Standing Counsel for the Central Agency: SC

- Notice issued :SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-189-CESTAT-MAD

Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs CC

Cus - Interest on delayed refund - Refund claims were filed by appellant in March 2014 and April 2014 - The same has been sanctioned only on 10.06.2019 - The department was always a party to the litigation before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal - When the matter was agitated by appellant for denial of refund alleging that appellant has not complied with condition 2(b) of the notification, the Department had sufficient knowledge about proceedings as well as the order passed by Tribunal - Even after the order passed by Tribunal, the department has waited for 2 years to sanction the refund - Further, as correctly pointed out by appellant that refund has not been rejected for not furnishing necessary documents - After processing the refund, the adjudicating authority has denied refund stating that condition 2(b) has not been complied with - The letter issued by appellant is only a clarification correcting certain typographical errors in the statement column and the same cannot be considered as a document necessary to process the refund claim - When the department was a party to the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, the department ought to have taken steps to refund the amount when the litigation has been finalized at the Tribunal level - The appellant has also relied upon the decision wherein it is stated that mere corrections of clarification issued later cannot be a ground to contend that refund claim is submitted only on the date of such clarification or corrections - In fact, in the OIO as well as the order impugned herein the date of refund claim is noted as 3/2014 and 4/2014 - Appellant is eligible for interest on refund amount after 3 months from the date of filing of refund claim: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Sourabh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The appellant is the manufacturer of MS ingots - It was observed that during the period 2011-12, M/s. PIL had purchased unaccounted raw-material from the appellant - Resultantly, a SCN was served upon the appellant proposing recovery of Central Excise duty from them alongwith interest and penalty on the appellant company and penalty on the Director Shri Mahender Gupta - Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of third party evidence - There is no other evidence or document in the form of stock verification of raw-material of the appellant and the material supplied to M/s. PIL nor any evidence about usage of any transportation by the appellant for transporting the alleged quantity of raw-material to M/s. PIL - In absence thereof the documents recovered from M/s. PIL cannot be held against the appellant - It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods as was reiterated by Tribunal in the case of P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - The order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to sustain - Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

Steel Plantech India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - Issue relates to the rejection of refund claims of appellant, an 100% EOU, filed for the period between April 2013 and December 2014 under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 on the ground of non-compliance of para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) - The stand taken by appellant is that though it had not debited the Cenvat credit ledger which was not maintained by it, it had debited the same from its service tax ledger under heading service tax receivable - However, going by the case record, it is demonstratively established by revenue that an e-mail claiming such debit was sent to the adjudicating authority just two days prior to passing of O-I-O, which was not placed on record and the Commissioner (A) has clearly placed in his order that he found no debit entry made in any of ST-3 returns - More importantly, on perusal of ST-3 return, utilization of Cenvat credits for the period were shown as "Zero" in all its refund columns - In response to the submissions of revenue, it has also been conceded by the the appellant that till the date of argument such debit was not made from the Cenvat credit ledger as not maintained by them - It is also found in O-I-A, that appellant had submitted before Commissioner that they would reverse Cenvat credit upon completion of adjudication proceedings and would not utilize Cenvat credit against any of its liabilities till its completion - This being the factual position, it can be said that the appellant has tried to tune the legal procedure to the point of no return in not preferring to make the necessary debit even on a future day though Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) had made it obligatory to debit the same while filing refund application - This being so, appellant is not entitled to get the refund as claimed by it for non compliance of the procedure - The order passed by Commissioner (A) is hereby confirmed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT